the materials and supplies budget. the department did request an additional 150 and our budget for uniforms to support on going hiring this was another challenge that we received in the mayor's proposed budget. and then with regard to miscellaneous supplies, safety equipment, and inmate institutional items that accounts for $.6 million. this represents about 20% of the total budget and that will pay for april, may and june. i want to say that we have spent 100% of the total original budget. if we compare to the revised budget, we have, which includes carry forwards from last year to this year, we have spent encumbered 100% of the total revised budget. >> keep going you are on a roll. >> b.l.a. number 2. the department, the b.l.a.s explanation summarized is that we have 535 of appropriations that have not been spent. actually, let me back up a little bit. the amount here is very small. if we can give out anything, we could give on this because of its size. our professional services budget includes 60 separate line items. some of these are under spent and some are over spent. taken as a whole the government has spent 100% a

the off budget money for overseas operations. we are relying much less on that now. we do need some funding for the compensation for our men and women in uniform. we need some additional readiness funding. there are funds there and elsewhere in the budget that i do not agree with. i think we're on a dangerous path to be talking about --eloping a new low yield that is a question for another budget. host: questions people have for these defense bills is money in their four -- in there that was not requested. more jetsuying 16 than the pentagon and trump requested. why is there money for things not requested? guest: that particular item i think is excessive. that is not a positive feature of this bill. it is something that tempts one to vote no. it is excessive. having said that, this is a form of government where the congress is the first ranch and wit -- branch, and where it is the job to assess the administration. we have had our budgets originate with the executive branch for 100 years. we have an independent ability and responsibility to scrutinize those budgets, to raise those items, lower those items, condition those items, whatever we cho

not going to because it would not be beneficial to the time spent but our budget fully supports the defense department and the men and women in uniform and i would urge my colleagues at this case, at this time put against this amendment. >> the gentle lady is recognized. >> first while this memo has nothing to do with withdrawing money from our troops are going cold turkey. we have a defense budget that's close to 700 billion if not more. i think the american people deserve to know where their tax money is going. serio about tnsparency and accountability we should end this budget. this is report language. we constantly undermine our budget process with this account. the caps are too low then congress should change the law, but using this loophole is really a way, a mechanism to backdoor a loophole we shouldn't do from this budget. we should not allow these kind of gimmicks to occur. this is something that makes sense. it's only report language but we need to begin to stop undermining this overall budget process. >> those in favor say i. all those opposed. in the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. we will postpone the recorded vo

the most accurate statement we get of our strategy is our budget. that is when you have to decide where you are going to spend your last dollar. having spent six years in washington in my uniform career, everybody in this town is involved in the creation of our budget. this is distilled by the time it comes out. it is the best a statement that we get. this administration's national security strategy published in a , weonal defense strategy have made great improvements over the previous years. being on thealso blame line for helping to write some of those by the time they got published, it always came out not as a clear statement of our priorities, but where we are and where we will not spend money. wallace: every agency got there bit and it was not a way for the cohesive government to do anything. thee documents administration put out, recognizing the great power competition is back. the stress and importance of alliances and partnerships with maritime democracies. the great power rivalry is back. value on allies in partnerships. we have had a total retreat on trade. started with the transpacific partnership, this was our invention. , toe able to agree to this what we sold as

the off budget money for overseas operations. we are relying much less on that now. we do need some funding for the compensation for our men and women in uniform need some additional readiness funding. there are funds there and elsewhere in the budget that i do not agree with. i think we're on a dangerous path to be talking about --eloping a new low yield that is a question for another budget. host: questions people have for these defense bills is money in their four -- in there that was not requested. more jetsuying 16 than the pentagon and trump requested. why is there money for things not requested? guest: that particular item i think is excessive. that is not a positive feature of this bill. it is something that tempts one to vote no. it is excessive. having said that, this is a form of government where the congress is the first ranch and wit -- branch, and where it is the job to assess the administration. we have had our budgets originate with the executive branch for 100 years. we have an independent ability and responsibility to scrutinize those budgets, to raise those items, lower those items, condition those items, whatever we choose

the time spent here. but our budget for support the defense department, the men and women in uniform, and i would urge my colleagues to come in this case at this time, but against this amendment. i just back. >> gentlelady from california's recognize. >> first of all, this amendment has nothing to do with withdrawing money from our troops are going cold turkey. we have a defense budget that is close to 700 billion if not more. at this point. i think the american people deserve to know where their tax money is going, and if we're serious about transparency and accountability with tax dollars we should end this budget gimmick. this is report language. we constantly undermine our budget process with his oco account. if the caps are too low then congress should change the law, but using this loophole really is a way that, is a mechanism to backdoor a loophole that we shouldn't do from this budget that we should not allow these kind of gimmicks to occur. and so i would ask for an aye vote. this is something that makes sense. it's only report language but we need to begin to really stop undermining this overal

the resources needed will require dedicated efforts for years to come. mr. speaker, we simply must stop forcing our men and women in uniform and their families to pay the price for the dysfunction of the congressional budget process. mr. speaker, we know that this house is not the problem. in fact, since the republicans took delofle house in 2011, we have never failed to pass a defense appropriations bill on time. and often with large bipartisan majorities. with this week's consideration of h.r. 6157, we in the house intend to keep that streak alive. however, as we have too often found, the senator is unable or unwilling to complete their work and our men and women in uniform suffer. secretary mattis spoke late last year about this issue when he released the national defense strategy. he said, quote, as hard as the last 16 years have been on our military, no enemy in the field has done more to harm the readiness of the u.s. military than the combined impact of the budget control act's defense spending cuts. worsened by us ornting nine out of the last 10 years under continuing resolutions. wasting copious amounts of precious taxpayer dollars. secretary mattis then went on to say, quote, the consequences of

