tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN May 9, 2012 8:00pm-11:00pm EDT
the chair now recognizes agility for the purposes of offering next day and her amendment. >> mr. chairman this would require independent report on alternatives who deplore nuclear weapons in europe and the impact on nato. the amendment is merely a direct report language she seek an independent report extending -- works to nuclear deterrence and assurance, particularly the continued role of nonstrategic nuclear weapons in providing libertarian political contributions to extend deterrence for sharing over u.s. allies. the study should also include an analysis of the contribution of strategic nuclear weapons to extended deterrence. there is a whole host of information i would like to see with respect to that. we are planning a $5 billion
nice extension program for the b. 61, including adding improved safety to extend the lives of these deployed nuclear weapons. this is a concert program, especially if alternatives might exist to reassure our allies. i really don't have the answers to a lot of the questions with respect to cost in the chair and then he wants light and how and i was seek an independent report on this to look at the value of deterrence and expanding nato's reliance on extended deterrence and with strategic weapons bring to the table. this issue remains timely and important as nato completes his defense and deterrence posture review the route this month at the upcoming nato summit again. this is just asking for a report and i would hope that people would vote yes on my amendments and i yield back. >> bolivia looked back at the chair recognizes 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 think it's an incredibly important amendment for us to really pay attention to. the amendment would strike the limitations in the mark on defense nuclear facilities safety board's. section 3202 in combination with 3133 would make the defense nuclear facilities safety board and affect to amboy at the track from nuclear safety oversight under the guise of improving the defense nuclear facilities safety board in sa relationship. all current and former board members except one who recommended many of the measures such ec in this section believe this legislation would be detrimental to the operations and oversight mission of the board. i have hear letters from board members peter whittaker, jesse
robertson, joseph peter, jack mansfield and i would like to insert them for the record, mr. chairman. >> no objections ordered. >> unions have expressed strong independent nuclear safety oversight and i would like to insert those letters also went to the record, please mr. chairman. >> no objections ordered. the 3202 section changes standard of nuclear safety to ensure adequate protections to as low as practicable. so we go from a standard of nuclear safety from adequate protection to as low as practical. this would be a major change in this practice and would weaken standards for nuclear safety and late uncertainty and implementation.
the atomic energy commission first establish radiation protection standards in 1957. an amended in 1968 and based upon the recommendations of the federal radiation council and the national commission on radiation protection can the standards are codified in 10, 20 and establish adequate protection, not as low as practicable. the offense board plays an important role in providing independent recommendations to nuclear safety. this sometimes leads to natural tensions between the departments of energy and nsa. the sections in the mark as layers of bureaucracy the relationship and when they get more adversarial. it requires to do cost analysis to inform its recommendation. this takes away the d.o.e. and nsa authority to choose how to respond, how to consider how to
implement a board recommendation to be the ones to decide cost as little silly to increase tensions that there's disagreement on cost analysis. basically this section micromanages the brewers recommendation process. weakening its authority to send letters and creating conditions in which the d.o.e. may respond to the draft letter and thus be boxed into position rather than giving the department of energy the option to consider and respond to recommendations as they are received. in combination with section 3113 unless it is altered a fact to oversight by the board would be precluded in performance-based oversight with the new standard. 3202 also requires the board members have access to information at the same time as the chairman receives information. this may preclude the chairman from being informed of an emergency situation of a nuclear facility in a timely manner.
the board functions in a collegial environment where decisions are based on consensus agreements, codifying the chairman and members is unnecessary. these changes, including adding a staff member per board member with cost analysis may require two to $3 million equivalent to the 30 million-dollar budget thereby detract in funding from its oversight missions. it would be risky at this time to have this board review major facility construction and operations that we stream it plans an important uranium processing facility in making these changes and taking away some of its authority. the board was created by congress in 1988 to conduct independent nuclear safety oversight of facilities and operations on several major accidents. a fire in 1969, k. reactor,
taking aim release in 1991, p. rector and controlled by a motion in 1882. the board current reviews major nuclear facility construction and nuclear safety operations. i would hope that my colleagues to vote yes on the cement and and i yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes mr. turner from ohio for five minutes. >> i'm going to post the amendment that dressed up and packing for the category of the checkers checking the checking. in the city connected by the secretary of defense for html, dod has suggested elimination. i want to say it again. elimination of the dns be an moving to oversight of defense facilities that the nuclear regulatory commission. the u.s. the report states that if, excessive and unproductive project oversight from a variety of sources within and outside of
the week is putting project success at risk and increasing project costs, recommendation request congressional action to transition nuclear safety oversight from a two-year period from msp to the nrc. we thought that went too far so instead we are streamlining even know it is clear that by having an effect on it, we are going to go write a part of what they said, which is making it more of cost. we oppose the amendment. >> the gemini kneels back. the chair now recognizes a gentlelady from ohio, ms. sutton five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i support this amendment. a nuclear incident represents a threat to public and worker safety, jeopardizes availability of defense nuclear facilities to meet national security needs and that is what the bill that is before us as we, i think guys.
the boards that we are talking about provides the only independent safety oversight at d.o.e.'s defense nuclear facilities in the board has unique responsibility under statute to address severe or imminent threats to the public. and the house at five fy 1313 nea delegates responsibility for worker safety in the government to its contractors. the changes -- the changes proposed if enacted would amount to congress concluding that and nsa does not need independent safety oversight and that is something with which i disagree. it would all but erased the board's independence and authority with respect to safety, oversight of facilities and activities. i think this is a really important amendment to protect the safety of our facilities and i'm happy to add my voice in
support of the amendment and i hope that. >> the gentlelady yields that. any further discussion on the amendment? if not, questions on adoption of event offered by ms. sanchez, log 209, so many us are in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the amendment is not agree to. will call vote is ordered. we will call this roll call vote at the end of the subcommittee mark. we will not receive it on the cement is where roll call call vote was ordered. the committee postponed further proceedings on the amendment offered by mr. franks, number 043. this member will require
[inaudible conversations] >> wister chairman, terry 32 aye those in 22 no votes. >> i was mr. shuster recorded? >> mr. shuster is an aye, sir. >> thank you. but with the total tally again? >> 32 aye those, 36 no. the amendment is agreed to. >> the committee postponed 30 further proceedings offered by
[inaudible conversations] >> mr. chairman, 26 aye votes and 23 no votes. >> the amendment is not agree to. if there are no further amendments committee chair recognizes the gentleman from i/o, mr. turner for the purpose of offering a motion. >> i measured out the subcommittee report the strategic forces as amended. >> the question is on the notion of the gentleman from i/o. so many us are in favor will say aye. those opposed, no.
barmby and present the ayes have it in the motion is agreed to. the committee will not receive the report of the military personnel to committee rule 17a consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone all of the record of those the amendments were subcommittee mark until the end of the subcommittee morning. the chair recognizes chairman of the subcommittee, gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson for any comments you'd like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the chairman's mark of burnaby is the product of an open bipartisan process. damar provides for war fighters, veterans and families to care and support they need day of iron and provides the drawdown plans do not howl at the military are cut to the heart of the army and marine corps. specifically the serious proposal authorized a troop increase of 1.7%, extend bonuses and special pay for men and women in uniform in the
mr. introductions for the active army and marine corps and provide significant new regulations and procedures for combating and prosecuting sexual assault within the military and extend access to family housing for six and commissariat exchange benefits for two years for troops who are involuntarily separated. extend tri-care benefits to members of selected reserves who are involuntarily separated. made clear that the nonmilitary contributions to health care benefits made by our troops and families to career of service to america represented prepayment of health care premiums and retirement. in conclusion i want to thank congresswoman susan davis of california and her staff for their contribution and support in this process. of course we are joined by an active and dedicated group of subcommittee members and their recommendations and priorities
are clearly reflected in the smart. additionally i appreciate dedication of the subcommittee staff better up front. john chaput, jabberwock i., jeannette james, mike higgins, craig green and jim white. >> the chair now recognizes the ranking member of the military personnel, ms. davis for any comments you would like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am honored to join the personal subcommittee chair mr. wilson in presenting this report. the military speaks to our highest priority at her. the responsibility to minimum and families to serve our country with distinction and sacrifice. i want to thank chairman wilson and his staff. he seen them all but i will name him again. mike higgins, jeanette james,
great green and jim weiss for wiccan and a bipartisan manner and of course to all the members who participated. it includes several provisions i of course support of 1.7% pay raise and includes changes to the assault annual report to provide greater fidelity and the information provided and they required that to provide briefings we can continue oversight and implementation and lashes bill and includes along with that the initiative outlined in april 24 at including the establishment of special that some teams to improve prosecution of these crimes. it also has improvements to the transition process for members leading to serve as an authorization of 25 million impact a edition 5 million for educational agencies impacted by
force structure changes and brass birthmothers so is much more that can be done, we recommend that we must work within the confines of the budget agreement which we pass. overall the personal provisions in the market for us are good and they should be supported mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you very much. before 19 amendments, is there any discussion of the subcommittee's report? >> the chair recognizes mr. wilson for the purpose of offering an en bloc amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to call a package of an amendments that have been worked in approved by the minority side. >> without objections toward her. with the clerk asked that the amendments to be offered on block. without objections to my reading of the amendments will be
dispensed with. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of explaining and offering his demand it in black -- is in black. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i call up an en bloc package to the following amendment. representative smith the washington state amendment would exclude disabled service members as the integrated disability evaluation system from counting against act of duty and strength, and amendment by shelling of illinois, this amendment would allow the secretary of defense to contain a working group which will reveal recommend improvements to try cared for children's health care needs. congresswoman susan davis of california, this amendment authorizes the secretary of defense to provide transitional assistance to servicemembers with a focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
cumbersome and sanchez of california, this amendment would require commanders to conduct annual climate assessments. congresswoman sanchez of california. this amendment would require dod to include harassment incidents in the annual department of defense reports on muscles. congresswoman sanchez of california, this amendment would call for the inclusion of information unsubstantiated reports of sexual harassment. this would require that dod study the effects of offering incentives of mail-order pharmacy is on independent and community pharmacies. congresswoman speier of california, this amendment would require the secretary of defense to assemble an independent panel could conduct review of u. cmj procedures at sexual assault cases.
