Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  April 29, 2015 8:00pm-10:01pm EDT

8:00 pm
before they can put someone into that building and that could be four, five or six months. we have done all of the studies, the standards, we have gone through all of this. anybody, and i have been holding briefings and things about the whole process so everybody could ask of the professional trainers and of the doctors, of the physical people looking for all of the information. some came and some have not. the reason that this law exist is because we were changing but we didn't have this whole process in place. now we have had this process. all i am saying is once they decided let's open these up let's start putting people in those places, i think we should be notified. if we feel that it is wrong, we want to hold a hearing or whatever, let's do it.
8:01 pm
or i would ask my colleague if 30 days is not long how about we say 30 calendar days to fill that spot. but this four month and six month and let's drag it out to more and let's strop doing this is just an impediment to getting on with the thing. i will yield back. >> whoever's time that was is expired. gentlemen from florida, mr. nuegent. >> i yield my time to ms. sally. >> i think it is important for the committee to understand what this is and isn't. and a little history. it has never been against the law for women to serve in ground combat. but combat air craft and ships have been against the law but they were appealed in the early
8:02 pm
'90s. it was never in the law for women to be restricted from ground combat. this particular provision that is being slightly modified comes from 2007 or so just asking if any other positions were going to be opened putting another road block to extebbed, trip it up and create a barrier, but since then the department of defense decided it is going to open positions up to women and have until january 2016 to come this body and let us know there are some positions they want to remain justified closed which is in a different part of the law. that came from the defense law two years ago. someone can correct me on this. this is going back to a 2007 provision saying don't take 30 continuous days of congress to notify us.
8:03 pm
the pentagon is playing into this. i think we are getting wrapped up about debating women in combat. that is not what this is about. it has never been against the law. the notification is still here over oversight here it is just not having another barrier. we will wait for the report and continue to provide oversight to the whole process. >> i yield back. >> i yield back. >> gentlelady from california? you are good? you? >> thank you. they are doing the study and evaluating whether or not women can physically do some of these
8:04 pm
jobs. there are men who can not do these jobs. the 30 consecutive congressional days is what we are talking about. the studies are ongoing. they are not just studying british doctors they are studying american doctors. what this amendment does is wave the 30 consecutive days of congress being in service. by the time they say we want to add or lift the restriction those studies web have been done. i would like to ask if my understanding of the amendment is correct? >> that is correct. we have been doing studies and looking at the physical attributes. in a perfect world i would imagine all mos's will open aon
8:05 pm
january 15th. but do i believe they will? no. but those who do let's get on with it and let women and men who are want to and are capable fill those positions and we will get the best americans in those slots. >> i yield back. >> will the gentlelady yield? >> i rise in strong support of this amendment. i represent a district in massachusetts that works with native soldier systems and that is a remarkable facilities within the united states army. they have been tasked with developing gender neutral standards for every combat related position within the army. as we debate which position should or should not be open to women serving in combat there is
8:06 pm
always a second step once that position is deemed to be appropriately open anyone who seeks to serve in anyone of those positions will have to meet these gender neutral standards and that is true for men as well as women. so just to clarify. there is nothing automatic about this. we understand the challenge of those who seek to serve in this capacity and we want to be sure they have the capability but i have no doubt many women will meet those standards and serve in those positions. >> mr. mccarthy? >> i yield my time to mr. russell. >> and i thank the gentlemen from new jersey. i get the sense, mr. chairman as we hear the discussion back
8:07 pm
and forth i look at this as a congressional oversight issues. this is not something that we are trying to make it whether or not we should have women in combat or whether or not it goes back to a certain date or whether or not we had people performing certain roles. this is a 30-day notification and for the reasons stated and i heard the question asked if they make the qualifications why can't they be immediately assigned and there is a number of reasons. the military would have to reorganize the formations and have to make accommodations and do many of these things which are not out of the scope of being performed, but they require time and notification. it is almost as if we hear in the discussion as if there is some move to eliminate something
8:08 pm
and that is not my motivation. but there are practical reasons we look and have notifications to make sure units can accommodate and are able to deal with the situations units would have to do have the correct skills whether or not those positions are open there may not be slots, i could go on and on in that regard. 30 days is not going to hurt anyone. and out of respect to some of the collying -- colleague's comments of men and women entered these and failed and that might be true. but they don't get the position. this is an issue of meeting the standard. and if the standard is met which we would agree, we need to have accommodation.
