we can put it into a more important area for this year which would be the national guard and reserve. i ask a yes vote on the amendment. >> the chair will recognize himself. >> the national guard and reserve that wasn't requested by the administration to make sure that we meet their needs. when you cut advanced procurement, you increase the cost eight because that advanced procurement is the cheaper way to buy things. previously, the chairman characterized a similar amendment as more of a stunt than anything else and i think that applies to what we have here and we oppose this amendment. does anybody else wish to be heard on this amendment? the gentleman from california for two minutes. >> so you think it is a stunt to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on necessarily. is that with the chairman thinks this is?

really? to allocate a quarter of a billion dollars for a program that isn't going to be used is some sort of a stunt? i think not. >> i support this amendment. >> the gentleman from alabama recognized for two minutes. >> to echo with the chairman said, this is improvement of the committee and we need to not be throwing any more money in excess of the president's question. >> if there is no further discussion those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> further amendments mr. lamborn. >> i have an amendment 132 at the desk.

>> the clerk will pass out amendment number 132. >> while we are passing out the amendment let me give you an update. they are saying on the floor they will probably start the vote at ten and go until 11. i think you would like to not come back here at 11. so again, just a word of note

unless you have something really important to say, you don't have to say it. i'm not determinism what's important. mr. lamborn, the gentleman is now recognized for two minutes for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. this would fence off the funding for the cooperative threat reduction program. the flat reduction engagement account until the president certifies russia and china are complying with the obligation not to test under the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, which the president said he wants the u.s. to ratify there's nothing against that account hopefully this will never have to take effect but it's keeping their feet to the

fire you might say so the certification takes place that there isn't this kind of cheating on the testing by russia and china but they are actually complying with obligations not to test. i would ask for adoption of amendment 142. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. anyone wish to? >> i would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. it restricts the contribution to the test ban treaty organization pending the presidential certification and bans the use of contribution from lobbying or advocacy purposes. this really undermines the threat reduction and engagement regardless of the military significance of the noncompliance. this takes a program valuable to the cooperation on threat reduction and supports relationship building engagements intended to advance

the mission. the program supports the following weapons of mass destruction related activities and nonproliferation tauscher workshop bilateral or regional leaders and high-level exchanges are planning activities and tabletop exercises, so if it is well-intentioned but it goes too far i would urge my colleagues to oppose it. >> the gentleman yields back. anyone else wish to speak on the amendment? >> ms. sanchez? >> thank you mr. chairman. the comprehensive test ban treaty organization is intended to act as a deterrent to prevent states from engaging in activities that are inconsistent with u.s. interpretations regarding the obligations under the treaty. so to withhold funds, the u.s. capability to ascertain whether or not prohibited activities are being engaged in invites other

states predisposed to do so to engage in such activities. there are no provisions in the organization's financial rules and directives that permit a state from designating where funds from the in annual assessment may or may not be spent. we have actually withheld portions of the u.s. contribution in the past which only serve to build up the edge of that the voting rights and harold. because of the strong bipartisan support even in the previous administration when this occurred we took steps to pay our bills ensuring the continued influence in the development of the imf. so i would ask my colleagues if you believe in working through and trying to figure out nonproliferation of nuclear weapons in the world, please

vote against this amendment. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. >> i yield time to ms. lamb bourn. >> i speak fifa lady from texas. we haven't entered into the comprehensive test ban treaty that we have given money to the organization that seeks compliance around the world. we've given up money to the tune of about $100 million. so that is very generous to this program that you are speaking in favor of this for a treaty we haven't even ratified. that is plenty of money so far. let's get back to making sure the president certifies that russia and china are complying with their obligations not to

test showed this treaty ever go forward as far as we are concerned otherwise it is meaningless for us to think about entering. i would strongly urge the support of this amendment and i disagree with my colleagues could i urge the adoption and yelled back. >> if there is no further discussion on the amendment, the question is on the adoption law offered by mr. lamborn of colorado. in favor say aye. opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and roll call is requested. that will take place at the end of this section. any other amendments? mr. rogers? >> thank you. amendment 207. well footwork pass out that amendment?

without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering his amendment. >> this is simple and straightforward. when the s.t.a.r.t. treaty was affirmed and ratified by the senate it specified the administration would within 40 days of implementation have to provide a report to the congress on how it was developing and with a plan to do going forward, that report was supposed to be within 40 days and is now 18 months late with the president put out a $75 million this year for the implementation of the store. all my amendment says is he's not getting the $75 million the congress gets in this report and i would urge the members to support this amendment and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. does anyone wish to speak on the mend and?

no further questions. >> you are recognized for two minutes. >> am i reading this correctly that the united states government cannot spend any money to carry out the requirements of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty? >> the united states cannot want. >> am i reading this correctly the government cannot spend money that the department of defense cannot spend money to carry out the requirements to the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty? >> the with the correct until we get the report but will all require years they have to provide the contras what they would want us to do with the money. with the administration is doing if they can give $75 million that they won't say what they are going to do with it.

our responsibility is to make sure that we are informed before the appropriate funds. that is all we are asking. provide us the report to 18 months ago and we will give you $75 million. period. >> it's been a very interesting process. >> the gentleman yields back. >> no further discussion on this amendment. if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. rogers. so many in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the amendment isn't agreed to. roll call vote has been requested. are there further amendments? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> number 238. will the clerk please pass out the amendment? >> without objection the reading of the amendment will be

dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from tennessee for offering and explaining his amendment. i didn't speak on the last amendment because my friend and colleague of the subcommittee is exactly right the at a fenestration should do its paper work on time. sometimes there are extenuating circumstances but this amendment puts the very important treaty implementation in a more positive and productive light. this is a very significant treaty that passed the senate on an overwhelming basis in 2010 on a 71-26 vote. this isn't something that should be taken lightly. those of us that believe in the constitution because the senate has the treaty ratified in power. it's possible to be implemented until 2018. a lot of work needs to be done between now and then.

we don't want to go back to the days of the cold war. this is our opportunity to cut u.s. russia and the world relationships on better footing by allowing the implementation of a u.s. ratified treaty to be no treaty is perfect but i think that by restoring funding for implementation of the treaty would be a very sensible and a bipartisan foreign policy of would urge my colleagues to consider supporting this amendment to restore funding for the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. you do not have to be in obama supporter, you just have to be in favor of ds que leading the remaining cold war tensions. i would be happy to yield to the gentleman. >> i would say as i read a down until i get to the last two sentences, you pay for all these good things by taking money away

from them equally good things. for instance the last line, increased the life extension program by $9.5 million. that is a nuclear stockpile -- >> we are trying to find offsets in the subcommittee. there are better places to find offsets i would agree with the gentleman but we are on the same page if you agree with the first part we are more than halfway home. so finding inappropriate offset i would be delighted to work with the gentleman. the key part of the first section this is a bipartisan good government effort to allow the u.s. to pursue a ratify the treaty. i see that my time is expired. in the gentleman from alabama is recognized. >> i have a great respect for my colleague but when they give us the report and tell us how we are led to spend the money i'm

not opposed to the treaty but we are not going to give them any money if they don't tell us what you're going to do with it. >> the gentleman yields back. i heard mr. cooper say he would be happy to work with mr. lamborn. it sounds like there was room for agreement. would you be willing to withdraw this amendment and work for a full committee or how do you want to proceed? >> [inaudible conversations]