congresswoman speier, this amendment would require the armed forces were placed in gender relations survey to be conducted every two years instead of every four years. congresswoman speier of california this would require the dod to determine a for profit representatives have access to military installation. and additionally, congresswoman speier california, this would require the secretary of defense to be a unrestricted reports sexual assault. also for myself and congresswoman davis and amendment that addresses retention of records related to sexual report, enhanced sexual training and release of active duty and recall to active duty for members of the reserve components were victims of sexual assault on active duty and requirements for commanders. on behalf of myself that would
remove the 120 day requirement from the review of the administration of the military health system, section 716 at the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012, congressman kissell of north carolina that would increase military leap upon birth or adoption of a child. and finally, congressman john and of georgia, this would direct the secretary of defense to direct and implement a planned regarding diversity and military leadership. >> any other discussions on the en bloc discussions? >> mr. chairman. >> the lady from california come in the sanchez recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i would just like to thank you and the staff are working with me to include the en bloc package. this to the members with
secretary panetta have worked hard to address assaults in the military. in addition to initiatives that lead to further increase oversight and accountability for commanders and also look at sexual harassment and partner role in preventing and tracking harassment cases. recently a marine corps time ever read about it colonel who was fired. the kernel is really due to loss of confidence in her leadership and accountability to remain tame positive climate and was influenced by the result of a command climate survey. also it is important to believe this is what was igc more when facing a sexual assault or harassment case. i would like to point out the command climate survey that influence that case. commanders often times don't these assessments. the gao has found the dod does not verify a commanders compliance with the requirements to conduct the assessments.
the language error code requires the secretary to develop a mechanism that will verify and commanding organizational climate assessments. another issue wanted to make sure we addressed to mr.'s bill does have the dod response to harassment offenses. currently we only track sexual assault cases. it is important because studies have shown where there is harassment in most cases it leads to a soul. i am very pleased at the en bloc passage ought to thank the committee and ms. wilson and ms. davis for all your help and i think it's a good package. thank you. >> are generally deals back. any further discussion on the en bloc package? if not, questions on the adoption of the men offered by mr. wilson, so many us are in favor will say sunday. those opposed, no.
the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purposes of offering and explain its amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in 1968 congress passed a law which creates unique status of a dual status technician. these are peach ergodic americans who serve in our guard and reserve and also have employment status at the same time. one of the conditions of their continuing civilian employment is that they remain in the military. so what can happen to these people after 20 years or so is this, they came up for review and for various myriad of reasons, they can be separated from their uniforms database.
this makes them use their civilian jobs as well. they don't even need to be given a reason. there is an appellate process is very time-consuming am a very expensive and difficult. the purpose of my amendment is as follows. if a dual status technician has served honorably for a least 20 years, both in terms of their uniform service in their civilian service, they should be given the option of continuing on as a civilian employee should they meet all the other standards of civilian employment. this is fair and reasonable. if some of them was age of 18, they could be only 38 years old and wind up losing both their military career and civilian careers the same time, frankly for no good reason. mr. chairman, it is my understanding dürer scoring issues with respect to this and because we are not in a position to offset them, it is my
contention to ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment. but i would like to work with you in the majority, minority staff as sweepers the two try to find a way to give these loyal and deserving people the option of continuing and civilian employment if there otherwise worthy. without i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. >> are there any other amendment in this section? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment the desk. >> will the clerk leaves hand out the amendment? without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with.
the chair now recognizes the gentlelady for the purposes of offering and explaining her amendment. >> mr. chairman, i thank you. and taken the fifth amendment with to withdraw, but wanted to spend a few minutes reviewing the issue. i want to thank mr. chairman and members of the committee would've worked on the issue historically. i think there has been some progress made. i think it is important for us to look at the military as a serious thing on the military and on our ability to oversee it. the last report was disturbing to say the least. the charges have actually decreased. the court marshals have fallen in the convictions have plummeted. in terms of the commander initiated actions they dropped
by 23%. the number of initiated court-martials fell by 8% and the number of perpetrator convicted committing sexual assault dropped by 22%. fewer commanders decided to bring charges and many fewer were successfully prosecuted. some including secretary panetta think the answer is to notice those in authority at the chain of command to the six level. secretary panetta and my colleagues i hope are correct that this will solve the problem. but i am not as optimistic. some of the forces already adhere to this practice of giving disposing authority 206 and get commander actions court-martial convictions also decreased in those services as well. while many commanders are making the decisions i fear many are not. this may not be done with malice
and some of these cases ran counter to a commanders think they know. how could a model soldier, commit such a heinous act? this runs contrary to a commanders believe in what they depend on in executing their mission. ask experts in and out of the military and they will tell you these are the most difficult and complex cases that come across their desk. but there's no question training has improved, and solution icing training and ingrained biases here will take years. that is why today i am offering the ct. h. r. 3435, which i introduced to this congress. there's more than 122 cosponsors on this bill. my amendment takes a full set at the hands of commanders and places the jurisdiction in the hands of an impartial office. i underscore this up in the military with experts both military and civilians. this is oversee the investigation if appropriate and the prosecution of these cases. the office may consult with
commanders and refer cases back to them if they deem appropriate. some argue discussion from commanders undermines motivation to minimize the chance of assault occurring. i think the exact opposite is the case. with greater accountability and transparency of offenses, greater than a commanders will have two make sure they don't happen on their watch. we have 19,000 cases that are actually been accounted for each year. only 13% are being reported. this issue isn't going away. i hope the steps taken by the committee and previous nda and by the secretary of defense will do us in the right direction. i do think we've got to be vigilant in addressing this issue. i ask unanimous consent this amendment be withdrawn. >> the gentlelady withdraws its amendment. are there any other amendments?
>> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. clerk will please him out the amendment. >> without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman for purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the committee has before them an amendment to establish a chain of command for army national cemeteries. over the past year, chairman wilson and the personal nona subcommittees about to join hearings on the past miss management and gross negligence of leadership at arlington
national cemetery. additionally for a period of six months during that time, military personnel and subcommittees were briefed on the basis of a civilian director of your international cemetery the progress being made it at the cemetery to correct decades of neglect and poor leadership of management. the current leadership that the cemetery has made significant progress in fixing a broken system and what can only be classified as a complete embarrassment for the united states military. to the secretary of army's leadership and guidance arlington national cemetery is on the path to success. his goal is to fix arrington and bring it to the 21st century with computerized record-keeping and efficient modernize daily operations, maintenance and administration and to this point the process has succeeded. the civilian cemetery has been a huge part of success where she is one of the men and women who live at arlington, the military
and civilian and highly exemplary professional manner. my concern with arlington is not with professionals and leaders who turned arlington around and worked tirelessly to ensure the falling numbers of a all volunteer force are veterans and their families are treated with respect, reverend and honor that they deserve, the leadership has set a standard for how we care for the nation's fallen heroes, ensuring they will rest in peace for eternity at arlington with the honor and dignity they deserve. my concern though is that arlington national cemetery is an army installation, which rests on a joint military base. the scandals and embarrassment about trying to national cemetery that largely unprosecuted for one reason. no one in the former chain of command at arlington national cemetery was held accountable for actions and their gross negligence and mismanagement
because none of them were subject to the uniform code of military justice. the former civilian directors of arlington national cemetery could not be held accountable to the uniform code of military justice because they were government civilian employees, not active-duty sailors, soldiers, airmen and marines. i believe the best way forward as we transition from the maintenance and repair phase to a long-term sustainment days is to place a commission uniform officer of the military commander and director of the army national cemeteries, which include arlington national cemetery and the united states soldiers of airmen from national cemetery. if we put a uniformed officer in command of army national cemeteries, do not officer will be held accountable to the vaccine standards as the heroes. at arlington once were. that standard is the uniform code of military justice.
the men and women of our all volunteer force is on combat and those who served, who choose to be buried at arlington national cemetery deserve the honor of having a uniformed commanding officer to watch over them as they rest, to set and enforce a standard of military excellent, commitment, honor and integrity that only those serving in uniform can comprehend. an officer operating on the uniform code of military justice will be held to the highest standards of accountability. this is much higher from that which could be achieved by a civilian to get there in the department of defense for the va, working under the federal personal standards. ladies and gentlemen, we owe that to do here is this nation as they lay at rest in arlington. that mr. chairman, i would like unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.
