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. rubbers burger. votes no. mr. ridgel votes eye. mr. johnson votes no. mr. gibson votes aye. miss sutton votes no. mrs. heartsler, votes aye. miss hanabusa votes no. dr. heck votes eye. miss ho

mr. thornberry votes aye. ms. sanchez votes aye. mr. jones mr. jones? mr. mcintyre. votes aye. mr. akin votes aye. mr. brady votes aye. mr. forbes votes aye. mr. andrews votes aye. mr. miller votes aje. mrs. davis votes aye. mr. wilson votes aye. mr. langevin votes aye. mr. lobiondo votes aye. mr. larsen votes aye. 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. garamend

mr. thornberry. those in favor, be say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. the ayes of it. the amendment is agreed to. we have an amendment now by mr. johnson? >> yes. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment. >> without objection, the amendment the reading of the amendment will be dispensedreade dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman the purpose of explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would defend so-called io in the budget for overseas contingency operations. information operations are described in an unclassified u.s. army war college report aspirations to convey selected information to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, actions to deliberately mislead the enemy, electronic warfare, and computer network operations, including attack, defense, and exploitation. earlier this year usa today journalists tom vandenberg launched the release of these programs. the results were disturbing. between 2005 and 2009, spending on io rose from just $9 million to $580 million per year. nevertheless, the u.s. has reported -

mr. thornberry for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think it's one thing to say, we need to diversify -- research fuels, diversify to help our military operate for effectively. so that we have fewer convoys and so forth. i'm all for researching batteries, for example, so that we are freer from the supply chains that limit sometimes our mobility. so -- so doing research, taking actions that makes our military more effective, more secure, that's one thing. it is a completely another thing, however, to say we are going to reduce our options of fuels for some sort of other agenda. and basically, that's what this is. this is saying we are not going to take advantage of some fuels that could be available to us, including some fuels that will come down as a result of the keystone pipeline from canada, we're going to tie our hands, not do that, because of, of our concern about the environment or some other agenda that's going on, and that-handicaps or military, makes it harder for them to operate. i guess you can say that's a short term vers

mr. thornberry. it was a bipartisan effort and i'm grateful for his friendship and the hard work of the staff and of the subcommittee has been an important effort. i'm proud to be part of it. with that i thank the chairman and i yield back the balance of my time. >> some of the opening statements the morning statements from this markup of the 2013 defense authorization act, the committee is in recess, they are out for recess lunch and also some votes expected on the house floor. we have more from today's markup session coming up momentarily. joining us is frank, a defense and foreign policy reporter with congressional some of the bigg issues the committee has to deal with in this 2013 programs bill? >> i didn't hear your question. asking what are the biggest ish issues they're dealing with? what they've dealt with, pretty big things. congressman turner was able to get an amendment passed or adopted providing $160 million for the execution of a, what's called a chemistry and metallurgy research facili

mr. thornberry votes no. mrs. sanchez votes aye. mr. jones? mr. jones, mr. mcintyre. mr. mcintyre votes present. mr. akin votes no. mr. brady? >> aye. >> mr. brady votes aye. mr. forbes votes no. mr. andrews votes aye. >> mr. miller votes no. >> mrs. davis. votes aye. mr. wilson votes no. mr. langevin votes ay. aye. mr. lobiodo votes no. mr. larsen votes aye. mr. turn votes no. mr. cooper votes aye. mr. kline votes no. mrs. bordallo votes aye. mr. rogers votes no. mr. courtney votes aye. or pass? sir? yes. mr. franks votes no. mr. loebsack votes aye. mr. shuster votes no. miss tsongas votes aye. mr. conaway votes no. mrs. pingree votes aye. mr. lamborn votes no. mr. kissell votes no. mr. wittman votes no. mr. heinrich votes aye. mr. hunter votes no. mr. owens votes aye. dr. fleming votes no p. mr. garamendi votes aye. mr. coffman votes no. mr. critz votes aye. mr. rooney votes no. mr. ryan? mr. ryan votes aye. mr. mlatts votes no. mr. ruppersberger votes aye. mr. regell votes aye. mr. johnson votes aye. mr. gibson votes ayee. ms. sutton votes aye. mrs. hartzler votes no.