>> the chair will have to be involved. it will be if you work something out. >> unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. no objection, so ordered. the further amendments, mr. lam arn -- >> mr. rogers has an amendment. unanimous consent to call the amendments that have been worked and approved with the minorities that. >> without objection, so ordered. will the clerk pass out the amendments to be offered. without objection, leading the amendments will be dispensed

with. the gentleman is recognized for two minutes for the purpose of offering and explaining the and what amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. comprised of the following amendment 47 by mr. lamborn. on the ground-based interceptors amendment number 52 by ms. sanchez on the particular nuclear weapons in the new states. 59 by ms. sanchez on the cost estimates of nuclear forces and amend and 78 on the russian tactical nuclear weapons. amendment 81 by mr. frank's on the potential procurement. amendment 107 by mr. lamb bourn on at nado founding. amendment to ten by mr. langevin on the procurement of certain missile defense kill vehicles and to 14 on additional reporting on a the accountability report. amendment to 41 stating that sense of the congress on the

other degette anniversary of the missile defense and 254 by mr. kaufman on the cost, testing of missile defense components and 255 by mr. rogers for section 3114 of the base bill. that is about as fast as i can speak mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. is there any further discussion on the amendment? if not the question is on the in the block amendment offered by mr. rogers. those in favor say aye. opposed, no. the amendment is agreed to. are there further amendments? >> mr. rogers has an amendment number 206. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> please pass out the amendment. >> without objection the reading and the amendment will be

dispensed with. estimate the chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. this addresses one of the concerns brought up earlier today and that is that there has been some discussion that the president may try to enter into an agreement with russia on dropping below the treaty levels that then not take that agreement to the senate for ratification. what we would be doing is making a statement of policy that such reductions would not be made or authorized by the congress to be paid for in the absence of the administration going to the treaty process. with that i yield back. >> does anyone wish to speak on this amendment? mr. cooper, the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. >> i have the highest regard for my friend from alabama, and i do not want to upset the coming

together on the support for implementation of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. but i think it would be shortsighted to just stop with the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty and prevent further possible nuclear weapons reductions. we don't know if any such agreement can be struck. that is a very iffy situation but i think the heavyweight foreign policy consensus whether you are talking about george shultz or james schlesinger, very respected republican voices we need to be open to the possibility of a better world. and i'm worried that statutory language like best is not only an unnecessary constraint on any teacher provident, also limits this president and his ability to perhaps reach a better deal. here i am not personally talking about global zero or anything like that but 800 is not a magic number. there are possible numbers that are slightly lower than that that can enable us to get

multiple targets multiple times. but this is a restricting amendment so i would urge my colleagues to oppose it. i think it bars reductions near these levels and why it takes that sort of preemptive action when we haven't even implemented the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty yet i think it is just a pessimistic view of the world and i yield back. >> any further discussion on the amendment. >> mr. johnson for two minutes. >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. it undermines the president's authority to reduce nuclear weapons such reduction would support national security. and it also micromanage is the requirements in the era of sequestration where we should be

looking to reduce unnecessary expenses. there is no reason we would pursue a high number of delivery vehicles if it isn't prudent from the defense standpoint to do and i think the president should retain that a ability to manage the were nuclear system in that way. i also think that it fosters the implementation examining nuclear forces, the nuclear force requirement that may lead to further nuclear weapons reductions. those reductions i believe are necessary steps to increase

support for the nonproliferation objectives which the united states of america supports. so it usurps the authority of the secretary of defense and strap commander whether they would allow such a reduction and this amendment is also unconstitutional. with that i would yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. any further discussion on this amendment? >> those in favor say aye to be opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> the vote has been requested.

any further amendments? amendment number four. will the clerk please pass out amendment number four. without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. this provides none of the funds authorized to be appropriated may be used to consolidate the

basing of the dual capable aircraft that are based in europe until 90 days after the defense certifies to congress that the russian federation has carried out similar consolidations with respect to its capable aircraft and the secretary has certified the member states of nato and there is a consensus for that consolidation. this amendment is relatively simple. members of the committee are aware of the nuclear triad and they are based at land which includes the icbm and delivery vehicle includes the dual capable aircraft that are protest for nuclear weapons. it is the manner in which we have delivery vehicles in europe without the dual capable aircraft you do not have our participation pity we weaken our european allies by doing so there is concern that the air force is planning to withdraw the aircraft in europe.

it chairman turner and rodgers and myself and the chairman wittman wrote a letter to the chief of staff voicing our concern that this amendment would prohibit that unless the situations were satisfied. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. from new jersey you are recognized for two minutes. >> i would like to speak in opposition to this amendment to dividing comments go to the whole series of amendments we have been hearing on this issue of strategic forces. putting aside the differences on substance, i think there's a lot of these amendments are based upon a defective constitutional promise. there's a reason the constitution gives us the responsibility to raise a standing army and provide for the common defense. what makes the president the commander in chief and does not

give us managerial and operational control over how to organize and manage the military. the president, no matter who it is, has access to current information and intelligence and operational situational awareness that we never what and the differences of our institutions. and so we are given the role of the power we are not given the will of micromanaging which assets to use where and when i could be wrong and out this. but i don't think the committee in 1991 passed statutes that said which troup alignments george h. w. bush had to have been too late. in the late nineties we didn't pass the statutes that told president clinton for the structured forces should be in bosnia or kosovo. when we were engaged in the war there was an effort to set a

deadline for the withdrawal but no one ever told president george w. bush would naval assets to cut off the persian gulf. this is mike rohm managerial. you might agree or disagree with the substance. this is the long haul for the legislative branch and for that reason we should vote no. >> the gentleman yields back. anyone else wish to speak on this amendment? >> if not, the question is on the amendment offered by mr. turner. so many in favor will say aye. opposed, no. >> better get some other people in here. the noes have it and we have a request for a roll call vote to

the are there any other further amendments? mr. lamborn? >> i would offer -- >> please pass out that amendment. without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. the national nuclear security administration, or nnsa has a requirement that by 2019 they have prolonged the life and upgraded the be 61 nuclear warhead. and to make sure that they have

the proper incentive to follow through on this, we would withhold funds from another one of their programs if they are lagging in meeting this requirement of theirs. hopefully this but never have to take effect. hopefully they would be prompt and diligent and carry out the responsibilities that we have given them. as of this was a just say that 20% of the funding for another program, the global start production initiative would be withheld as long as it can't be certified that they are complying with the timeline to finish by 2019. with that i would ask for the adoption of this important amendment. >> anyone wish to speak on this amendment? >> thank you mr. chairman. i would frankly divert the ranking member of the committee. i would yield my time to him. >> the gentleman is kind.

after success from the last vote, i was hoping you would speak your magic words here today. to continue your team come alive friend, the gentleman from colorado is i think really micromanaging the nnsa in the year of sequestration, remember, the pressure we are already putting on these folks to have various offenses it's almost torturing the government workers, the public servants, who are trying to administer these programs. ..

it's not like we give it all to the president and stand back. >> i certainly agree that succeed in all our power would be foolish. the power to appropriate or not appropriate funds for certain programs to declare war if asked, to conduct oversight of the committee's executive range, making decisions about what weapons can be used where, by whom and when. and the vietnam war days, one of the most cogent crises to london johnson as he chose bombing targets in the white house. most people agree that was a bad idea. i think it's wrong for the same

reason. >> the gentleman's time is expired. any other comments? mr. garamond be -- garamendi is recognized for two minutes. >> at that juergen is a recommended and that would make me very happy. thank you, mr. chairman. the global threat program is one of really dealing with loose nukes and nuclear materials, plutonium and other highly enriched your brain and that is out there somewhere and this is an effort by the united states working really with russia to try to rein in to capture and otherwise not let that be available. i think that's rather important. perhaps a greater threat than some of the others we talked about here is that loose nuke threat. everything from dirty bombs to build bombs are possible. this particular amendment really

threatens the reduction or the elimination of one of our greatest threats. >> would the gentleman yield? be back in a moment. last time i did that i didn't get back to my argument. but to be 61 lep is highly controversial because the costs have quadrupled and the time frame has been moved significantly forward. so what you've managed to do what this amendment is to get a real threat that is the reduction of a real threat upon the timely, in your view, the timely extension of the be 61 bomb, the lep, that doesn't quite equate. one that really put us at risk. i understand why you want to get the b-61., but don't get it done