>> the gentleman withdraws his amendment. any other amendments to the subcommittee report? >> mr. chairman, i've been amendment amendment at the desk. 054 r. one jalan from mississippi. the clerk will please pass up the amendment without objection reading will be dispensed with. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from mississippi for the purposes of offering and explaining his amendment.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. but my colleague from the serene i've introduced for the very simple amendment, less than 50 words will clearly state once and for all been no military installation shall be used to perform a marriage or marriage like ceremony involved in anything other than the union of one man with one woman. the marriage act also known as delma passed in 1996 was clear in defining the rules marriage for purposes of the federal government, and for showing some in this administration have selectively enforce existing laws based on their personal beliefs. this has led to much confusion and armed forces and elsewhere. in the spring of 2011, and many colleagues and i were alarmed to find the chief of chaplains conniver admiral mark kidd had signed a memo to chaplains stating if the base is located in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, facilities may normally be used to celebrate the marriage. this is a clear violation of
delma. i saw military installations are federal property and therefore come under the jurisdiction of federal law. that is why join the congressman akin and 62 house colleagues to share these concerns. the september 2011 the department of defense issued an additional two memos to flatten the face of delma. the first or jay johnson, office of legal counsel required dod facilities be made available for private sponsors on a orientation neutral basis. the second allows chaplains to participate in any private ceremony. mr. johnson is clearly stated he does not believe that doma should be enforceable no longer defend doma and cores for the dod in cases involving said 10. president obama some doubts
about constitutionality aside time to justify his decisions and just today the president made remarks regarding same-sex marriages in the military. the point is this is not about how many individuals feel about current law and it is not about the java jay johnson or attorney general holder or president obama to decide what is or is not constitutional and selectively apply to win fuentes. the job is to uphold and defend the law as it is written. these actions have created uncertainty regarding the application of federal law to federal property, military bases where there should be no uncertainty. very simply, doma remains fatherland should be enforced as for the lan without exception or reservation. that is. but if i am introducing this amendment with a colleague from misery to reinforce federal and provide clarification to the department of defense by simply stating only marriages between a
man and a woman will be permitted to take place on military installations. i encourage colleagues to support this amendment that does nothing more than clarify the department of defense at the standard should be appalled on military bases. i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back his time. the chair now recognizes ms. davis from california for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. we are talking of policy here that allows real property and facilities for private functions to be used on a sexual orientation neutral basis provided that such use is not prohibited by an applicable state local laws. private functions as we know are not official activities of this department of defense and
therefore they do not constitute an endorsement of the department of defense. eligible beneficiaries should not be designed to use to the facilities and installations based solely on their sexual orientation regardless of the individual sexual orientation they should be provided the same access to installations and facilities that any other service member eligible beneficiary might enjoy. the dod policy allows the military chaplains pad policy ae military chaplains participate or officiate in a private ceremony, whether on or off the installation provided the ceremony is not prohibited by applicable state and local laws. we not chaplains are not required to participate or officiate private ceremonies that would violate tenets of their religious or personal beliefs. that is very clear and there's no compelling evidence to suggest anything is happening other than that. participation of the military
chaplain in a private ceremony does not constitute an endorsement once again by the department of defense. i believe, mr. chairman, this amendment seeks to discriminate against an individual based solely on their sexual orientation. i think they should be opposed. this could open the door for other ceremonies that occurs on basis to not be allowed in i don't think anybody who attends those functions with field that is appropriate or proper and in this case the same thing would apply. >> generally deals back. the chair recognizes mr. anders from new jersey for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i opposed this amendment because i believe that it misreads doma completely misconstrues the importance. of the separation of church and state that's recognized in the
resume in and constitution. first about with respect to the claim that the voluntary performance of a marriage or marriage like, whatever that is coming ceremony on a military base violates doma just isn't so. the doma statute does two things. it says that no state that chooses not to recognize same-sex marriage could be compelled to recognize an order of marriage that originates the state that does. that is frankly irrelevant to this amendment. the second part of doma says essentially for all purposes under federal law were the word marriage appears to me as and one woman. now, in this situation -- imagine a situation where a minister of a church or if they
practice is that faith and in fact believes that some form of marriage or civil union between two persons at the same is entirely consistent with that faith. that saved minister chooses to officiate over a ceremony on a military base. first of all, it is not a violation of doma. second, i think this amendment is a violation of the first amendment, freedom of religion rights of that saved minister and of those service members. ..
>> a minister chooses to perform a religious ceremony that involves to service members of the same gender. the exclusion of the right to do that versus the exclusion to do the exactly same their money with two people of different genders is a violation of religious freedom. no one has to accept, as a religious doctrine, same-sex marriage. i would be the first one to vote against and speak against any rule that says a catholic priest has to perform a same-sex marriage or and orthodox rabbi
or any other person of faith who would feel that way. but for the very same reason that i would take a position to defend their religious conscience, i think that an amendment on 10th amendment that violates the religious conscience of eight the provider who feels differently is violating the principles that we support. this amendment miss interprets the law and more importantly, misinterprets the historic meaning of the freedom of religion clause of this country. for that reason it should be defeated. >> paterno recognizes ranking members met for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i, too, oppose the amendment. i would like to associate myself with mr. andrews. a marriage ceremony on a military base does not violate the law for all the reasons pointed out. it does, however, put the united
states government and department defense acting contrary to state laws, in the states where same-sex civil unions or marriages have been recognized. we would be saying no, you cannot enforce your law. most important it of all, it denigrate the service of men and women in the military by treating them as second-class citizens. which is something we don't want to do. it took us way too long to repeal gentoo. this amendment is poorly thought out and is certainly insulting to the gay and lesbian military people. i would urge opposition to the amendment.
>> paterno paterno recognizes mr. west. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think this is one of the points of confusion. you have to understand that when you go into a military installation all the freedoms of that post typically change. and the state of florida, you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet. as soon as you go on to one of the military stations, not only do you have to have a helmet, you must have boots and gloves and you must have a reflective vest. if you are a military or civilian. so i think one of the things that maybe we may not agree with this amendment, but we have to start looking at what the cause of the military installation is. military justice is totally unlike civilian law. as a former commander, i could give someone a fine for not having a proper haircut. i don't think that anyone could do that in the civilian world. i could punish a guide for bouncing checks. i don't think that anyone in the civilian world can punishing a
guy for guide for bouncing checks. what i will say is that mr. palazzo has put up a very interesting point. these are some of the unintended consequences we have when we go rushing down the aisle and we don't really understand some of the second and third order effects of something like this and what it will have. the mission of the united states military is to fight and win the wars. when we start to take the united states military and conformant to individual behavior, these are the types of problems that we are going to have. i would say whether or not my dear friend wants to withdraw his amendment and go back and refine his amendment, that is one thing. but this is the type of discussion we're going to have to have about a lot of these things where you can't make civilian society like the military. the military post and installation is its own separate entity, and it is totally different from civilian society and different once you cross that date, be it civilian or
military, eat all the jurisdiction thereof, and it is totally different. i yield back. >> i yield back my time to mr. palazzo. >> thank you, mr. west. i believe your service to your nation and the military and how eloquent you can phrase what is doing here -- this is just a simple clarifying amendment. it is not easy to misinterpret. it makes it clear that for the purpose of the federal government, marriage is defined between one man and one woman. it applies to dod the saudis which are federal property. because there is a lot of confusion coming from bureaucrats in this administration, it is important that we clarify this for our men and women in uniform. it's go back. this law was passed in 1996 with overwhelmingly large amount of bipartisan support in the house
and had 342 to 67, and the senate 85 to 14, and it was signed by president clinton into law in 1996. if you don't like the law, change the law. but we are just trying to help our men and women in uniform to understand that it does apply to federal citizens. i yield back my time. >> also,. >> a military chaplain cannot go into a military chapel and just do what he wants. there's a chain of command. i can say that definitively, having been a former executive and commander, it had chaplains under my command. thank you very much mr. chairman, i yield back. >> paterno recognizes the senator from massachusetts. >> i rise in opposition to this amendment, which would clearly
treat gay and service function lesbian service members. we just repealed don't ask don't tell. so that gay and lesbian service members serve in uniform just like any other service member. clearly the military is moving in the direction of being very open to gay and lesbian service members. i agree that no one should be forced to perform duties that go against their moral or religious beliefs, and that is why a provision of allowing chaplains to decline to preside over same-sex ceremonies was signed into law as part of the fiscal year 2012 national defense authorization act. the department of defense general counsel believes that same-sex marriages performed on military facilities are not official activity. j. johnson, as we have heard from in a memo of september 30, 2012 wrote that functions are
not an official activity of the department of defense. thus, making dod facilities available for personal activities does not constitute an endorsement of the activities by dod. as a result, they are permissible as a sanction under the state law, which governs each individual case. i am proud to come from a state that has led the nation with its commitment to civil rights and the first to recognize same-sex marriage. i am proud to see our president today recognize the same rights. i urge a no vote on this amendment. >> the gentle lady with yields back. we now recognize mr. critz for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
i have a couple of questions about the amendment, as to what happens next. what i mean by that, and i would ask for a response from the sponsor, if someone does perform this ceremony on the department of defense property, what would happen to them or if the groupwise about it and is caught, what happens next, that is what my question is. and i would yield to mr. palazzo for an answer. >> i don't really know what would happen next. it is more of a rhetorical question. it is illegal to perform those procedures. if you you don't have a department of justice enforcing laws of the country nothing happens. if you don't have military commanders involved -- [talking over each other] >> this makes it illegal.
it is not illegal at this point, is that correct? >> it is illegal to perform same-sex marriages on federal property, according to the defense of marriage act. this is clarifying language. clarifying language to help provide guidance to our men and women in uniform. >> mr. critz, would you yield? >> i yield to mr. injuries. >> could i ask mr. palazzo, is illegal to perform a same-sex marriage and a federal park? >> under doma? >> if it is federal land or federal property, it would go against doma. >> i would yield back to mr. critz. before i do, may i simply say that the doma statute for marriage means one man and one woman.
unless you have a statue, that would outlaw marriages or specifically authorize marriages, and federal parks, you can have a same-sex marriage in a federal park. that just happens. i will yield back to mr. critz. >> my question was just clarification. i do not understand what would happen -- because i don't think it is illegal. and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the chernow recognizes the congresswoman from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i to rise -- by, too, rise in opposition of this amendment. to think that we are spending time on this amendment when we have taken up hundreds of billions of dollars today without even a comment here or there -- it is somewhat
striking, i think. i think the most important thing to appreciate is that this would only take place in states that have legalized same-sex marriages. this is not a complaint in states that have not legalized same-sex marriages. it has been said by many of my colleagues, these are not official activities. but the property is specifically stated as being available for private purposes. to that extent, for all of us who embrace state rights, why would we now prevent states from exercising their rights as states to pass laws that reflect their interests we met so i, too, would add my voice to the chorus of those who have opposed it, and i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. any other discussion on the
amendment? >> if not, the questions on the amendment offered by mr. palazzo of mississippi, those four it will say yes and those who are not portable seno. the amendment is agreed. we will call the roll call at the end of the subcommittee. any other amendments for the subcommittee's report? will the court please distribute the amendment?