mr. thornberry, the gentleman from texas, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think mr. turner makes the essential point that is worth emphasizing, however, and that is the ratification of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty was dependent upon a certain level of funding of our nuclear weapons infrastructure. now, the reason they were connected is because we had something that was central to our national security and the national security of many of our allies. we were going to have a lot fewer of them. that means that if something goes wrong with any one, we are hurt much more. and the ones we have left are already beyond their design life and getting older and older and older. so if we are going to make these significant reductions down to 1,550 warheads, we better make darn sure that they are as reliable and safe as we must have them be. and as our allies must have them be. so that's the reason that the number the administration comes up with and says this is what is necessary in order to support these much lower numbers of nuclear weapons has got to be supported. if you take the nu

mr. thornberry for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. what this strikes is a requirement that the president explain troop reductions, and i don't understand why people would be so opposed to that. there is at least among a considerable portion of the american people a concern that what's going on is some sort of arbitrary or political timetable for forcing our troops out of afghanistan before the afghans are ready to stand on their own two feet, and a requirement that the president explain reductions and explain the risk associated with them, and explain the, give us an assessment of how the afghan security forces are coming doesn't seem to me to be a bridge too far. and -- and so because of the concern that exists, i think the language in the bill makes good sense. and -- frankly, i don't think that however you feel about afghanistan, and we can get into all of these debates about the afghan government and what we're doing there and all these other things that have come up, but regardless of how one feels about those things, it seems to

mr. thornberry. >> my first comment would be to thank the members of the subcommittee not only for their contribution in developing this mark but for all other contributions through the course of the last year on our oversight activities as well as developing this mark. i especially want to thank the gentleman from rhode island. he is a leader in many issues but he is a partner in all issues before the subcommittee. it is certainly a pleasure to work with him on them. and finally i appreciate the work of all the staff arrayed across the table there not only are they very high quality professionals, they are good people and it is a pleasure to work with them as well as the members of the personal staffs who support this subcommittee. mr. chairman, if i were to boil down the emerging threats and capabilities portion of this mark i would put it this way. one, we try to support the people and missions of the special operations command while at the same time providing objective oversight of what they do. involved in some cutting edge legal and policy issues as well as being on the cutting edg

mr. thornberry, i know ms. sanchez and i worked very hard on this issue. we need to realize the bill alone is not going to solve all the problems with the nsa and dod, but will take leadership in the administration on capitol hill. we believe this is a start. and again, i want to thank if gentle lady from california for her assistance. >> now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee on strategic forces. gentle lady from california, ms. sanchez for any comments she would like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to begin by thanking mr. turner and actually all of our subcommittee members for their leadership and the contribution to our subcommittee in this new session of the congress. it's a pleasure to work with all of you, especially in such a bipartisan manner. overall, i am pleased to support the strategic forces mark. i would like to comment briefly on the importance of protecting national security in a constrained budget environment. the bipartisan view on the national nuclear security administration programs, particularly in ligh

mr. thornberry. >> thank you mr. chairman.the only point i would make an addition is the constitution gives a specific responsibilities, not dod, not some executive branch. it's this congress responsibility to provide for the military and at order for us to do that job we have to have the sort of information about what the commanders see as gaps in their ability to carry out military action. that is specifically what has been asked for so we don't have to ask two or three times before they will come and brief us. this is making it clear that for us to do our job we have to have that direct input from the commanders and is the gentleman said that is what the next three amendments provide. >> the gentleman yield back. the chair recognizes gentleman from washington mr. larson, for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the gentleman's comments from texas and the other comments made as well. i don't think the argument that mr. smith is made is whether or not we have a constitutional ability or authority. it is the g

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 authority, operation or design of this facility to dod and with that, i'll yield to my ranking member. >> you know, i mean, mr. turner, wi