at the expense of reducing the threat. i yield back for seconds. >> the gentleman yields back. gentleman from arizona recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. would like to yield to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. >> quickly respond by saying the first words out of my mouth is hopefully this should never have to take affect. we should be able to do both. we will know within 60 days they been able to comply. they have to produce a certification in 60 days. i think they can do and should do it. both of these things are important, so we have to get these done. given the importance come i would say we need to adopt this amendment. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> any further discussion on the event? if not, question on the adoption

offered by mr. lamborn come as so many in favor will say tran nine. those opposed, no. the ayes half-baked beard recorded vote vote is requested. next an amendment by mr. rogers paired with a clerk please pass out that amendment. without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes such a moment for the purpose of offering and explaining his amend them.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. you're going to notice here with this, i wholeheartedly agree with my ranking member that this committee asked for too many reports for the defense department and wind up spending a lot of money on report that sometimes are not necessary. when we do deem a report necessary, we expect the administration to comply. in the last nda, we asked the administration for a study on china's nuclear weapon program. and now was to be completed by august 15th at this year. and they haven't even started on it. what this amendment does is give them an extra year, but south america defense of 25% travel money until you start the study,

but we get an extra year to finish it. i do hope you will agree with me, the only way we can get these people to do what they're supposed to do is support you do this amendment. >> and on which you speak on subject? mr. cooper is recognized for two minutes. >> again, regarded for my chairman. as marmite or management and use of fat. remember what pentagon officials have been going for recently. no one thought sequestration would take place. it is in place and now they are furlough in a place like crazy with 802,000 dod employees now basically getting 20% pay cuts. this is a very awkward time. i've are at the gem on the urgency of the chinese start till done. threatening 25% loss of funding is excessive, but due to the gentleman's great working

relationship i'm inclined to let this one pass. hopefully there won't be too many more of these. >> the gentleman yields back. anyone else to speak on the subject? think it's great they fix next to each other and disagree on every amendment so agreeably. if not, question on the adoption offered by mr. rogers from so many us are in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. rollcall i'm not amend it. next amendment tightness in chest of california number 055. while the clerk please pass that amendment out? without objection, reading of the amend that will be dispensed with.

the gentlelady is now recognized for the purpose of offering and explaining her amend that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is dearly directive report language to seek an independent report on extended nuclear deterrence and assurance, particularly at a continued role nonstrategic nuclear weapons and providing military and political contributions to extended deterrence for the u.s. allies. the department of defense and nsa are planning what amounts to about a 10 to $12 billion life extension program for the b-61. this is a costly program,

especially if alternatives might exist that would reassure our allies otherwise. so what the objection to congress receiving information and seeking an independent report to better understand the extended deterrence, political versus military value of forward deployed nuclear weapons and whether they may be cost effective alternatives, especially when we have an environment, so this clearly directs the secretary of defense to request a report about what other alternatives we might have before we go down this road of spending $12 billion on our nuclear weapon. and i yield back. >> thank you. the gentlelady of spec. gentleman from ohio, mr. turner for two minutes. >> speaking in opposition to the amendment, this is what we know

about our deterrent relationship between the u.s.a. nato. over the past two years, nato has affirmed three times the role played in deterrence, the obama administration has been patently affirmed the importance of reassuring allies and the issue of making sure we have a nato nuclear umbrella. this amendment appears to be asking for an independent entity to study some teams nato and the united states have already independently studied and concluded similarly. both nato and united states concluding it is important to retain nato as a nuclear alliance. i opposed this amend and then asked my colleagues to join me. >> the gentleman yields back. anyone else wish to speak on the sub checked? adoption of the amendment offered jaime sanchez.

so many us are in favor will say aye. those opposed no. no's have it. the amendment is not agreed to. next amendment is also by ms. sanchez, number 057. while the clerk please pass out that amendment. by the way, 10:00 is a stretched goal. [laughter] without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. gentlelady is now recognized for the purpose of offering and explaining her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would reduce funding for nuclear weapons sustainment and nsa by $220 million beyond the budget request. the mark as an additional

$220 million above the budget request. the acting nsa miller testified to the strategic forces in april that they needed no additional funding beyond the budget request. spain, and i quote, the president's budget adequately funds all the activities would need to of the weapons activity account, including programs that we have to meet the requirements for the department of defense. so when a time of sequestration of limited budgets, et cetera, i think it would behoove us to not add $220 million beyond what the administration say they can use. i also want to add that this wine has had incredible increases over the last few

years. for example, there was an 8% increase over fiscal year 13 novels to the fiscal year 14 budget when all the other agencies are being cut. i think it is prudent for us to be able to say there are places where we don't need to be throwing money and this is one of the areas where our administration has said they have more than sufficient amounts to get the work done for the year. i would ask a yes vote on this amendment and i yield back. >> the generally deals back. mr. rogers recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i opposed this amendment. in order to win ratification for the s.t.a.r.t. treaty in 2010, president obama made a commitment to fund modernization of nuclear infrastructure and sap out of certain models. in section 1251 the president committed to 8.4 billion to the

nsa weapon activities to strike this would be inconsistent with the president's commitment to congress jury jim novo. >> the gentleman yields back. gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the chairman of the subcommittee already said i'm going to stick to the first line on the b-61. we just adopted an amendment requiring nsa to certify they are getting this done by 2019 because it's so important. our nuclear weapons have detained paste the radioactive material decays over time and some of the materials in these warheads have deteriorated or based on obsolete technology like transistors. they don't have the security safeguards built into them here drop those reasons we need to move ahead on the in-flight

b-61. that first linux is a poor amendment. this is almost getting dangerous. i would urge a strong no vote. i yield back. >> any other comments on this amendment? gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for two minutes. >> to be 61 -- b-61 keeps coming up. the b-61 program is escalating and caused and complexity. it is principally a weapon designed for tactical use in europe for nato and we are bearing the entire cost in nato is bearing virtually none. his program is well over $10 million now, likely discussed a few moments ago and what we are trying to do here is bring some rationality to this

life extension program. it is like forget about what is going to cost. we need more and more nuclear weapons. there is no limit on how many we need and how much money we can spend to meet the requirement. we need to be a little bit cautious about what we are heading whole hog into doing and that is to rebuild every one of these weapons to put them in storage when most would indicate they are not necessary at that number. what the author is trying to do is to rein in and i'm right old desire to spend an unlimited amount of money on rebuilding every nuclear weapon that we could possibly even think about meeting. that doesn't make much sense.

we are cutting desperately needed programs on the domestic side and we are building weapons to remodel and rebuild these weapons that are god help us never going to be used and fire more than are needed for strategic defense. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> mr. thornberry from texas cannot recognize her two minutes. >> is important to set back for a second. start was ratified on the can nation we spend more money to take care of weapons left. no one is talking about increasing weapons. no one is talking about an unlimited amount of money for weapons. while we talk about is average age of our weapons is more than 25 years to think about a 25-year-old machine you've got to keep in perfect working order, perfectly saved to

perform just like you think it is, but you can never test it. now that is the challenge here as mr. lamborn said as these machines age, as things decay, that is hard not to expensive, but we'll have fewer of them, so that means taking care of the ones left is not much more important. if were going to keep a tryout come you have to have weapons that sit on airplanes. you have to have weapons that saddam missiles underneath this the end you have to have land is missiles. the b-61 this one of those. if you decide we don't need a tryout anymore, if you think the nuclear weapons are irrelevant as you look around you at north korea and iran are doing coming of a different view of the world than i do. the basics are we agreed with the russians we have a lot fewer, but we have to spend more to take care of what is left

because if you don't, our whole nuclear deterrent has to be a question. reductions of the suggestion are dangerous and if were going to have this many fewer, which have qualms about commode got to make sure we take care will be god. i yield back. >> if not, questions on adoption of the amendment offered -- pardon me. ms. tsongas' recognizer two minutes minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield my time to mr. v. [laughter] >> sometimes it seems as though my purpose is to upset the chairman, but we need to understand the number of nuclear weapons that we think we need has to do with the fact we think not all of them might work. and therefore, we have