the chair now recognizes the gentleman for purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the president has repealed don't ask don't tell. he is now using the military as campaign props to advance the gay agenda. my son send our sons and daughters did not volunteer to be part of some political agenda or did they volunteer to protect our freedom in america. by its ignoring doma, it is promoting the same-sex marriage with federal employees on federal property.
all this has resulted in the need for certain conscience protections for members of the military and particularly, for military chaplains. i have a few examples here, just to get a flavor of some things that are happening in the military. here is a chaplain. these peoples names are protected. he was threatened with early retirement and he was moved to an assignment where he could be supervised. what did he do wrong? he merely forwarded an e-mail to subordinates that was a couple reflection on the former don't ask don't tell policy. the number of other examples, i will just read one other. a service school that trains officers experienced an instance where a male harass another male through text messages, e-mails,
invisible confrontations. the male was not interested in same-sex relationship. but defending male, instead, insisted that the two would make a good couple. the harassment was reported, no disciplinary action was taken. i have another of other examples from an organization called the chaplain alliance for religious liberty. it is over 2000 chaplains. this amendment is necessary, i believe, to try to protect the religious beliefs that people who are in the service, and to make sure that they can't be persecuted or denied rink advancement or education or things because they are not politically correct. on this amendment that we have, it is not only endorsed by those 2000 chaplains, i also have a letter of endorsement in the archdiocese for the military services of the usa.
that would be the top roman catholic chaplain. this was really a response to the challenges of changing the various policies that i outlined to begin with. this is a chance for people to have their consciences protected and to create a level playing field in the things that have happened in the disruption of these various policies. i would like to yield back my time, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes mr. andrews from new jersey for five minutes. >> i would urge opposition to this amendment because it states desirable principles that are already the law. the redundancy of adopting this amendment, frankly, i think we do miss jeff, because here's what this does. the operative language of
subparagraph letter a., which essentially says, a decision-maker of the armed forces may not use consciences, principles for adverse personal action. denial, promotion, etc. would you think would happen if a soldier were up for a promotion, and there was a finding that the soldier was jewish? and there was indication on the record that the reason that he did not do the promotion is because he was a practicing jew? under any understanding that i have, of the rules and procedures of the military, that would be an illegal and outrageous decision, and the soldier could not be denied that promotion. the same is already true with respect to the practice of religious beliefs, concerning
the appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality. if this amendment said on line 14 and line 13, if it's a concerning the appropriate dashboard concerning the exercise of any matter of religious conscience, and i think this is not only perfectly appropriate, but it is already the law, you can't discriminate against a person in uniform because he or she expresses a religious preference. but to give special treatment to a person whose religious preference focuses on the appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality, it is not only unnecessary, but i think it does this chief to the policy. my friend from florida who has served the country in uniform, and i respect his experience very much, talked about the fact that if they say that you can't
ride a motorcycle on the base, you can't do so on the base because of the need for military discipline. i certainly would say that if the rules said that people with red hair can't ride a motorcycle on the base, but other people can, there would be something wrong with that rule. or christians could ride motorcycles the jews could not. that would be something very wrong. the issue is not military discipline. it is a discriminatory application of military discipline, based upon an immutable factors such as one's sexual orientation. the principles expressed in this amendment are fine. they are already illegal, if you take adverse action based upon us, and by singling out matters of religious conscience concerning the appropriate and inappropriate expression -- whatever that means -- of human sexuality, i think that this does much more mischief than it
prevents. i would urge people to know all the amendment. >> the gentleman yields back. chairman recognizes mr. franks provides minutes. >> mr. chairman, i want to remind all of us today that the freedom of religion is probably the cornerstone of all of our freedoms. i think we could miss the forest and the trees if we are not careful. the expression of true tolerance is not preventing you have no differences. we certainly have differences on the committee that are being expressed tonight. but we are kind and decent to each other in spite of our differences. this simply says that a chaplain cannot be held in some adverse personal action for not wanting to do something that is contrary to their religious beliefs. we allow soldiers not to pick up a gun. we say that if your conscious subjects you and your religious perspective on 10 permits you to
do that, we will let you into the service they do not have to take up arms against you or neighbor, even though that is a pretty basic thing for a soldier at times. we go to great lengths to allow people religious expression. i think that sometimes we get focused on one aspect. it seems like that is kind of the directions we have been going the last few years. this case, i believe it's important that we don't suggest that we have a right to force chaplains to violate their religious beliefs in any area, and certainly this would be one of them. this goes to the heart of freedom of religion. i hope my colleagues would support the amendment. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. we now recognize liz davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to point out to the members that this speaks to the production of rights of conscience of members of the armed forces and chaplains of such members.
the issue of the chaplains has argued been addressed in the last policy as we dressed. they are not required to perform a marriage, but this goes much further. this speaks to members of the armed forces. it speaks to service members in general. i would like to ask my colleague, who would define whether or not people are expressing having inappropriate expression of human sexuality or could not used such conscience principles or beliefs? who defines that? i don't know if my colleague wants to respond to that, but the problem here is that we are talking about religious freedoms, generally speaking, the law is clear that issues of religious freedom can be
expressed. but the former bill that we passed, it doesn't include all service members in that. i don't know how you continue to have good order and discipline in a command is somehow or other, someone has to define what is being discussed here in protecting the rights of conscience. we already protect religious freedoms, but what is not protected is a sexual orientation -- it is not a protected class. prohibition against discrimination exists for religion, but it does not exist against sexual orientation. in many ways, i think what we are doing is inviting discriminatory treatment of gay and lesbian service members. those who would use religion to discriminate. i don't think that is something that we want to encourage.
>> with the gentlelady yield? i'm trying to understand -- if i am somebody who is against gay people in the military, and i say something inappropriate sunday person in the military. and i say, well, it's because of my belief and religious beliefs, does that mean that there will be no adverse action or discrimination against me because im in the workplace -- saying something about someone who's gay? i'm reading this, i mean, what would be appropriate in the workplace than? if i am a gay bashing person because my religion doesn't accept that at all, am i allowed to say those kinds of things in the work environment and get away with it, not have any appropriate action taken against me? is that we are trying to do? because that is the way i read
this. >> i yield back. >> thank you. if i can to my colleague, i think this is not defining and goes too far. it is not necessary. we already have protection for religious freedom in the military. and we have a generally in society as well. this is essentially suggesting to people they can do whatever they want and they can say well, my religion allows me or compels me to do something that is not necessarily in the best interest of the military. but i am relying on my religion to carry me forward and to allow me to behave in any way i choose. because nobody is going to know how to define that under this
wording in the legislation. i think we should oppose this. i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. any further discussion on the amendment? mr. chairman? the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for five minutes. >> did you, mr. chairman. this is a very commonsense amendment that i am proud to support. our military chaplains play a unique role in our military. since the repeal of dadt, many have heard about religious police regarding sexual behavior. this amendment would protect the rights of free speech of our military when it comes to deeply held religious beliefs. i have heard from a great deal of soldiers who i have served with in the national guard that they believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. as it currently stands, those soldiers could face disciplinary
action for their open opposition the second part would allow them to express their religious beliefs and prevent the dod from the chaplains performing any thing having to do with their religious beliefs. this is a commonsense amendment but protects the religious convictions of our soldiers and prevent punishment or retribution for their believes, and because there are some new members to the committee and know -- and none with military service, i would like to clarify that state laws do not supersede federal laws on military installation. so if we did have a same-sex law for marriage, that does not give them carte blanche on a federal military installation to enact those laws. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields yield back. any further discussion on the amendment?
the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. >> i think the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, i would yield my time to mr. todd akin. we met thank you, i would like to try to answer some of the different questions. first off, i think maybe people are reacting to this thing a little bit more than necessary. it protects liberal and conservative chaplains. you get chaplains that favor gay marriage. this protects their conscience, just the same as if they theologically believe otherwise. this cuts both ways. it simply tries to provide a basis for protecting the chaplains. now, the law that was made reference to, which was added by senator wicker in last year's law, it really doesn't have any protections at all.
it doesn't protect against discrimination. it just simply says that a chaplain with a conscience problem does not have to perform the marriage. but it doesn't say anything about the fact that he can be treated unfairly because he thinks that way. this amendment simply makes it clear that you cannot persecute someone in a various wages because they do not think the way you do. it was also said, i think the first thing that the gentleman from new jersey mansion, was redundancy. in fact, there are no conscience protections for chaplains anywhere at all in the law. the only one is in regulations. nothing in federal law. this simply says that we are going to put the conscience protection in here for chaplains and members of the service that have various strongly held beliefs.