8:09 pm
i searched in uniform a long time. i also, unlike some of my colleagues speaking on the issue, i served in these units. i have been through ranger school and understand the requirements. do i think they can be met and trained to? ge i have stated i believe they can. but having a 30 day oversight with congress is something we should constitutionally abide by in this one aspect. we want the best common defense for this nation. it is not that there is some effort to get at or eliminate or prevent or whatever. i do think that we have an incredible opportunity to lay the foundation correctly. we can put it in foundation stone by foundation stone. we can do it in a way with good science, medicine and
8:10 pm
technology. and it is stated that we have had all of these briefings already and because certain members haven't been here in congress they have not seen it. i may not be here in congress but i walked in those units and elements. and there are valid reasons. i may not have the political background. it is not academic for me. it is something i am familiar with. these are things that 30 days are not going to harm. i understand the spirit of it. and i respect ms. shan -- sanchez -- we agree on some things and not on some. i believe this was put in as a com pro compromise.
8:11 pm
i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. >> questions on the amendment offered up? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am sorry i cannot let this one pass by. it is interesting to hear the conversation around this issue as though it is a new issue. women have been serving in the ground combat battles for quite some time. for all of our sisters who wear the uniform it is difficult to hear the enemy sees weakness when you talk about integrating women into this. talking about dealing with face to face combat in life and death situations. ten years ago, an mt from a national guard unit in kentucky her squad was doing convey
8:12 pm
security in iraq when they were am ambushed. she led the team to assault with a grenade and a launcher round. she and her squad leader cleared to trenches and she personally killed three insurgeants with her rifle. 27 of them were dead six wounded and one captured. she was awarded the silver star with valor for close quarters combat. this happened in 2005 march. over ten years ago. what we are talking about here is not rushing something through or giving special consideration to women over men. all we are talking about is opening a door to highly qualified professional warriors regardless of their gender without exception or special consideration or discrimination. i yield back.
8:13 pm
>> thank you. just remind everybody that the issue on this amendment is whether there is a 30 day lag time between the time they make a decision and notify us and it is implemented. there is lots we can talk about on this subject. but at this hour and with the number of amendments we have to go is the question on the 30 days. >> it is not 30 days. it is 30 continuous day. that is four to six months. >> but my point is this is a fairly narrow question for this amendment. yvm i am not cutting anybody off but reminding you we have lots to come. >> thank you mr. chairman. when i said weakness i did not mention women. i said the enemy looks at weakness and that is my point. nowhere did i say the women were
8:14 pm
weekak weak. i fought with women. when i say we need 30 days as seal instructor we need 30 day ses because there are changes that may or may not take place. medical, curriculum the what if the female anatomy is different than the male anatomy and the training programs need to accommodate because we want don't want failure due to not being prepared. it does take time. >> mr. castro i mind like to
8:15 pm
yield to congresswoman dublin. >> the 30 days my undering is from when the department of defense from the branch of service says we have looked at this. we want to open or close this position. and they would like to move forward with the preparations to get this seal training program adjusted. whatever it is. they want to be able to initiate the movement toward making those changes. this right now there is a 30 continuous congressional day that prevent them from ain addition -- from initiating this. so they want to start action and movement on this. let's just put the emotions
8:16 pm
aside and i am part of this as well. when people start talking about whether or not women should serve and people say the enemy sees weakness or this or that. what the enemy seess is americans standarding firm to fight for their nation. if they are ready to get a group of americans compete let them start movement to allow it to happen and setup the condition so people can to the job they want to do. let's lift the limits. tomorrow you will have women show up and better be ready. i have confidence in the navy
8:17 pm
planning out the appointment of women to these new positions and let them move on that as soon as they want. as someone who came to congress at time when they had the least number of working days ever i was sensitive to this issue because i want them to get to work. i yield back. >> mr. davis? >> wonder if the staff could help us. we need a clarifying amendment to say not less than 30 calendar days. >> that would be acceptable. it isn't i don't want to do oversight or have a chance to look at things but a lot of this
8:18 pm
work is being done now you guys. >> okay. we have to have unanimous consent to modify the pending amendment and it would have to be clear the way it was modified. any objection to to modifying the amendment to add in such a change that could be implemented only after the end of 30 cal calender day? any objection to such a modification? without objection to amendment is modified. those in favor aye. those in favor say no.