additional weapons and missed out while as well as deployed on the potential that a number of weapons won't work and therefore we have what amounts to an overkill when in fact if one of them worked we would have plenty of kill. but if we go through the life extension program in a rational way, we don't need to have as many weapons because we then have a higher level of certain tea that a single weapon will work. so what ms. sanchez is trying to do is bring about rationality. we do not have been on a minute amount of honey available forever program in this nation's desire. so why are we putting far more money into this start piling into this weapons system than we actually made because we will need as many when the life extension programs work. were trying to create some rationality and how we spend money in that of throwing it

into the systems. i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. mr. turner, gentlemen from ohio for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sometimes there's information misleading us could have clarification. i'd like to ask mr. morrison the question of whether nato pays costs with respect to nuclear deterrent. >> mr. turner, while details have to be discussed in a different environment, it is the case nato does the cert site costs of maintaining weapons in europe. >> sera, those are u.s. weapons. the united states bears the weapons of those costs. >> the gentleman yields back. >> any further discussion? if not, questions on the

adoption of the amendment offered by ms. sanchez. so many of weber will say aye. those opposed will say no. >> mr. chairman, you just required me to ask for a recorded vote. >> a recording but was requested and we'd be happy to comply. any further amendments clicks yes, mr. larson, number 011. will the clerk had thought that amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> without objection, reading will be dispensed or.

pitcher not recognize the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> i apologize for that. i offer amendment 011. i will withdraw it. i want to make a point about non-proliferation. section 1004 of the mark authorizes the dod to transfer 150 million only to support nuclear weapons programs. this provision in the mark cherry pick supported nuclear weapons programs benefited from setting significant increases in funding and non-proliferation naval reactors have stayed flat or decrease. defense non-proliferation decrease by 20% in fy 14 compared to fy 14 appropriations. the amount but love the dod authority to support any or all nsa programs, not just weapons activities that might have a funding gap for national security requirement including

naval reactors developing and manufacturing to react her for the nuclear submarine and defense non-proliferation programs to support reducing the risk of nuclear material for nuclear weapons spreading to other countries or terrorists. this would be in line. the man that would be a minute deity supporting post-cold war threats and requirements. mr. chairman, after discussing with the chairman of the senate committee, i am offering this amendment and withdrawing this amendment, but appreciate the opportunity to make this point. probably a debate further on the floor next week on the bill. was that i withdraw the amendment. >> john asks unanimous consent. no objections toward her. >> next amendment number 009 for

mr. larson. if the clerk will pass that amendment now. >> without objection, reading of the men will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman -- his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a 009. two minutes become this. this amendment strikes so-called improvements in the mark to the defense nuclear facilities safety board. it plays a crucial and conducting oversight to ensure adequate protection for workers at nuclear complex i inserted my home state of washington to hanford nuclear complex. board provides biased recommendations due department of health and safety nuclear

facilities section 3202 would authorize the department to require that were to provide cost-benefit analysis of each recommendation of forage. this requirement however undermines the main focus of the board. the requirement currently we can safety oversight by detracting from an undermining the board's current mission is focusing on ensuring adequate protection for the facilities of workers taking into account economic feasibility for not providing cost-benefit analyses. two key reasons for the committee to consider supporting this amendment. it's costly. this would break the budget. the board estimates the case ability would cost at least $5 million for new personnel and contractors equivalent to over 16% of the board's total $29 million budget. 16% hit to its budget and era of

sequestration means more time and studies, less time on the import work for the board. the department of energy decides whether and how to comply with board recommendations. as the d.o.e. and nsa control the problem, the board cannot presuppose how the d.o.e. will address the problems unless the board does not have enough information to provide cost analyses asked for the mark. i have support for this amendment. thank you very much. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. rogers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to have to oppose this amendment. as distillers in this to it he a bank breaker. the fact is only those recommendations specified to the cost benefit analysis to be required to comply. the language is important because if there was board recommendation it was

inordinately expensive battle by nominal improvements in safety. it would be unreasonable. it's reasonable to allow those recommend nations only for the secretary of energy says they would like to see cost-benefit analysis would it be required. i would urge the defeat of this amendment. >> the gentleman yields back. any other discussion on this and it? if not, the question is offered by mr. larsen. so many have learned weber will say aye. those opposed no. the no's happen in the amendment is not agreed to. recorded vote has been requested. we will do this at the end of the mark. and now we have the men and number 010 also for mr. larsen. will the clerk please pass the amendment out?

without objection, reading of the men and will be dispensed with. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington for the purpose about rain and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mass consent. this is sub 7010. it strikes dirty 112, which would give the secretary of energy the authority to fire any employee kulaks and a member that endangers nuclear material. certainly a section like that would seem to garner any and all support from the members of this committee, but a couple points to remember. there is no recourse included in the mark. the employer can only submit and

no appeal is allowed. this would give the secretary authority to fire an employee. the lack may lead to capricious or arbitrary termination without proper evidence and could have a chilling effect on employees who may be less likely to voice can answer disagreements if they fear being unilaterally terminated. is overly broad but would be the definition of a minute that endangers a special nuclear material or classified information. a direct definition of that so is overly broad. the secretary has the authority to terminate employees must follow due process. wary country of law and due process and i encourage the committee to continue being support in terms of this amendment. the provision is modeled and a lot to intelligence agencies that would be unprecedented for any other agency and i would ask the committee to support this event and 010 and with that i

yield back. thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. rogers of alabama for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the reason why the language in the base were out of the way to security previously had in 2012 and what the ranking member and i found in our committee is no one was held responsible for leading an 80-year-old nun getting to a nuclear facility. we were asking the different folks that came before us, has anyone been held responsible? basically they say we can't fire them. that's silly. we're talking about nuclear materials here. it is only reasonable for us to get these people latitude to terminate somebody when egregiously breached their responsibilities. that's all we ask in this bill. i would urge you to reject the

amendment. >> chairman is exactly right. this arose from secretary chu told us it limited power to discipline the folks that created real problems at the nuclear facility, allowing an 82-year-old nun to get into the building place to 70 year-old fires. i am worried to my friend and colleague makes an excellent point that scott to be specific enough language. what i've learned as a result of the scandal is to allow someone to be fired if it is the last classified information somehow goes beyond nuclear material. i am worried the language needs to be reworked. i urge my colleagues to support the larsen amendment and mayor of this language and get it down to something sensible.

>> any further discussion on the amendment? >> mr. chairman. >> mr. turner from ohio for two minutes. >> thank you. this language did arise out of a hearing. secretary potter maimed as a result of this none having gotten through the security systems into a facility outside where she splashed around led in protest of nuclear weapons, had numerous personnel failures that allowed that to happen. i asked secretary potter men since no one had been held accountable if you had an employee responsible for the failure of every security system in place allowing someone to get into the facility, to the buildings holding nuclear material nuclear weapon, would you terminate them? i am unable to answer question

because rules and regulations do not give me the authority to make that decision. that is crazy. if someone is personally responsible for all of the failures of all the systems, our laws don't allow them to be terminated, so this provision i appreciate the ranking member and the marquis sayeth the marquis theater rises to that level they can be held accountable. i yield back. >> on the amendment. if not question is on the amendment offered by mr. larsen. so many ads are in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the no's have it in the amendment is not agreed to. >> mr. chairman, that recorded vote. >> recorded vote has been requested. we will carry that at the end of the session. we have been amendment now for mr. b.c. from texas number one or da.