ucmj still applies. this is talking about expressing your opinion. honestly, this has to be worked out, just as everything that the chaplains do does. this gives them the protection to know that if they don't take what happens to be the politically correct line, they are not going to be denied going to school were pushed out of the military early or things like that. i think i just heard many people from the other side of the aisle saying that i am okay with conscience protections. that is what we are trying to do in good faith. it's a simple conscience protection. because some of the changes in policy have created a lot of tension within the military. we are trying to honestly answer that question. we are asking our sons and daughters to put their lives online. i think we need to treat them with expect and allow them to
exercise -- >> will the gentleman yield? we met briefly, yes i'm just about out of time. >> could you please help me understand better, if you say that ucmj applies, then people cannot engage in behavior which would be unacceptable to good order and discipline, indiana, then what more are you trying to do? it seems to me that you are trying to encourage some verbiage that perhaps -- >> let me take a shot here. one thing is that somebody is just overly abusing someone for whatever purpose. that is where the ucmj applies. if somebody is listening that these are my beliefs, this is what is right and wrong, and this is what -- it is not calling someone a name, not accusing someone -- you are stating what you believe. i think that is the kind of thing but this is trying to
protect. the ability for people to have their own opinion. we don't think -- i don't think that, you know, that it's being tolerant to force everybody to think the same way. we think differently. that is okay to think differently. it is okay to respectively disagree as we do in the committee many times. but that is not abusing another person. i think the ucmj comes in -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes, i have just a couple seconds there. >> we don't see a compelling need that people are being disciplined for expressing their thoughts. >> i just read you a couple of examples. i have a whole page of examples of people who are being changed for their assignments, they are not getting a good education, this thing is being used as a club to try to force people to do something they don't actually believe in their hearts. and that is not something we want to do to our chaplains. we want the chaplains to be able to comment and minister and have
the freedom of their own conscience to do whatever they think is the right thing without being punished. i yield back. >> the time has expired. is there any further discussion? >> i would like to claim some time. >> the gentle lady from california. >> in respect to mr. todd akin, i understand you were worried that chaplains may be afraid to be forthright and say i don't believe in that and i don't want to be there, even though we have protection for them. but in here you say, the religious -- the moral principles and religious beliefs of the members of the armed forces -- you are not just talking about chaplains here. you're talking about the armed forces. so let me say that i am a person who believes that in the bible, gays should be killed. i go around, -- i'm sorry, i go around and i know that you're gay --
attacking another person, i think that falls under ucmj. >> that is what i am saying. lying is not very well defined, and you are talking about all the members of the armed forces here. >> pc bouncing? i understand your concern. i was not in favor of opening the can of worms to begin with. what has happened is that you have people are that are being asked to do things that are against their religious convictions. for example, a chaplain, maybe he doesn't have -- >> i'm not asking about the chaplain. i am asking -- i understand what you're talking about, but you also have enter all members of the armed forces. that is just broad? who is going to be pleasing who is going over the line? >> being tolerant of each other is something that we live with every day, every other citizen in the country lives with it everyday. what we are simply saying is that you cannot persecute somebody just because they have an opinion. that is what we are saying.
it doesn't go beyond that. it does not repeal anything. >> okay. i am just saying that i think you are going to put a lot of problems of order and discipline in units and people having to decide what went over the line and what didn't. i think it is very broad. maybe just the chaplain -- you have all members of the armed forces -- is completely and totally so broad. >> i can give you some examples of what has happened, for instance, there were two people who were talking. one of them said, i'm thinking about maybe being a chaplain sometime. the other one said, well, what you think? we have changed the rules here, and how does that apply? a third person says you have offended me deeply and you better never say something so the final thing was -- never say anything like that or question anything about gay marriage because you could never be a chaplain if you question that
idea. that would be an example of two people. one thinking about being a chaplain. who was told if you never mention this -- that was with the commanding officer. he said he can't be a chaplain if you question it. this is a commonsense thing. >> i just think that the ambiguity -- >> the time has expired. the gentle lady's time has expired. >> the turnout recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. and i do believe that this needs to be extended to everyone. both sides are arguing against sexual orientation. if you are in a bible study, and you are talking about the first chapter of romans, it has some specific instructions from paul about homosexuality, which some people agree with and some people don't. if i have to agree with the
instructions, i shouldn't be discriminated against by someone in a position in the military who has a different opinion. gay men and women continue to serve. they will be promoted throughout the entire rings as they should. if i held the position that the first chapter of romans had constructed for me and my beliefs, and my commanding officer is gay, he has a different opinion, and does not promote any simply because my belief in that, i think i need some protection in that regard. this is going to be a tough area that we will deal it over and over. i do believe that not just chaplains but regular ranking members of the military need protection. for their conscience, with respect to these difficult issues to deal with. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back.
the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i will try to be brief. i would just like to say that nowhere in the bible does it say that you are to hate the sinner. you are to hate the sin, you are to love the sinner and pay for the sinner. that is what the bible says. i am taken back by some of the comments that were said earlier. one of the reasons that this is such an issue for those of us are christians and wanting our pastors and our friends who are pastors, be able to conscientiously object to a service is because we see the country moving in a very much the wrong direction. i will tell you that if somebody defiles the koran in the military, there will be actions taken from the prison's commander against them. but if they follow the bible, there are none. for those of us who are christians, we see this country the country moving in the wrong direction. i would say, if this were an
amendment that we are going to provide some sort of special protection to the koran, by, quite honestly, with many of the same people that are objecting to us, allowing this conscientious objection for people of all faiths, would be cheering for it. with that said, mr. chairman, i hope we pass this amendment. people should not be forced to perform a ceremony that is against their fundamental religious beliefs. and it is time to this country moved back in that direction. >> we that will yield? >> i'm not giving back any more time to you. >> the gentleman yields back. the turnout recognizes mr. smith, the ranking member for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i do yield my time to ms. sanchez. >> first
>> so many are in favor, please say aye. if you are opposed, it say nay. the amendment is agreed to. we will call the roll call at the end of the subcommittee. are there any other amendments? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk will please distribute the amendment. the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with.
many died just like our servicemen while serving their country in combat. despite the current policy that excludes women from combat service, this woman has been awarded the silver star, which is a third largest medal for valor in combat. the number of women have been the recipients for combat action back. the badges awarded to recognize soldiers who have personally engaged in the enemy or are engaged by the enemy during combat operations. why would we ask these soldiers to prove themselves again? female soldiers have demonstrated too much courage and too much talent and too much
patience and too much leadership to merely be part of a pilot program. i believe the department of defense should not be questioning whether servicewomen can perform in combat, but accept the fact that they already have. and that's this time in looking at how to successfully implement this repealed. i know many of my colleagues would argue that the repeal of this policy will threaten the readiness and the morale of the military. my argument would be, do you believe the readiness and morale have been compromised in iraq and afghanistan in any way? because female soldiers have been in combat, side-by-side with male soldiers for the past 11 years. it is absolutely tied to repeal this archaic prescription. the continuation of this policy is underestimating the capabilities of our servicewomen, but we are not recognizing their valiant service and we are denying them the recognition that they truly deserve. combat experience is essential to a service member's military
career in it and as long as this policy exists, women will be unable to climb the military ladder. mr. chairman, i hope that someday someday we can repeal the prohibition on some of those combat issues come and i withdraw my amendment. thank you. >> the lady withdraws her amendment. we are now going to proceed to vote were the roll call was ordered. the committee postponed further proceedings on the amendment offered by mr. palazzo. 054 -- the amendment would prevent the use of military installations as deciphered for marriage ceremonies or marriage like ceremonies. the question now occurs on the amendment offered by mr. plaza, the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]
[roll call] >> the clerk will report to tally. mr. chairman, they are at 3725 votes in 37 nay notes. the amendment is agreed to. we are now going to proceed to vote on those amendments were. [roll call] 's ordered. the committee postponed further proceedings on the amendment offered by mr. todd akin. the amendment would establish a protection plus or military chaplains. the question now occurs on the amendment offered by mr. todd akin. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]
>> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman there were 36 aye votes, 25 no votes. >> the amendment is agreed to. if there are no further amendments the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson for the purpose of offering a motion. >> mr. chairman nye.two vote the subcommittee report for the subcommittee and military personnel as amended. >> questions on the motion of the gentleman from south carolina? so many as are in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. a quorum being present the ayes have it, the motion is agreed to. the committee will now consider provisions of the bill involving the full committee matters. pursuant to committee rule 17, the ranking member will postpone
all of the recorded votes on amendments until they and of the chairman's dark and i now turn to my good friend the colleague, mr. smith, for any comments ranking member may wish to make. >> not at this point and i look forward to the amendment process. i yield back. >> before entertaining any amendments is there any discussion on the chairman's mark? >> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from new jersey mr. lobiondo is recognized. >> mr. chairman, thank you. very briefly i would like to thank you for including section 352 which worked on and i want to also thanked chairman forbes. this would prevent the disestablishment of two of the 18 aerospace control alert locations and it establishes to consolidate budget exhibit for the aca mission and will require that a report provides a cost
benefit analysis and an assessment of the mission. i have always been an advocate of the aca mission which is a critical component of the homeland defense strategy. overturning the arbitrary proposal to draw down these two mission sites gives me assurances that the committee will continue to keep the safety of our country is a priority number one and will hold every service accountable to the facts and i thank you again mr. chairman very much. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster is recognized to discuss the chairman's mark. >> thank you russ or chairman and i would like to take a moment to thanked chairman mckeon and representative smith for establishing the defense ministry to enable us to take a closer look to the curved business environment faced by the defense. and also ms. sutton and miss hannah busek, and mr. shilling mr. runyon and
mr. west for their hard work on these important issues and finally i want to thank the recognize chairman grays from the small business committee for their partnership in the effort. the initiatives you will find in title xvi of the mark are the direct result of a focused effort by both committees. as most of you know the course of six months or panel travel around the country to hold seven roundtable discussions with companies they are trying to do business with the department of defense -- defense and the set of roundtable held dozens of hearings in order to better understand the challenges and obstacles businesses in particular small and medium businesses face in working with the department of defense. no matter where we went or what sector of the industrial base we met with we heard time and again that red tape and bureaucracy are getting in the way of efficiency and jobs. we detail their findings in a report along with several recommendations from the seven of us that we think can improve defense industrial base. i'd like to thank the chairman for including many of these
recommendations of the mark but i also recognize the need to get more done. after our first six months of work i can honestly say we have really only started to scratch the surface of these issues. it took over four years of hard work from goldwater-nichols act, before the goldwater-nichols act was developed in an attempt to ensure the military separated more jointly. we will continue to look for ways to spur innovation, foster competition strengthen our defense industrial base and with that i would like to yield the remainder of my time to mr. larson if he has a few comments. >> thank you mr. shuster. i will be brief. i do want to thank chairman shuster for leading the panel and mr. mckeon for setting it up in the panel members to put in a lot of time into the hearings and for the travel to a lot of places around the united states to see small businesses working everywhere with in the
defense community and all the small business is no matter where you would go would have the same challenges so a lot of these recommendations we heard are reflected in the report. finally i will just point out i want to thank the staff from the committee as well as their personal staff who has put a lot of time into making this work happen. created the work product, helped put it together and then took the recommendations and put them together in the mark. with that i yield back to mr. shuster. >> thank you mr. larson and with that i yield back my time. >> is there any other discussion on the chairman's mark? if not we will turn to amendments. i ask unanimous consent to follow up on the package of amendments that it can work in approved by the minority. if there is no objection they clerk will please pass out the amendments offered en bloc and without objection reading of the amendments will be dispensed with.