the defense department that are being moved over tathe justice department. >> what dollars are we talking about? what budget is this coming from? >> these will be uniformedttorneys. they will still get their pay, health care. that will all still come from the pentagon. it is not clear the day to day cost, travel, lodging, any kind of per diem. >> what about the training? the documents say they will be given basic training which are things that some attorneys dedicate their entire careers to studying and training their lives for. >> it is unclear. it might be done by prosecutors in officers they are applying for. the bottom line is these are people who will not be doing other cases now. talking to a u.s. attorney in one of the border states had a dedicated national security prosecution unit set up for cases of national security. it's been disbanded because they need to spend so much time prosecuting the cases which are misdemeanors that do nothing for national security. >> i want to go back to questions we have been casking. what are the facilities? where will the facilities be that will house these families together as they are detained? we had reporting

this budget makes necessary investments in our men hand women in uniform, providing $716 billion for national security to assure mercury mains a global force for peace and stability. now con trary to the false narrative putting out by the media and those opposed to this budget, we also put social security and medicare on a sustainable path for current and future generations committing to continue the work to curb the devastating opioid crisis and a firm the need for responsible stewardship of federal resources. this is a budget, mr. chairman, that we can be proud to present to the american people. it's the right thing to do for today. it's the right thing to do for future generations. and i urge my colleagues to support it. and i yield back. >> gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. smucker. >> thank you, kmarm. i'd like to start by extending my appreciation to you for your leadership on this committee. i appreciate that. and to my colleagues and staff for the countless hours of work that went into developing this budget. you know, 18 months on this committee has underscored to me the state of our national debt crisis that we are in. i learned new term hearings here. sovereign debt crisis.

strategy is our budget, because that's when you've got to decide where you're going to spend your last dollar, and having spent six years in washington in my uniform career and much of it in the resource allocation fights, i can tell you that just about everybody in this town is involved in the creation of our budget so it's -- it's distilled by the time it comes out, but it is really the best statement that we get. that said, this administration's national security strategy that was published and the summary national defense strategy, the unclassified version were actually great improvements over the previous years. in the past also being on the blame line for helping to write some of those, by the time -- by the time i got it published, they always came out not as a clear statement of what our priorities were, in other words, where we're going to spend money, where we're not going to spend money, but as lists of unobjectionable aspirations, and -- and every agency got their bit and they were not -- not really cohesive way to bring the government together to do anything. these two documents that the administration put out recognized the great power competition is back. they

presence and the budget we've established for that, we're focused on funding for police academy classes over the next two years and increasing ou police count up to 287 officers -- uniformed officers. that is basedn a baseline study we did on law enforcement needs from starting from a zero base and then building up from that, and that's how we got to thatumber. also, in the budge table you'll see that over time, it's increasing slightly this is related to anticipated emergency maintenance staff response as well as communications and dispatch over time t we a toci support air field operations. and then, a restaen of o annual servayme p line, perang positions, bottom, you'le and we're increasing the count -- proposing to increase the count by 12 positions next yeaand then remain flat in the following year. >> supervisor cohen: i jus nt to bring to your attention, you have two more k you. capital improvement program continues to do well. we've completed 1.6 billion of work, and this is focused on terminal redevelopment to improve the smic sety of the facilities as well as provide for that customer experience. the airport hotel is a key iniative of this as well as our shoreli

the congressional budget office. i think it is something that makes a lot of sense and certainly would provide some uniformity and consistency to this process in states like mine where it seems like we have recurring issues with drought. we had last year in 2017, and i'm sure that it will happen again but it's nice to have good data to work from, and i would ask for the committee's support. >> on the adoption of the amendment all in favor? all opposed. >> are there further amendments to title 12? >> mr. chairman, one other amendments i would like to discuss and i understand there are some objections, but this would allow amendment number six this would allow the process to prove this obese to be sold across the state lines. all of the poultry products sold for consumption or inspected by the food safety inspection service and allow the states to create these programs that require the state inspection programs to be at least equal to the federal meat and poultry inspection programs currently there are 27 states with meat and portray inspection programs however the product is processed at the state inspected facilities are not

the congressional budget office. i think it's something that from a practical standpoint makes a lot of sense and certainly would provide some uniformity and consistency to this process. in states like mine where we have it seems like a recurring issues with drought. we certainly had that in 2012 and last year in 2017. and i'm sure it will happen again. it's nice to have good data to work from. i think this amendment makes sense and i would ask for the committee's support. >> debate on the amendment. the question is on ate dopgs of the amendment. signify by saying aye? the ayes have it. are there further amendments to title 12? >> mr. chairman. i have one other, amendment i would like to discuss, and i will withdraw it. because i understand that there's some objections have been raised to it. this would allow, this is a thune amendment number 6 an it would allow meat and poultry products processed at fsis-approved state and mpi-inspected facilities to be sold across state lines. all meat and poultry products sold for human consumption inspected by the food safety inspection service, fsis allows states to create mpi programs and require