will the clerk please pass out the amendment? without objection, reading of the amendment will be great. the chair now recognizes for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment pared >> mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to offer this amendment that will increase the safety of workers that nsa facilities. by now but will strike 3120 to mandates principles for pilot cossiga program at nonnuclear nsa facilities in kansas city, missouri to at least two other plants that may be involved and much more high-risk operation dealing with nuclear materials and toxic chemicals. i understand how some cost savings are that they should not be occurred at the expense of nsa employees. managers at the kansas city

facility should be commended at their site, but mandating the expanding of the experimental program to nuclear and high risk high hazard facilities is unacceptable. section 2124 says change without the committee having the benefit of knowing the risk and benefits of such a change and risk weakening the safety oversight to change long-standing safety standards required by congress that will put in place accidents from high hazard nuclear operation at d.o.e. sites. we have tried this approach and failed los alamos where they had a machinist exposed to higher levels of the material when they still went undetected for weeks. don't believe that is the way we want our workers to be exposed

and i was yelled back but definitely urge favorable support of this amendment. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. rogers is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have to oppose this amendment. in april of 2006, nsa for a streamlined management and oversight of the plan. this program shifted away from alliance on directives of the department of energy and third-party certification in astro standards impossible. for pilot programs has a high standard operations in scope and an assessment from independent consulting firm gone after one year the program rd to save $14 million. this is what we need to be expanded, so i urge you to reject this amendment. >> any discussion on the amendment? question on the adoption

offered, so many us are in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. no's have it. the amount is not agreed to. >> i would like to request a record vote for the safety amendment. >> roll call vote requested. we will take care of that at the end of this session. now we have in amendment for mr. lynch again. number 209 r2 with the clerk please pass the amendment now? [inaudible conversations] the chair now recognizes the

gentleman for the purposes of offering and explaining his amendment for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a combined effort with mr. garamendi and we ask consent to combine amendment 209 and 219. but basically, this deals with a good government amendment to make sure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely due to significant cause increases of nsa programs, taxpayers will be well served by having the cost testament and evaluation program on the secretary of defense review its cost estimates and analysis of alternatives than i urge support of the amendment. >> i understand this is a combination of your admin and an

mr. garamendi's together? as a look at this, they look like good men ends. we would like to accept them. if you want to call a roll call vote. all in favor say aye. opposed? congratulations. thank you very much. now we have the next command and number 224. can the clerk please pass that amendment now. that is mr. v. -- garamendi. [inaudible conversations] without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the

gentleman from california for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment number 224. >> mr. chairman, in 1992, there was the last extensive study of the reason for a triad. and all of the elements about why we have a triad is suffering land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range bombers. that is long, long ago that that study was undertaken. since that time, there has been no comprehensive study of the utility of a triad. both the utility of having the three or how much of any one of the three elements would be useful in today's world.

it's a long time since the soviet union has left this planet. pressure remains a significant issue as does china and perhaps we could add iran and north korea. but the triad is essentially a 30-year-old idea come a program we continue to support her. this amendment simply asks for a serious study of the triad to cost the utility, the necessity of the triad. and it directs the comptroller general of the united states to conduct the study. that's it. we really have to know in this modern two-day world how the triad fits with the node to and i would ask for a aye go. >> the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from alabama -- miss alabama. [laughter] the gentleman from alabama -- >> where did you miss the mark. have you seen miss alabama? [laughter] >> anyway, you're recognized for two minutes. >> i have to oppose this amendment. this is a amendment ask in the accountability office opine on policy, something the geo-cannot and should not be asked to do. i urge you to vote no. >> the gentleman yields back. anyone else wishing to speak? gentleman from louisiana. >> thank you, mr. chairman. look, we've had a lot of discussions about the nuclear

revision by mr. haynes johnson regarding certification of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. i yield back. >> any further discussion on the en bloc amendments? if not, question the adoption of the amendment by mr. rogers, so

many us are in favor will say aye. those opposed to no. the ayes have it in the amendments are agreed to. now we have an amendment for this port i/o, number 068. with the clerk please pass out that amendment? without objection, reading about the dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady for the purpose about rain and explaining her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i offer this amendment i would ask unanimous can send to withdraw it after i had a chance to discuss it. i understand the point of order against this amendment because we did not receive a waiver from the house foreign affairs committee.

[inaudible conversations] my amendment of a perfect section 231 of the bill. my amendment would clarify policy regarding flexibility of combatant commanders to address assignment of missile defense assets based on priority of need. my amendment would decide waiver restriction of movement of missile defense assets to the combatant commander. i can speak from a personal perspective that missile defense is absolutely critical to americans and our allies in the pacific region. the ground-based missile defense on guam presently is reassuring, that is an additional measure of protection. i am deeply concerned the underlying provision is simply too restrictive and a blatant overreaction to comments made by secretary kerry during his visit to china.

and good service but their military at significant risk. the provision degrades readiness because it does not address the need to provide our combat commanders with the flexibility to address emerging for the broader asia-pacific region as well as other parts of the world like the middle eastern threats posed by iran in that region. my amendment would seek to address that concern. while i hope the battery remains out on, it is not unduly burden dark commanders with these reporting requirements. we must respond faster than a threat anywhere in the world as we did in the western pacific during north korea's recent draft bali. i think everyone in this ribbon on this committee can agree we must give combatant commanders the ability to adjust to threats. none of us are 100% tomorrow.

said we should not place restrictive legislation in place that will preclude combatant commanders of utilizing limited resources and most effective manner. i won't stand by while they put unnecessary language that puts our servicemembers and civilians in harms way. again mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment and pursue this amendment next week. it's too to not have flexibility is that they need to keep us safe and i yield back. >> the gentlelady yells back and ask unanimous consent to repeal or amendment without objection so ordered. mr. schuster. recognize now for her amendment number 276. the clerk will pass out the amendment.

without objection, reading will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in the fy 2013 and eaa, we included a provision for funds obligated or suspended. the provision was agreed upon and signed into law january 2nd, 2013. a march engage in a colloquy during the resolution and the dod debate that he was the intent of the law for the program to not receive any further funding in april and offered a bill which senator iota insured elmar fendi would be allowed to go the program. and your regular order, committee process and due process seems something of him terribly wrong because the administration decided to

sidestep those written into law a and secretary haeckel sent a letter that if the final obligation of 381 million would be used to finish the program. i asked this committee today, what is the point of authorizers recognized the poorly sidestepped by appropriators bowled over by the administration. it's time for the committee to put the on the missile program and recognize if we do not put an end to appropriator carveouts family of only yourselves to blame in the at her as the intent law. i preserve the authority of authorizers with regular authority or order no longer exists. my amendment explicitly states this provision is correct while you have the subsequent page specifically to ensure those who want to continue work outside the law must formally knowledge actions. unfortunately, this is what it's

come to come reiterating authority passed to ensure appropriators don't sidestep them to guarantee the administration doesn't use the power to push funds yet again, i asked this committee of authorizers to make sure your we put our jurisdiction first and foremost, that we make sure the appropriators are not allowed to sidestep this in the administration which secretary haeckel sat in the hearing was able to ask the question wasn't able to come to the conclusion we have come to over the past year. this program ought to be killed, not to be ended and still hire this attack knowledge he for the program and utilize it another missile systems. again, i encourage all of my colleagues to provoke as authorizers to make sure we preserve our jurisdiction in this matter. >> the gentleman's time has

expired. mr. rogers, gentleman from alabama recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate macculloch from pennsylvania's decision even at the missile system produced in his district. the fact is the secretary of defense is going to cost us more money and penalties do not fund last year. i oppose the amendment because we now have to spend $2.4 billion developing the ads. if the army decides they want to stick lg to harvest it, they ought to be able to. it is irresponsible in my view to tie their hands if they can harvest it algae from the program for the use of any system were down the road decide they want to use it if they decide they want to. i urge you to reject this and that. >> mr. chairman.

>> gentleman from new jersey recognize her two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the alternative miad is not produced in my district because taxpayers in my district have to continue to fund a program that isn't necessary, isn't wanted, is in effect good. this is a situation where the only and have a name is to algae we could support that, but we have been through this before. this is a program that bathtub scene of fatal attraction. that's what's really going on with this. this unwanted and unnecessary program is finally put to rest. i support mr. schuster's amend it. >> gentleman from ohio, mr. turner is recognized for two minutes. >> well, sorry i am having trouble with the fatal attraction analogy there.