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> i will yield to myself to describe the amendments. this en bloc amendment is comprised of an amendment by the chair to make technical changes to the chairman's mark for section 1211 regarding coalition support of section 1532 regarding the task force for business and stability operations and amendment by -- bordallo to make a clarifying change to section 931 regarding a limitation uncertain funding
ending certification of the inventory or contracts for services has begun. the amendment died miss beer to require the dod inspector general to conduct a rule of dod ethics records as it relates to senior officials that sought employment with a defense contractor and amendment by mr. smith to assess risk associated with obsolete electronic parts and counterfeit thereof to the defense supply chain and amendment by mr. smith to allow exception for dod contractors who take certain percussions for aborting the use of counterfeit electronic parts and an amendment by mr. courtney to require a report outlining dod's plan to address the bonding -- findings of the dod inspector general report on veteran owned small businesses and amendment by ms. hannah busek to amend section with 129a of title x to require sufficient levels of government management oversight of functions associated with inherently governmental functions. and amendment by mr. andrews that would prohibit the dod from
locating call centers outside the u.s.. are there other members who wish to be recognized to discuss the en bloc amendments? is not the question comes on the en bloc amendments. those in favor say aye. the suppose they know. it appears the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. [inaudible conversations] >> are there any amendments? >> mr. chairman? >> mr. conaway. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will please distribute the amendment. without objection the rating of the amendment will be dispensed
with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> this is a pretty straightforward amendment. the daa of 2010 requires an annual military power report from the department of defense with respect to iran and our capabilities there. this amendment would ask that we would amend section 1245 to require that sitcom commanders also provide and annex either classified or unclassified report to that. i think it's important that we know the commander on the ground believes his cap abilities aren't his capacities are so that we understand from the field exactly what is happening. we have got certain programming requests provided to the committee that the committee is working through that gives some indication that there are
weapons systems and other capabilities and capacities that the current centcom commander believes he needs in order to counter iran and prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon so this was simply at a relatively insignificant burden to the centcom commander who we think is already involved in the assessment that this would provide an opportunity to give us his pacific guidance and best military judgment with respect to what his team has in place and what he believes his team needs to have in place across the entire spectrum of capabilities to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and with that i asked support of the amendment and i yield back. >> the gentleman yield to that. the chair recognizes ranking miniver smith from washington. >> thank you mr. chairman. i raise a simpler objection to this in the next three amendments. i'm quite certain the centcom commanders doing this and is requiring it in a law seems
unnecessary. therefore if we are interested in this i'm quite certain if we went to the centcom commander and a number of different folks in the department of defense at the pentagon week could get them to explain it to us. i don't know how burdensome it is and i don't know how much work it will take to put this report together but it doesn't seem necessary when this is something they are doing regularly. the next few amendments do similar things about north korea and china and other basis. the dod does threat assessments and they do them quite regularly whether traveling to that part of the world is simply going to the pentagon can avail themselves to explain that, requiring this legislation is unnecessary. i will oppose the amendment. >> with amendment. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will post the next three as well but i won't make the same speech. i will just up note the exception. >> would the gentleman yield for a moment? i would offer up the current reprogramming request and urge the operational needs coming from centcom with respect to the
capacities and capabilities in the gulf that we currently have under assessment and analysis to give some indication that information was not provided. the report from the department of defense said there are no gaps. they had everything they need in order to do what we want to do to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon and yet we give these re-program in requests and operational need request that counter to report that was given so i do think having a commander on the hook, giving us his best military judgment is an appropriate step in this regard. i appreciate your yielding. >> this isn't just about iran's nuclear program. it's about the military power in general and actually i agree with one portion of what the gentleman said. there were some programming requests the cayman specifically with the centcom theater. we asked for the centcom commander to brief us on the need for that. i think it took a couple of asks but eventually we got the brief and we got the report.
i think there is an easy procedure to do that shorter putting it into the language so with that i will yield back. >> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from virginia, mr. whitman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i stand in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas mr. conaway and i think he is spot on and making sure we are definitive in the information we need an annual report on military power just as he pointed out. there are shortcomings there and while we don't want to create additional work i do think understanding the strategic needs in meeting these threats is absolutely critical and the decisions of this committee is charged with making have to be made based on the best information available. if we are liking that or we don't understand the full scope of we are charged with because a report coming from the pentagon on military power such as iran especially with such a significant threat, if we are doing our job, so i do agree
with mr. conaway that we do need to be specific about the information that we need, especially from commanders like the commander of centcom to make sure we fully understand the scope of the needs in this region. by doing that we enable ourselves to make the best decision in the long run so again i strong in -- stand in strong support of this amendment offered by mr. conaway and i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, 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 general usefulness of what we have in front of this without writing something in the statute. obviously we are careful about reading these into statute and want to achieve what we desire but if there are ways to get to the same result without playing with the statute, it might be a better approach. it's not whether not we have the authority, is whether or not we
need to exercise in order to achieve the result. thank you. >> the gentleman kneels back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes for five minutes. >> mr. chairman of all the things we have talked about tonight this one i guess confuses me the most when i see my friends on the other side of the aisle not wanting this information. i have sat here through countless debates and when i've had one member on one side and one member on the other side debating issues, not knowing all the answers and wanted to ask staff particular things because they wanted to have the expertise of everything we do. if we can't come down and say, when it comes to iran, when it comes to china, when it comes to these issues, we want to go to the person that has all of that information, the best that anyone i would want to ask and that is their cocom commanders. i know with the china report for example which we are going to get to in just a minute, the wanted a china military power
report reporting that report has become so political that it's almost meaningless. we never get it on time and the reason is because it has to be consensus between d.o.t., the state department and the white house and time after time it is slowed up because it might be too harsh, and the language might not be exactly what should be. this committee, to every committee here, they're very thing we do, we ought to be saying i want that combatant commanders to give me an unabashed, unedited version, look at what we are asking for. we are asking for gaps in our capabilities, our capacity, gaps in our capacity and gaps in the authorities of the commanders to address the challenges related to the problem in their area. mr. chairman of everything we can do, even if it takes more time for them to do it, this is a crucial thing for us to have. it's important for us to have it and i just appreciate the gentleman for bringing this amendment. i hope that we will not only
have this amendment to the other two amendments as well because we 08 to ourselves, not to be guessing, who are we afraid to tell that we bump this information? of everything we are going to put in the statute, we have to put in the statute that before we make a decision we need to know the answers to these questions. mr. chairman i hope we will pass this one in the next two amendments as well to make sure this committee is armed with the expertise we need to have to defend and protect the united states of america and with that i yield back. >> the chairman yields back in the chair recognizes ranking member smith from washington. >> thank you mr. chairman. apparently i was not clear. i don't recall ever saying we do not want this information. that was not our argument. please don't tell us about the vulnerability from iran. the argument is information is available and i know mr. forbes and others do this as well. when i want this information they certainly don't wait until the get to the defense
authorization act every year and inserted into statute. they go and seek it and i encourage all members to do that. absolutely we have to have this information. i asked for information like this on a routine basis all yearlong and i'm served members of this committee do. to mischaracterize and say we don't really want this information isn't particularly helpful. i try to offer very straightforward argument here that we are requiring a report that we do not need to require to get the information that we need. all i'm saying, it's not a big deal. i will say one of the thing however. even if required with the statute and i'm sure mr. thornberry will attest, that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to seamlessly get it in exactly the form you would like from the pentagon. just like you have to fight for it when you ask outside of statute on many occasionsoccasions, all of us have had to fight even on stuff that is in the statute so i don't think this helps a lot. again i just think that the terrible mischaracterization to say in the argument that what we are saying is we don't want the
information. not saying that at all. just saying that the report is being included here is far from the best way to do it. it's unnecessarily cumbersome and it doesn't hate you any closer to the goals to lead straight to characterize the arguments accurately and we will do it more quickly through the evening. >> the gentleman kneels back in the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. renny. >> i would just like to offer my support for this amendment from the gentleman from texas to associate myself with the statement from the gentleman from virginia. with all due respect to the ranking member i understand what you're saying. i wonder what the burden is from actually doing this the way that we are trying to do it through this amendment. as opposed to the alternative. and for us that might not be the issues as the ranking member. the more information in of this venue in this way, the better for us to make the decisions we need to make and get all the
information especially if there is a gap with the commander versus the secretary of defense or the administration or what have you. i think it gives us an opportunity to be better informed. i'm not really sure what the downside is. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i yield to mr. forbes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and i just want to point out to the ranking member, there are other ways that we can go about getting this information but if they don't supply the information to us in the statute and he's exactly right come the china power report, we would never get it on time. i have to write letter after letter after letter asking to get the information but at least i have a statute that i can come back to and say this congress has asked me to give that information. it's not just one member asking for the information and i think this is so important, we ought to raise it to the elevation of putting it in a statute so when
i asked them they can't just ignore it and say were not going to answer your letter and were not going to answer your request so we can point to the statute and say you have got to give us this. that is why it is important for us to put it in there and i hope we will pass this amendment and make sure we have something we can point to and say not only is this information needed but you have to comply with what the congress of the united states has requested that you give us which is the opinion and the assessment of these co-con commanders. i yield back to the gentleman. >> the gentleman yields back in the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman. >> thank you to chairman. i certainly rise in support of the conaway amendment. we are on a collision course with iran much like the united states was on a collision course with the soviet union in 1962 over the missile crisis. and what i have found in this administration is they will
answer questions when it and only when it's politically convenient to do so, and i find that more often than not, i don't get responses from the administration on questions that i put forward in this committee. on the record. and so i think it's important to get this and statute. this is the most critical national security issue facing this country right now, and i think this is a very important amendment. him with that mr. chairman i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back in the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida for five minutes. >> i was going to yield time to mr. forbes if he needs it but i think he got from mr. renny so i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. any other discussion on this amendment? if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. conaway. so many of our favorable say
aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. are there any other amendments? >> mr. chairman? i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will please distribute the amendment without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> mr. chairman i hope we can save a little time here by incorporating by reference everything we just discussed on
centcom and iran by making two changes. this refers to north korea, north korea and a report done about the country by the commander of pay comp. those are the only two changes, otherwise it's the same issues, the same arguments, so i suggest we go right to a vote. >> the gentleman yields that. any other questions on the amendment? >> mr. chairman? >> i would add the same argument and i will know the same objection. >> if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment i mr. van horn of colorado. so many as our favorable say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. are there any other amendments?
