mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, we certainly object to the arbitrary reductions to the operation and maintenance defensewide appropriations account. the operations and maintenance appropriations account funding is critical. mr. young stated a few minutes ago to the readiness, safety and quality of life of our brave men and women who serve each and every day, who volunteer. cutting this account would hurt our readiness and that's something we can't do at this point in time so i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment's not adopted. are there any further amendments? the clerk will read. the clerk: page 10, line 16. operation and maintenance, army reserve. $3,1

mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. this amendment would basically prohibit funds for being used to administer the armed services vocational aptitude battery test. this amendment would negatively impact both the education and recruiting communities. this test is administered free of charge on a voluntary basis. on a voluntary basis to high school and college students as part of a comprehensive career exploration program. this program integrates student aptitudes and interests, to help them explore postsecondary including college, technical schools, civilian as well as military career. as education resources grow together, many schools rely on this free test to provide a valuable career exploration experience and we as a nation benefit. through this amendment, the gentleman would effectively prohibit high schools from offering this test whic

mr. frelinghuysen: i would like a copy of the amendment, please. reserve a point of order until we have a chance to look it over. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: i thank you. current nuclear arsenal has significant overkill that is built into it. our country continues to spend moran more taxpayer money on nuclear weapons. and even though the president and the senate have already agreed to reduce the number of deployed nuclear weapons. even though there is a growing bipartisan consensus that the united states has an excessive number of nuclear weapons and that the united states spends far more than it needs for a nuclear deterrence and defense. and that is why i rise today to offer my amendment to reduce the number of deployed intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles from 450 to 300. i believe that this is the soundest approach to both our national security and our economic security needs. each of our land-based nuclear missiles cost us -- and this is

mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill. therefore it violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment imposes additional duties. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? if not, the chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting direction. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2, rule 21, point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does -- >> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. >> i thank the chairman. mr. chairman, this is the, i believe,

mr. fre ling hughesen, an extremely -- from free ling -- from frelinghuysen an extremely important member of the subcommittee. mr. frelinghuysen: in preparation for this debate, the subcommittee held a lengthy series of hearings examining such issues as the operations in afghanistan, the so-called pivot to the asia pacific region, army modernization, navy shipbuilding, marine strength and the air force restructuring proposals. most of these relate to mitigating risk in the defense budget and what's called the new strategic guidance from the department of defense. what i characterize as protecting our gains in the mideast and elsewhere. as well as preparing for future and current threats. china's growing military capacity, instability in the korean peninsula, the civil war in syria, iran's plan to close the straits of hormuz and others. as you'll hear in this debate, the committee weighed in with its own options. as the chairman says, we pause the air force restructuring decision. in light of the tyranny that characterized the asia-pacific region, we bolster the navy's shipbuilding account