[laughter] i can't get glenn close out of my head for some reason. surrenders is absolutely right and i will say none of this is my district either. i don't think this is the train alabama and pennsylvania. as mr. anders said, an issue of wasting taxpayer ways. the important aspect of this is the former chair of the subcommittee, i remind the committee what we did as a committee in congress last time. we voted to stop this. we voted to stop this because it is a program failing msn or a sad when she was opposing this if you meant to go, this is the missile defense program, missile to nowhere. it was in the house bill and the senate approved sapi net. our legislative process, someone

slips in an appropriations bill funding for a program well voted to expressly kill. mr. andrew said, let's kill up on my time. this is waste and we should not spend this money. thank you. >> mr. larsen from washing 10 recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i too am uncomfortable with the metaphor mr. andrews brought up as well as the definition of exasperation from a perspective of several on the committee. we've been through this several times. the appropriators have can be viewed to appropriate the money despite the prohibition from appropriated money in this

committee. the language is not an absolute prohibition. it does allow the harvest it knowledge he asked her a period of 120 days has elapsed following notification to this committee of the planned to use the technology. i think mr. schuster has an appropriate offering built into the amendment as well. again, i encourage folks who have been here over the last two cycles dealing with this issue to support mr. schuster's amend it because it is a true reflection of some of the frustration expressed in a bipartisan manner from this committee on the program. thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. gentleman from alabama, mr. burks is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i submit a contrary view. it is better and cheaper,

provides 360-degree coverage. it requires fewer personnel to operate in is a lot cheaper and a whole lot better. yes there have imposed to stop the program. quite think of think of those votes in my judgment were in error. it would've cost more to cancel the program than to finish it. ..

the defense. the results of the design and the development phase of the program remain viable for germany and italy as they will be the base for the system architecture. as such they are fundamental for the german and italian contribution to the nato integrated missile defense which is a key element of the defense package agreed in chicago by the heads of state in government. i support them and i hope this committee will, too. >> mr. space from georgia is recognized for two minutes.

>> before i yield my time i would say it's obvious to me there is a certain amount of indifference from many of the agencies with what we put in and we obviously need to take it very seriously and address that. i will yield the remainder of my time to mr. schuster. >> i think the gentleman and my colleague from new jersey. there is one scene that they pull a rabbit out of a pot, but it is like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. they seem to keep coming back when it's not working. my good friend from alabama points out that the patriot system is -- it has roots in my district but it's not produced there. it is reset their with full disclosure that we all know that in alabama that they have a huge interest. my friend from alabama points out that they're supposed to have 100% coverage will it's not deployed, it's never going to be deployed. it's not finished so right now

it has zero capability to date not 100% at 360. again, the german media this week has been talking about exposing miads as a waste of resources. the germans aren't going to buy it and i don't believe the and italians will spend a nickel on developing it. while there are partners, we have issued a statement to them letting them know that we aren't going to continue with it. there's $380 million or so for the harvesting of technology. is, again, we have a system in place. it's a great system, something that's out there and we can use it. but as all risers we have to stand up and say no to the appropriators. again, an author is thomas committee and on the transportation committee. and enough is enough. we can't continue to see the senate appropriators, which i believe there are some of those from alabama that pulled a rabbit out of the hat every

year. so again i urge all of my colleagues and all of the of the risers in the room to vote no or to vote yes on this amendment and vote no on the miads. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. ms. a song's. >> thank you mr. chairman. i strongly support mr. schumer's amendment regarding the miads program has gone on long enough. it makes no sense to continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a program that the department never plans to actually acquire. this would be a poor enough investment to make under any circumstances in this time of fiscal austerity it is simply irresponsible. this amendment is a good one and i yield back. >> the gentle lady yells back. is there any further discussion? if not is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. schuster so many in favor will say aye. those opposed, no.

that's pretty close. >> i called that as the ayes won three do you still want a recorded vote? okay. that's good. because we have about 12 recorded votes. we are going to try to be expeditious. we are going to have the votes on the floor at ten. i was hoping to be all done by ten. it looks like we are not going to make it but we are going to move from these as quickly as possible. the committee postponed the votes and the question occurs on the amendment offered by mr. turner for additional missile defense sites number three. amendment number three. the clerk will call the roll. >> [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] term [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] off [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] and [roll call] with [roll call]

[inaudible conversations] >> the clerk will report the tally. >> there are 33 aye votes and 27 no. >> so the amendment is agreed to. >> the question occurs on the amendment offered by mr. gerrimendi for the ballistic missile defense new course segment by $100 million. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] and [roll call]

>> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, the ayes were 26, the noes with 36. >> and the amendment is not agreed to. >> mr. chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent on the next three amendments, mr. lam boren and mr. rogers to six that we accept a voice vote with

unanimous consent to not do a roll call vote. as entertaining as the process is i hate to deprive anyone of it. but there is unanimous consent, we can accept those as past. >> thank you for how cooperative we have worked together. i think that we've gotten our opinions and our points made, but everybody i can to this point has them fantastic. the question occurs on the amendment offered by mr. turner. limitation on the availability of funds or consolidation of the tool capable aircraft based in europe. the clerk will call the roll.

[roll call] >> [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the clerk will report the tally. >> there are 32 aye votes and 30 no. >> so the amendment is agreed to.

>> of the question occurs on the amendment offered by mr. lamb 1106 the defense 20% of it and then the global threat reduction initiative funding. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[inaudible conversations] there were 33 ayes and 29 noes. >> the amendment is agreed to. the question occurs on the amendment offered by ms. sanchez, number 1057 reduce the total amount of nuclear weapons activities. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

mr. chairman, there are 27 aye votes and 35 no. >> of the amendment is not agreed to. the question now occurs on the amendment offered by mr. larsen,

number 109 strikes section 202. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

the ayes were 28 and the noes is 34. >> the amendment is not agreed to. they called a vote on the floor. we will monitor that and try to will as long as we can until there are two or 300. it's going to be a long time

before they get enough people to the floor and it would be nice to get this finished. the question occurs on the amendment by number 010 strikes section 312. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] >> whenever you are ready.

>> the amendment is not agreed to. the question occurs on the amendment offered. number 138 striking section 120 extending principles of the pilot program to additional office of the jeeves of the nuclear enterprise. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> mr. chairman? the next amendment is in line with unanimous consent [inaudible] [applause] >> you could be elected president in this room. >> of the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, the ayes or 28 and the speed is 34. >> the amendment is not agreed to. everybody hold on a second. there are 370 people that haven't voted over there. so, we have one final vote for this section if you can bear

with us to work on the easy stuff. the subcommittee on strategic as amended. those in favor will say aye and those opposed, no. >> the motion is agreed to. we will recess until the end of the votes and then come back and do this stuff for full committee. >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] the house of representatives has begun a series of votes some members of the committee are taking a break from marking up

the 2014 defense authorization act. the bill includes more than $552 billion per national defence with nearly $86 billion for overseas contingency operations. work on the bill is expected to last at least several more hours while we are waiting for the markup to resume we will show date from earlier today. >> [inaudible conversations]

the committee will come to order are there other amendments to the subcommittee's report? >> number 182. >> weld the clerk pass out the amendment without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. for the purpose of offering and

explaining his amendment. >> in 2007 the energy passed that year included almost as an afterthought section 526 which puts a government-wide restriction on purchasing synthetic fuels unless they can prove there is a lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions less than other conventional fuels. this administration seeks to strike the impact that has with the department of defense. i wish we could strike it government-wide but nevertheless it shouldn't apply to the the part of defense. this restricts things like the cold to liquids and oil shale and others readily available sources from being able to purchase by the department of defense. colleagues will reverse the slide themselves on the other side and the biofuels and then they will twist and the back in the other direction with the proven technologies that have been used for a long time and these are available to it i