>> mr. chairman to follow suit with the gentleman from colorado, this does the same thing to the china military power report or could it simply simply allows that same assessment rum are patcom commander and i'm happy to respond to any questions or debate. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington knows notes the same objection. any further discussion about questions on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. forbes? so many as in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. >> mr. chairman? >> we have another amendment on the desk. the clerk will please distribute the amendment. without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with.
the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia for the purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> mr. chairman one of the things that we have gotten out of the practice of doing sometimes in washington today is doing long-term planning and looking at some of the items that we need to do outside of just the six-month strategic analysis. one of the things that we have done very well in the past is to sometimes add cost imposition strategies and competitive strategies that we can use on other individuals or countries that might be competitive with us either on a military bases or any other typefaces down the road. the importance of doing this is it also helps us get analysis on how they could be using this dreams -- same strategy against us and what this amendment does is direct the office of net
assistant which is the think-tank group that does that for dod to detect conduct one of the studies within 365 days and identifying cost strategies focusing on potential challenges posed by certain foreign nations. i think this would be incredibly beneficial for us as a nation but i know it would be helpful for us as a committee to have that information and with that i hope we will pass this amendment and i'm happy to respond to any questions anyone might have. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the walk ranking member from washington mr. smith. >> this is another study. there is a great more detail in this one. it's not the best written thing i've ever read in terms of how it explains what exactly, what is the strategy here, cost imposing strategy is and isn't in and how it might apply to various potential adversaries, so i am not in love with the language. i think it's a little problematic but at this hour the
night i'm willing to say we can work on that when it comes to the floor and see if we can't make a little bit more clear and i will not object to this amendment at this time but i do have problems with the language and would like to work with the author as we get to the floor neck suite. >> mr. chairman? [inaudible conversations] >> it sounds like there is agreement unwilling to work on a. >> certainly happy to work with the gentleman. >> very good. >> the gentleman from virginia you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you is your chairman. i just wanted to say i believe the language is precise and it is clear and it is entirely appropriate and necessary and wise to ask for this study. and i would hope that it would
you know, be held before a vote and i will certainly supported when it comes to that. thank you and i yield back. >> any other discussion on the amendment? if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. forbes. so many as in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. are there any other amendments? >> mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will please distribute the amendment. without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman for purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman.
i intended to offer an amendment to the bill that would give dod the authority to offer preferences on large contracts to companies that subcontract with small domestic manufactures. i will withdraw this amendment that i do have a few points i wish to make. the panel on business challenges of the defense recognize the need for greater intention and d.o.t. contracts contracts and in fact the committee has taken steps to address some of the concerns and issues of daa. in their report the panel recommended we examine the potential benefit using contracting senate to increase small business contracting. i agree strongly with this recommendation amply further that we can and should tailor these efforts to manufacture these efforts to procure an industrial base and a bright future for small business. in particular is the co-sponsor of h.r. 3850 the government efficiency and small business contracting act i believe it is
appropriate for the federal government to ratchet up this small business contracting goals and penalize those departments that fail to comply. as part of this it's important to recognize critical investment of small-business manufactures make especially in rural areas and a good paying job to economically distressed communities. i look forward to working with leaders on the small-business community which i'm a member to further this effort in a broader way down the road. mr. chairman and ranking member smith i appreciate the guidance you in the committee staff have offered to my office on this issue and i welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter in the future. with that i move to withdraw this amendment. >> the gentleman withdraws his amendment. are there any other amendments? the clerk will please distribute the amendment. without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed
with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> mr. chairman this amendment is to try to rationalize and bring consistency to the total bill in a specific area. earlier this day we undertook a modification of the president's budget and required that the global block 30 remain in operation. there was a discussion by the committee and we accomplished that. is now in the bill and i assume it will stay and so the block 30s continue. the block 30s or proceeded in several bases around the world. one of the braces -- vases as an isr base in california. the u.s. navy recognizing the desire of the president to
remove the block 30s decided to reverse course and to move their navy version of the global hawk from deal or fair where it was originally to go and move it to the naval station in southern california. we have changed all that. we decided that the global hawk was going to continue and therefore the navy's desire, regional desire to stay in the field and then go to magoo no longer made any sense because we decided global hawks would continue and to be located and the synergy that originally led to the naval decision to go to med deal are still in place. in other words the reason is no longer in existence. so what we are talking about is to try to give all of us some time to understand what is going to happen.
we may or may not be able to continue the global hawk. while we are extending its life in this bill, global hawk block 30 we are extending its life in this bill and we are nonetheless moving a piece of the isr officially out of mcbeal. the amendment simply says we want the u.s. navy and air force to study the economics, to study the logistical issues, to study the synergies that can be created that were originally intended with the block 30 and the naval vamps system all located in one location at beale. that is what the bill does. it doesn't eliminate the notion that at some point in the future the block 30s would disappear or at some point in the future the navy will move two-point magoo. what we need to do is to make a rational decision based upon
what is actually going to happen if the block 30s continue. that it makes a lot of sense to have the synergies of these two simpler machines located one place where the isr assistance can be achieved with their maximum potential. if they are not going to have the block 30s appleby and next year's decisions and in any case we will have knowledge and that is what it's all about. the navy has come forward with a cost analysis that is not based on what they have in the legislation. the cost analysis the navy came forward with his based upon their and being no block 30 global hawks. we are saying there better be global hawks and their cost analysis is not consistent with what we are purported to do. we are asking for another study to figure out exactly what the real benefit to the military and our intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance is.
that is the amendment and i would ask for the support. in my view it makes sense to understand the full implications and to coordinate all the elements of our legislature. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman the of speck in the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and mr. chairman i hope we will reject this amendment. i certainly understand the gentleman's passion on this and all of us would want to keep a facility in our area. i have done that and i know almost every member here has done that and we always want a rational and reasonable analysis. in this situation i asked the navy for just that in the navy actually has done that in this case. in fact the analysis that they would say is that point magoo supports unrestricted flight operations. it enables direct access to restricted warning areas. provides lower lifecycle costs.
and just the study that the navy has given me, they talk about a cost savings of $56 million across and a 76 million-dollar savings across program service life. the big thing for them is unrestricted flight operations and a .2 one-time cost of this facility representing a $2.2 million savings over comparable facility at deal so mr. chairman i do understand the difficulty with when the navy has done their analysis and they say that this is the best option for us but in this case the navy has done it. they have made this request for us to take this. we are trying to say in your analysis when they have done it, i think it's important that we do pay attention to that and i think that is what the underlying marked us. i hope we will listen to the situation, it adhere to that and stay with say with stay with the market and reject the amendment although i certainly understand the gentleman's desire to fight for this. i'm happy to yield to the
gentleman. >> i thank the gentleman for the courtesy of yielding. if you would take a look at the navy's powerpoint presentation, comparison of magoo versus bielat air force base, look at explains that this analysis is based upon the block 30s disappearing. the legislation, that bill we are going to put out in a few minutes as lock 30s are not disappearing and therefore the original decision of the navy to take the bands to beale remains in place. those cost savings remain in place. what i'm saying here is take some time. we are going to keep the block 30s and the navy analysis as shown here is incorrect. if the block 30s disappear than the navy analysis is correct. there are other factors in this
study that i'm suggesting in the timeframe fits with the bill we are putting out here. let's understand what the synergies are and what the costs are if the block 30s to continue. it's that simple. >> reclaiming my time and i understand the gentleman's.. once again the navy feels pretty comfortable with their analysis of dod and i understand the administration does oppose this amendment and wants to move forward. they think it's critical from a timing point of view and with that i would leave everybody to vote how they feel that but i hope they would support this particular mark and i yield back mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from guam, ms. bordallo. >> thank you mr. chairman. i am for this amendment. the fy2013 budget request included 14.8 million for a bands maintenance training facility at beale air force.