8:19 pm
the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. proceedings will resume on amendments which roll call votes. 275 to strike the retirement reform 280 on doca mr. spear, 157 on sexual assault and ms. spear 201 on sex i'm -- 257 to strike the provision on retirement reform. the clerk will call the role. >> thornberry? >> no. >> mr. smith? >> mr. smith votes no. mr. jones?
8:20 pm
>> no. >> mr. jones votes no. >> ms. sanchez? gibson? no. >> mr. forbes? >> no. mr. brady? mr. brady votes no. mr. miller? mr. miller votes aye. ms. davis? no. mr. wilson? >> no. >> mr. larson? mr. larson? mr. bishop? mr. bishop? mr. bishop votes no. mr. cooper? mr. cooper votes no. mr. turner? mr. turner votes no. mr. cline? mr. cline votes no.
8:21 pm
mr. courtney? votes no. mr. frank? mr. frank votes no. >> mr. shuester? no. mr. johnson? mr. johnson votes no. ms. spear? ms. spear votes no. mr. lanborn? mr. lanborn votes no. mr. caster? mr. caster votes no. mr. hunter? mr. hunter votes no. mr. peters? mr. peters votes no. dr. flemming? dr. flemming no. mr. gibson? mr. gibson votes aye.
8:22 pm
mr. walls? mr. walls votes aye. mr. o'rourke? mr. o'rourke no. mr. norcroft? mr. corcroft no. mr. brooks? mr. brooks notes no. mr. nugent >> aye. >> mr. cook? mr. cook votes no. mr. ashford? mr. ashford votes no. mr. multon? mr. multon votes no.
8:23 pm
mr. burn? mr. burn votes no. mr. grave? mr. grave votes no. mr. knight? mr. knight votes no. mr. mccarther? mr. mccarther no. mr. larson? >> is my vote going to sway the outcome? i vote no. >> how is mr. miller recorded? >> mr. miller voted aye. >> please change my vote to a no.
8:24 pm
gl clerk will report the tally. >> eight aye and 55 no votes. >> the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment number 280 by the gentlemen from arizona related to doca.
8:25 pm
clerk will call the roll. [ >> brady? mr. playedy votes a yes. mr. miller? mr. miller votes no. ms. davis? ms. davis votes aye. mr. wilson? mr. wilson votes no. mr. long? mr. long votes aye. mr. larson? mr. larson votes aye. mr. bishop? mr. bishop votes no. mr. cooper? mr. cooper votes aye. mr. turner? mr. turner votes no. ms. bord? ms. bord votes aye.
8:26 pm
mr. cline? mr. cline votes no. mr. courtney? mr. courtney votes aye. mr. rogers? mr. rogers votes no. mr. franks? mr. franks votes no. mr. shuster? mr. shuster votes no. mr. whitman? mr. votes no. mr. hunter? mr. hunter votes no. mr. peters? mr. peters votes aye. dr. flemming? dr. flemming votes no. mr. gibson? mr. gibson votes aye. mr. walls?
8:27 pm
mr. walls votes aye. ms. heart? ms. heart votes no. mr. o'rourke? mr. o'rourke votes aye. mr. scott? mr. scott votes no. mr. brooks? mr. brooks no. mr. nugent? mr. nugent votes no. mr. ashford? mr. ashford votes aye. mr. multon? mr. multon aye. mr. burns? mr. burns votes no. mr. graves? mr. graves votes no.
8:28 pm
mr. zin is an aye. ms. mcfally? mr. knight? mr. mccarthy? mr. russell? mr. russell votes no. >> clerk wall the role of any members who missed the first vote? >> there were no members. >> how am i recorded? >> you are recorded no. >> i would like to change to a yes. >> gentlemen from california? >> he is recorded as a no. >> gentlemen from georgia, mr.
8:29 pm
johnson. >> mr. johnson is recorded a no. >> any other members? i am sorry gentlemen from rhode island? >> he is recorded yes. >> any other members wish to be recognized?
8:30 pm
>> clerk will report the tally. >> 33 aye votes and 30 no votes. >> and the amendment is adopted. the question comes on amendment number 21-r1 by the gem gentlemen of texas. >> chairman? chairman votes no. mr. smith? mr. smith votes a yes. mr. jones? mr. jones votes aye. ms. sanchez? ms. sanchez votes aye. mr. forbes? no. mr. miller? mr. miller votes no. ms. davis? ms. davis votes aye.