would like to close quickly from a letter that was provided by the department of defense section 526 applies not just to purchases in the united states there are no means to accurately determine a life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from them on domestically produced fuel because we do not track all of the fuel and put in other countries and many producing countries lacking infrastructure or institutional control to lobby these inputs. it goes on to give an example exercising with canadian air force not knowing where the fuel came from the would have been in violation for that. they drove that fuel. so mr. chairman, we have done this before. it is ill advised section 526 restrictions on the nation's defense to buy fuel anywhere any

time. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back. >> any discussion on the amendment? >> the gentleman from california has requested time. >> i wish to speak against the amendment. >> briefly without stating the comments i made before. with the guidance and the 2010 quadrennial defense review to the liability. the conflict placing the burden to respond on the institutions of the military around the world the investment in the biofuel in particular and alternative energy in general is directed towards national security and improved operational effectiveness. that's the reason the ndp supports it and i ask for a no

vote on the amendment. >> i speak against the amendment. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i have great respect for the gentleman from texas. we worked together on issues in the past but i might add a couple of quotations to the debate on this amendment. secretary defense states recently that section 526 has not restricted the department for purchasing a virtual was needed to escort come end of the quote and the operational energy stated that, quote, it could complicate the efforts to provide better energy efforts to the war fighters and to get in touch of the promising developments in the home grown

biofuels. i really want to reiterate what mr. peterson of california said as well. on this front we made a lot of progress here in america in the united states over the years. i think this is a jobs issue, too to the extent we can have biofuels to be an option that would replace traditional fossil fuels' i think it is a great idea not only for the environment to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels but it's very good for the jobs in this country and i think it is the right way to go. and i think from a national security standpoint, it only makes sense we have to do everything we can to reduce our dependence on foreign oil especially when it comes to making certain that the military has the energy that it needs. so with that in mind i oppose the amendment and yelled back, mr. chair. islamic any further discussion?

>> request timed but strike the last word. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i want to associate myself with all of those in the amendment. i just came from a hearing on the oversight government reform where we were addressing the issue of biofuel and the navy has already indicated him milk it will have half of its fuel consumption is be biofuel so they are moving in that direction creating an untold number of jobs in this country in the cellulosic ethanol plants are being put up across the country so this is not the time to discourage but encouraged. and i yield back. >> for what purpose -- the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i would ask the gentle lady

when she made the comments the navy stated that by 2020, the percentage that she cited of the fuel would be from biofuel. if she has seen any analysis from the needy to suggest how we reach that goal. >> i can only speak to what i've read which is they are moving forward with many companies and having them actually fuel the fleet with algae. >> reclaiming my time the reason i ask that is because when we had a hearing in the subcommittee last year, we had the energy experts there and we asked them for that analysis and they looked among themselves and they came back and said we have no analysis. we did know study on that. that was a goal pulled out of the air by the secretary of the

needy and said this is where we want to go. that's why if you look back to the questions posed earlier, which are simply these, shouldn't we as a committee at least know they had some kind of analysis before they made this statement? if anybody in this room can present that analysis we want to look at it and we want to talk about it and make sure the analysis was done. nobody can present it because it doesn't exist. we ought to be able to look at the navy and say they are spending millions of dollars to do this and ask them how much is it going to ultimately cost to raise? we have to give up a carrier for it and destroy your? they cannot answer that question at this particular point in time they used far more fuel than the navy and the airport hasn't gone in that direction. mr. chairman i would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from texas.

>> i appreciate the support from the other side because of this does it's nothing to restrict the biofuel unless what you're telling the committee that they do in fact have greater greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels and i don't and that's what you are saying. of debate with a lot of greater greenhouse emissions. that is what this does. code to liquid is developed by the nazis during world war ii as a proven technology. this was put in specifically to attack coal and the cold liquids does work and does expand away from crude oil and even if my comments earlier were incorrect and would be relied on we will never be reliant on coal in order to drive the machines on this military.

>> the navy's in violation of the protection 526 today. this is an expanse and the devotee to access other fuel sources and crude oil and algae jet fuel and i would encourage my colleagues to get i yield back. >> reclaiming a time when we ask the navy about the goal and analysis. with the experts in the navy and the department here's what they said. looking at it it's not really a goal. it is a stretch goal and we said what in the world is a stretch and basically a stretch goal is a goal that you put out when you don't have any analysis to back it up. with that i yield back.

>> i may have been misleading -- >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i'm sorry i close the amendment, not in proper order there. as i understand this amendment, there was a law passed to enter into a contract for the procurement of a synthetic fuel for any ability unless the contract specifies the ongoing basis to be less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent petroleum sources. essentially what this is saying is you have to buy the tools that have less emissions. >> accepting the dod from that requirement so that we could in fact purchase, quote, alternative fuels, even if those alternative fuels created more

missions. >> in favor of your amendment, speaking in favor of the emotion we should seek out the alternative sources of fuel that we reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that is the overall goal to exempt the single largest purchaser in the government from that requirement ..

the navy has developed this program and the price points are coming down. they are not coming down by as much as we would like. it is going to take time. but that is a measure of progress great it is also true that the technology developed biofuels gets better year by year. better in terms of higher yield, less cost, more options, what that magic point at which we get

a sufficient scale, that is very hard to say. progress is being made by those other measurements. you look at the dependency on fossil fuels. giving us at least a chance to get off of that is worth spending money on end is the national security interest of this country. >> gentleman yields. >> the question i would ask the gentleman is how much is the navy spending on the investment using your term, with biofuels? >> i believe that i have asked the exact figure and hundreds of millions. >> when we do that, what i can't comprehend is how we would come in with a carrier or a destroyer

and something else. saying that we don't have any idea what it will cost to build the ship. we will just with these dollars are here. that is basically what you are asking us to do with biofuels. >> there is a difference between research and leadership. research, by its very definition as well, research great you're trying to figure something out. and we said, sorry, we're taking that all your money. you know, you might able be able to develop this weapon system or that weapon system. direct them and where is the proof. we all probably aware that was going, for example, with gerald ford, and a billion dollars later, i don't think the

gentleman from virginia would suggest that that would be a billion dollars more than we thought it was. research is research, it is building towards the greater understanding. >> the gentleman yields back. >> any further discussion on this? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do want to bring up something. there has been a lot of back and forth about synthetic fuels. if you look at that and the science behind it. most of these synthetic fuels actually burn cleaner. there is a much higher degree of processing and refining the goes into the area. it is derived from the unconventional hydrocarbons they it gives them the flexibility to

make sure they are looking at all potential sources. in most instances, we end up with a cleaner fuel source. we want to make sure that they are having the flexibly across the round and looking at the technology is for environmental impact is concerned. in many cases it is less than what we have with conventional fuels. with that, i yelled back. >> the gentleman yields back. any further discussion? if not, the amendment offered by mr. conway, that is amendment number 182. those who are in favor, say yes, those who are opposed, say no. the amendment is agreed to. are there any other amendments?