on april 27, 2000th of a navy submitted a letter to the committee requesting the project be relocated from beale two-point magoo. the navy base this request on the cancellation of the air force is lovell hawk block 30 as well as the decision to move other global hawk activities from beale to grand forks north dakota. in the navy's opinion, the air force's decision would invalidate planned cost savings associated with co-locating navy bands with air force, global hawk at beale. now it would reverse the air force's decision to cancel global hawk block 30s which was cited by the navy as a justification for relocating the project from beale two-point magoo. the navy brought this request to the committee very late which is not provided sufficient time to
analyze or compare the cost of locating the facility at beale versus point magoo. what force structure may be necessary to support such a facility and how the move would impact joint training or readiness among other things. the garamendi amendment would provide the authority for the project which is a validated navy requirements while ensuring the committee has sufficient time to understand the implications the move would have on the cost for structure and readiness. so mr. chairman i support this amendment. and i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back in the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, for five minutes. >> thank you very much and i yield my time to mr. forbes. >> i thank the gentleman and i certainly have enormous respect for my ranking member in my good friend from guam. i will say after all the potential changes that are there, we did go back and ask for analysis in they did say
that they did. the second thing is that regardless, you still have a $2.2 million -- regardless of how you calculate that. with all that mr. chairman, with all due respect and needing to want to preserve everybody and whatever we have in every district i think this is important for the navy and hope we will support the navy's request and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. any other discussion on the amendment? if not the question is on the amendment offered by mr. garamendi. so many as in favor will say aye. so many as are opposed, no. the no's have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. chairman, mr. garamendi asked for a roll call for. a roll call is ordered and we will call the roll call at the end of the chairman smart.
chairman's mark echo i ask unanimous consent to call up and on blog package of amendments approved by the minority side. without objections so ordered. will the clerk sees pass out the amendments to be offered and block. with a reading of the amendments will be dispensed with. the amendment is comprised of an amendment by mr. -- regarding the inventory of contracts and services to require the special management attention being given to functions identified in and inventories closely associated to inherently governmental functions. the amendment strike section 82 of section 3155 which authorizes doe to participate in the management and operations of the company that receives the received the funding authorized by this section. the amendment by mrs. roby to
require the secretary of the air force to report no later than sufficient of the president's fiscal year 2014 budget request to congress, how the secretary will determine which c-130 aircraft will be retired or are relocated. the amendment by mr. larson to restore one person funding for the straight of expenses of the commercialization readiness program from dod. an amendment by mrs. tsongas to require the air force of the electronic system center at has come air force base for implementation of subsequent law providing foreclosure or realignment of military installations. is an amendment by mr. brooks to clarify the meeting of produced for the purpose of limitations on the procurement of specialty mantles produced for the purpose of limitations on the procurement of special medals by the d.o.t.. the amendment by mr. courtney to direct the gao to conduct a
study of the planning underway for the role of the u.s. military and the dod in afghanistan after 2014. amendment by mr. -- to review the methodology relating to costed performance by civilian employees, military personnel and contracts. amendment by mr. junta to require the secretary to provide a report to the appropriate congressional committees on various manning and organizations of the office of security cooperation iraq personnel. an amendment by mr. anders to require a written notice be submitted to congress prior to changing dod policy requiring financial disclosure for senior mentors. an amendment by mr. johnson to provide the sick terry of defense authority to transfer surplus mraps mraps a nonprofit u.s. humanitarian organizations. amendment by mr. dotson requiring the secretary tuned notified via letter with a report required by law will be
late. an amendment by ms. sutton to amend the strategic and critical material stockpiling act to expand a purpose statement to address not only foreign sources of supply but also single points of failure. an amendment by mr. turner to require the secretary of the air force to retain the core functions of air force materiel command that exists at the air force base in ohio. the chair now recognizes ms. roby from alabama for five minutes. >> thank you is to chairman. included this en bloc up and meant offered with representative conaway and representative blase. we know the previously authorize cuts are going to result in force production service granted i supported this spending reduction last year and i do not believe we should back way from that figure, however we have an
obligation on this committee to determine the reductions stemming from congressional action are carried out in an effective manner to save taxpayer dollars while maintaining our force capability. while we should show some deference to recommend his decision the pentagon as the congress and explanation of the methodologies that underlie its decision regarding force structure. this obligation should apply across the board on major -- like the abrams tank, the global hawk and the c-130. many members of this committee are frustrated by the lack of information coming from a air force regarding its relocation of the c-130 aircraft. since the air force released his proposed force structure changes earlier this year officials have offered incomplete information and conflicting arguments of about why these particular planes were targeted for retirement. with that in mind i want to thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue and for his inclusion of the language in this bill to postpone the
retirement or relocation of the c-130 aircraft until fy2014 and to produce the title number of the aircraft to be retired. i'm afraid if not addressed now the problem -- for example we were first told the c-130 will be inflated forward -- slated for retirement a fiscal year 2014 because of of their age and now we understand the aircraft are not being retired at all. they are actually being moved to another unit. there are more questions than there are answers and i'm not confident that the proposed changes actually represent the best plans for the warfighter or the taxpayer. a responsibility is oversight and that includes investigating the basis for decision-making. with that in mind representative conaway and i have introduced an amendment that would require the secretary of of the air force to conduct a review of the proposed c-130 fleet changes and to submit to congress and
explanation and debate for those changes. specifically the amendment would require fy2014 budget come the secretary of the air force report to congress on how he will determine which c-130 aircraft will be retired and relocated through fiscal year 2014 through 2018. the methodologies underlying such determinations including the assumptions that shave the big determination, the rationale for selecting various c-130 aircraft from the regular and reserve components and the details of the costs incurred or saved with respect to retiring or relocating c-130 aircraft. additionally, the amendment would require the taa to audit the secretary's report confirming the true costs and benefits of a planned retirement in relocation. this is a straightforward amendment so that this committee
receive quality information from the air force and will benefit our men and women in uniform and the american taxpayer. again i applaud the chairman for his leadership in a thank him for including this noncontroversial amendment and an block and i thank you and i yield back my time. >> the gentlelady yields becker time. is not the westin is on the adoption. >> mr. chairman? mr. palazzo, the gentleman from mississippi is is recognized. >> earlier this year we were saying force structure changes from the air force that seem to confuse everyone who read them. these changes move the airplanes from their reserve air guard active duty from all of the nation with little to no logic for the changes. along with the changes the air force proposed propose the retirement of c-130 ron dobbins reversed a -- reserve base outside of atlanta. in fiscal year 14 the air force plan to remove a reserve and active-duty squadron of c-130 jay from the air force base to
replace those retired c-130 h's. i asked the secretary of the air force about the costs including creating the infrastructure and the support active-duty personnel altering or building new hangars that can support this stretch aircraft and the considerations associated with the transfer in these aircraft to an area that has some of the busiest airspace in the entire world right there at the airport in atlanta georgia. at the time the secretary had no answers for me or anyone else. this leads me to believe that some of these concerns were never given any consideration before the decision was made. we simply cannot accept this type of risk. we need the air force to slow down and tell us exactly why this is going to save money and how these decisions were made. this amendment requires that analysis and those answers before the air force proposes any other moves by these aircraft so i think ms. roby and
the other co-authors of this amendment and i thank the chairman for accepting this amendment and block and i yield back a time. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california mr. garamendi, is recognized. >> i had not intended to speak on these amendments until my colleague spoke. i'm reminded of the admonition that mr. forbes gave to me about taking care of my district. and analyzing these amendments. the arguments that have been put forward by my colleagues most recently, they suggest that perhaps there are operational issues. there are financial issues and there are questions before changes are made. i had not intended to go to a vote on my amendment but given the strength of the arguments of my colleagues have made about the necessity of gathering information, cost, operational and implementation, i think i
will go to a vote and ask for their support as i support their amendments. for the purposes of gathering the necessary information to make a wise decision and i would add that this is based upon action taken by this committee to keep the global hawk in place. it was only after the global hawk disappeared that the navy made the decision to leave beale air force base and we have made a decision to keep the global hawk spare and therefore the naval decision doesn't make sense in that context. i would ask my colleagues to keep in mind that we have to study the matter and we have to understand all of the implications, the costs and the benefits and the integration of the isr issues since beale is first of all isr station on the west coast. so give us your consideration colleagues and i will ask for a vote when it comes time for my amendment and i will support
yours. >> the gentleman yields back. any other discussion on the amendment? if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by the chair. so many as are favorable will say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. are there any other amendments? >> mr. chairman i have an amendment at desk, with number 128. see the clerk will please distribute the amendment. without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey for the purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you is to chairman. we have had extensive discussion about the correct strategic reparation for possible hostilities with iran, with north korea, with the people's republic of china, and one
threat that i am sure will run through that proper strategic reparation is american domination of the air. and one aspect of that airpower under any circumstances is the b-2 bomber, the b-2 aircraft. my amendment addresses what i consider to be an unfortunate reprogramming, which took place in this program recently in the amount of $71 million, which is taken from the extremely high frequency vhf radio line pertaining to the b-2. the benefit of this vhf improvement is a 100 time improvement in the speed and quality of data flowing to the cockpit of the b-2 plane. so when we have our four fighters operating these aircraft and we want to give
them the essential information in real time as quickly as we can give it to them, the development of this technology, which is essential to the b-2 program, but increased 100-fold the quality and timeliness of this information. i think this is an urgent priority and i believe this funding should be restored. might offset is controversial. it is an offsetting $71 million from the research development test and evaluation and the ballistic missile offense midcourse defense segment. i understand that is a very controversial proposition, but i would put it in the strategic frame. we are using b-2 bombers as we speak, as we meet here tonight, americans are flying b-2 bombers and there is a high likelihood at some poin t