8:31 pm
mr. larson? mr. larson votes aye. mr. bishop? mr. bishop votes no. mr. cooper? mr. cooper votes aye. mr. turner? mr. turner votes no. ms. bor? ms. bor votes aye. mr. cline? mr. cline votes no. mr. courtney? mr. correspondentny votes a yes,e. mr. franks? mr. franks votes no. mr. johnson? mr. johnson votes aye. mr. conway votes no. mr. spear? mr. spear votes aye. mr. lanborn? mr. lanborn votes no. mr. castro? mr. castro votes aye.
8:32 pm
mr. whitman? mr. whitman votes no. mr. hunter? mr. hunter votes no. mr. peters? mr. peters votes aye. mr. flemming? dr. flemming votes no. mr. kaufmann? mr. coffman no. mr. walls? mr. walls votes aye. mr. o'rourke? mr. o'rourke votes aye. dr. heck? dr. heck votes no. mr. scott? mr. scott votes no. mr. brooks? mr. brooks votes no. mr. nugent?
8:33 pm
no. breeze gram in-- ms. gram? mr. multon? mr. multon votes aye. mr. burns? mr. burn votes no. mr. graves? mr. graves votes no. mr. knight? mr. knight votes no. mr. mccarther? mr. mccarther votes aye. mr. russell? mr. russell votes no. >> mr. chairman? excuse me while i chew my
8:34 pm
cookie. gentlemen from new jersey? >> how am i recorded? >> you are recorded no. >> i would like to be a yes. >> clerk report the tally. >> 34 aye votes and 29 no votes. >> the amendment is adopted.
8:35 pm
question now on 157-r1 by ms. spear. clerk will call the role. >> chairman? no. mr. smith? aye. mr. jones? mr. jones a yes. ms. sanchez? ms. sanchez, no. mr. brady? mr. brady no. mr. davis? ms. davis votes no. mr. wilson? mr. wilson votes no. mr. long? mr. long no. mr. larson? mr. larson votes no. mr. bishop? mr. bishop votes no. mr. cooper? mr. cooper aye. mr. turner? mr. turner votes no. mr. cline? mr. cline votes no.
8:36 pm
mr. courtney? mr. courtney votes aye. mr. rogers? mr. rogers votes no. mr. franks? mr. franks votes no. mr. johnson? mr. johnson votes aye. mr. conway? mr. conway no. ms. spear? ms. spear votes aye. mr. castro? mr. castro votes aye. mr. hunter? mr. hunter votes no. mr. peters? mr. peters votes no. dr. flemming? dr. flemming votes no. mr. gibson? mr. gibson votes no. mr. walls?
8:37 pm
mr. walls votes no. mr. o'rourke? mr. o'rourke votes no. dr. heck? dr. heck votes no. mr. scott? mr. scott votes no. mr. brooks? mr. brooks votes no. mr. nugent? no. ms. graham? ms. graham votes no. mr. multin? mr. multin votes no. mr. burns? mr. burns votes no. mr. graves? mr. graves votes no.
8:38 pm
mr. knight? mr. knight votes no. mr. mccarther? mr. mccarther votes no. mr. russell? mr. russell votes no.
8:39 pm
>> crashing will report the vote. >> 13 aye votes and 49 no votes. >> chairman thornberry? no. mr. jones? mr. jones votes no. mr. forbs? mr. forbes votes no. mr. miller? mr. miller votes no. ms. davis? ms. davis votes no. mr. wilson? mr. wilson votes no. mr. larson? mr. larson votes no. mr. bishop? mr. bishop votes no.
8:40 pm
mr. cooper? mr. cooper votes aye. mr. turner? mr. turner votes no. mr. cline? mr. cline votes no. mr. rogers? mr. rogers votes no. mr. johnson? mr. johnson votes aye. mr. conway? no. mr. spear votes aye. mr. lanborn? mr. lanborn votes no. mr. castro? mr. castro votes no. dr. flemming?
8:41 pm
dr. flemming votes no. mr. gibson? mr. gibson votes aye. mr. walls? mr. walls votes aye. mr. o'rourke? mr. o'rourke votes no. mr. brooks? mr. brooks votes no. ms. graham? mr. graham votes aye. mr. cook? mr. cook votes no. mr. ashford? mr. ashford votes aye.
8:42 pm
mr. burns? mr. burns votes no. mr. knight? mr. knight votes no. mr. russell? mr. russell votes no.