>> i would like to offer this amendment number 64. before i withdraw, i would like to ask the gentleman to pass out the amendments. as we create a positive environment for job growth, we have an opportunity to work on both issues by supporting dod's effort towards using home-grown american made biofuels. building on the success of the existing memorandum of understanding between the department of agriculture and energy and the navy, but promoting biofuels, this amendment will direct the air force to develop a program providing additive grants to existing biofuel research centers to conduct development and testing of iowa-based fuels

that is suitable for use by the air force as an aviation fuel for jet aircraft. the air force is a huge user of fuel, which comes at a substantial cost to the american taxpayer. it represents 86% of energy consumption and it is at a cost of a $.3 million. we can support and promote the use of biofuels here in america by american workers. back home in southern illinois, my district is home to a huge agriculture industry and scott air force base. a federal initiative, like the one proposed here, would go a long way in creating a partnership between the agriculture community and scott air force base and existing biofuels research centers in my district. there could be a huge benefit to

the country as we move affirmatively to secure new sources of fuel to power the best airports in the world. i will withdraw my amendment at this time and seek support for its passage. i yield back. >> we ask consent for the amendment. without objection, so ordered. >> i ask unanimous consent with the amendments that have been more. >> without objection the reading of that amendments. [inaudible conversations]

>> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of offering the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i call an unblocked pass function package. the amendment 085, mr. shuster is talking about the army reserve center in the township noted in pennsylvania. all contact of physicians performing inherent government functions of an alameda. and then in 0953 designates the graduate school of nursing at the uniform services university of health sciences is that daniel and away graduate school of nursing. in compliance with the arms initiative, amendment number 1201 by mr. kerr, supporting the transition from the empty one to

the and 29. amendment number 121 r one requires for deployed bases to be used to make our landing strips under the secretaries purview. amendment number 156 r one. requiring the secretary of defense to review a force structure and infrastructure will run overseas in consideration of overseas consolidation and expenses that this should be done before any future authority is requested. we support the recommendations proposed by the army structure

realignment. it requires a briefing conducted at the university affiliated research center. >> thank you. any further debate on the unblocked amendment? in question includes the amendment offered by mr. in. the amendment is agreed to. >> are there any further amendments the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. [inaudible conversations]

>> thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of explaining his amendment. >> it really wouldn't of been too difficult to read the amendment. in fact, i will read it, it is only one sentence. the department of defense may not purchase an electric vehicle if it is more expensive when it comes to alternative options. what has bothered me in this area is that there is a program that is going to cost the air force $20 million or just 500 electrical vehicles. that program comes from recharging equipment that includes recharging equipment. supposedly they can be hooked up

to the grid and drain their batteries back into the system and we all know what that has had on the military with civilian furloughs. and mr. chairman, i think that when we can save $20 million is one example, i think that we should do that. so this is something that could save the taxpayer and the department of defense money. i yield back my time and i ask for a yes vote. >> thank you, mr. chairman. astragalus were to oppose the

amendment. >> we have another 12 hours and i will get that right. [laughter] >> the same arguments that we have made before, the department of defense is making difficult decisions about a variety of things and trying to find alternatives to traditional sources of fuel. and the advantage of electrical vehicles. i believe 500 was the number. i don't want to restrict their flexibility. it is in the best interest of making sure that they have the flexible fuel source is necessary to deal with the very real fuel challenges that are coming. >> the gentleman yields back. >> you know, we have had several debates now. i think philosophically we can establish the fact that there is a difference between the republican side and the

democratic side. we don't think that we should be taking money out of the defense of the nation to do that. were there other ways to accomplish that goal you know, if we expended all of the above, which would include cracking and drilling that is what we stand for, but we do have a philosophical distance about trying to put up all of these

efforts on the back of the defense of our nation especially when we had such critical times financially. that is all i will say on the subject. i have to weigh in on the it's a little bit. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> i am in opposition to the amendment. some of the points i like to make is this provision could result in a disruption to the dod's current vehicles to grid pilot programs and could end up costing the government more as a result of the infrastructure costs that have been made to support electric vehicles that would be precluded from being released. also this provision does not account for any exceptions in cases where the elect would vehicles could be cost neutral. if not cost positive. as a result of providing power

to the commercial grid. the language focuses only on upfront costs. to allow for the calculation of trade-offs with long-term operating costs. >> the gentlelady with yields back time. >> mr. chairman, i was trying to understand your comments and the contents of this particular subject. >> thank you. i am in opposition to the amendment. thank you, sir. i was trying to understand the

way in which the comments play into this jugular issue. i think i am at a loss. >> gentleman? >> yes, mr. chairman. i thought that was the voice from the ranking member. >> please give me a few more seconds. were you asking me to clarify my remarks. >> what i was trying to say is i think that all of us were in agreement that we would like to become energy independent. we probably have different ways to accomplish that and i think that your side puts more emphasis on renewables in our side puts emphasis on all of the above grid we think that we should explore all of those

areas. we also don't feel that we should be demanding that the defense department the area where these consensus come out of two develop resources for further resources. am i making myself a little bit more clear? >> you are, sir, we thank you. >> back to the issue. in that context, this amendment seems not to be appropriate. because this amendment there are a lot of vehicles around here that are purchased by the

congress. they have electric vehicles they use to run around capitol grounds for one purpose or another, presumably the may preclude the use of electric vehicles if they are more expensive than gas powered electric vehicle at the same time. we ought to give the military the ability to purchase electric vehicles. this is an extremely important issue. >> one point i forgot to mention is the upfront costs. particularly when you're doing shortstops, this amendment would say no, upfront cost, even over the lifetime of the vehicle, you would wind up saving more.

the better fuel economy would help. thank you for your weight until yielding a time. >> when it comes to a grid, the central for the security of this nation on the basis that i have the mobility is tied to the grid. the air force is trying to figure out how to become less dependent upon the grid and the use of electric vehicles as a way in that regard as our biofuels. all of which are essential for defense. i think that we need to expand amongst ourselves a larger understanding of what the military is trying to do. if we look at it and just small

section, we miss the larger picture. the department of defense trying to reduce or hopefully eliminate one of its risks. that is the energy risk in many contexts. this particular amendment, i think it moves the department of defense away from its ability to address that risk in the ranking member, mr. smith, completed an argument that i certainly could not have made as coherently as he did. it is the ongoing cost. not just the initial cost. but the ongoing cost. that also leads into the strategy that the department of defense is trying to pursue to reduce one of the risks that it has in protecting this nation. that is the energy risk. the availability of energy and the cost associated with it. i'm opposed to this amendment as i was to the previous one that

limit the ability to it address the risk and i think the chair for the additional my second. >> for the benefit of those who do not have a minute in front of them, i just want to read what the amendment does. the department of defense may not purchase or lease an electric vehicle if it is more expensive than a conventional fuel alternative option. we've talked about this, but to me, that is very basic. don't buy something that costs more than something else. >> first of all i'd like to ask a question of mr. lamborn. sir, where is the primary source of energy that goes to an

electric car? where does it come from? >> it would come from an electric plant somewhere in the vicinity of that base and whether that plant with tycho hired, gaspar, coal powered. >> in many cases, it depends. in taking my time, i would just say, mr. chairman, i see marginal improvement in the environmental impact the future is very bright with energy independence. we don't have to have wind turbines, necessarily, or electric cars in order to

achieve energy independence. so i think that i speak out in support of the amendment. the last-place that we should be doing this is the national defense. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington requests time. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i have a question for this that. the way that this is written we would be required to get rid of the electric golf carts in favor of natural gas. if in fact they meet the provisions of this provision?

>> okay. i think i made my point. thank you. any further discussion on amendment? >> the question is the adoption of the amendment by mr. lamborn. those opposed, please say no. yes votes have it. are there any other amendments at this time? the gentleman from ohio,

mr. turner? without objection, the reading of the amendment the chair recognizes the congressman. >> i hope to be able to address to the department of defense, as many of you have been aware, as

we know, the department of defense is actually the largest consumer of energy and when it comes to barracks and offices and hospitals, energy bills popout about $4 billion a year. the committee has authorized about 180 million in military construction projects support rapid energy-saving in the district heating and cooling plant to look at the centralized systems. it is reported that according to the dod documents, more than 150 installations in 42 states and seven overseas locations, 34 installations have these channels and are considering going to dismantle these systems of central heating and cooling. twenty-three of them have them and are looking to expand. the problem is the buildings

that are built new are built without independent systems. so our cost to go to a decentralized system continues to increase and as we look to new construction, we should look at having each of the buildings have independent heating and cooling as to perpetuating the massive spiderlike systems are going across our basis. the operation of these buildings and the systems, and for that, i would withdraw the amendment and look to pursue this issue. the gentleman withdraws the amendment. are there any other further amendments to the section. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have the amendment 06 i've.

>> without objection. the reading of the amendment. >> unless he uses all the resources available to the federal government, to ensure that our bridges are safe and our ports can continue to support the goods we need mystically and nationally. it is for this reason that i offer this amendment to clarify us for fiscal year 2010, it can be used by the administrators