8:43 pm
>> it is not agreed to. we recognize dr. heck. >> military personal as amendment. >> questions on the vote. members in favor say aye. those in against say no. the ayes have it and motion is adopted. >> mr. chairman? >> >> what purpose does the gentlemen from florida arise? >> the sanchez amendment -- did we adopt it before we did the roll call? >> the sanchez as amended was adopted by voice vote.
8:44 pm
>> how long did we debate that before we did that? >> a long time. committee receives the report of the subcommittee on strategic forces perursuepursueant to committee rules. chair recognizes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am not really interested in hearing myself talk so i will lay open my record for the subcommittee mark. i am proud of this mark and what we accomplished and urge for the committee and with that i yield back. >> i thank the gentlemen and the chair recognizes the gentlemen from tennessee mr. cooper. >> thank you mr. chairman. it has been a genuine pressure to work with my friend the gentlemen from alabama. we tried to take care of much of the business at the subcommittee level. unfortunately we are unsuccessful as you are about to
8:45 pm
see because there is 27 stand alone amendments if they are all offered. we are hopeful they will not be. we have three large amendments that care of some of the businesses but these 27 are stand alone so it could be a long night. >> i think the gentlemen, he and the chair, for the efforts to move along. any further constitution -- discussions on the subcommittee report. are there any amendments to the subcommittee report? gentlemen, from ohio mr. turner have an amendment? >> i do. yes, thank you mr. chairman. the list wasn't up and i wasn't certain who went first. >> the clerk will distribute mr.
8:46 pm
turner's amendment? without objection the amendment is considered as read and the gentlemen from ohio is recognized for five minutes. >> i would like to offer this amendment and lend my strong feelings of concern over this week's announcement that the u.s. might accelerate dismantling of nuclear war heads by 20% and this would cap the dismantle budget at $50 million and prohibit dismantlement of those retired after 2009 and includes a prohibition of cruise
8:47 pm
nuclear war heads for five years. this amendment sets priorities. dismantlement is not a high priority. this amendment doesn't contradict any of the obligations and any of our current arms control treaties and none of those require us to dismantle our nuclear war heads. a cap of $50 million for the next five years is more than appropriate. in the plan is around $50 million. 48 million in fy 16, 50 in 18 and 52 in fy 19 and 51 for fy 20. the budget request plans to focus five years on dismantle war heads prior to 2009.
8:48 pm
this provides enough money to do this and not restrict work on pre-2009 war heads. it would prevent the cruise nuclear war heads. this is a fitting restriction as we wait to see if people return to compliance and eliminate the missiles. as russia continues to wreak havoc and accelerate the dismantlement send the wrong message. quickly talking about the issue of non-proliferation, there is a difference between that and dis disarmorment. putin is under taking the aggressive aggressiveness with our maintaining stock pile. i yeld back. >> is there further discussion
8:49 pm
on the amendment? >> i aregret the subcommittee had no hearing on this. it was sprung on us. and i realize the expertise of the gentlemen offering the amendment because he was chair of the committee but the way i understand is balancing the workforce because as i understand the weapons facility has used dismantlement as a gap-filler between their other duties. i think to undertake something like this and the key to this a amendment is not the funding restriction but the prohibition of dismantlement of any weapon retired after 2009. and the prohibition of
8:50 pm
dismantling such. i wish the gentlemen would reconsider. >> would the gentlemen yield? >> i would be delighted. >> this fits with the nsa's current plan. all it does is hold them to the current plan and doesn't allow acceleration. all of the concerns you have are taking into consideration here because this doesn't change the direction the nsa is going. it just doesn't allow it to be accelerated. >> i would urge my colleagues to oppose the gentlemen's amendment. i yield back. >> gentlemen from arizona, mr. franks recognized for five minutes. >> i want to briefly speak in support of the amendment. we are in a dangerous environment and that is perhaps part of why we have so many
8:51 pm
amendments in this area. i identify with every word mr. turner spoke. i think the rational is perfect. the nuclear umbrella of the united states is stretched thinner and thinner as the days go by. with the unrest in the middle east, there may be a time when concern middle easterners -- i will not say partners but those that identify and look to america might look to us for our nuclear umbrella but if they have any doubt of the bench that they will not be able to respond. they might be able to build their own capability and i think the amendment has many important factors and i support it and hope hope the committee will. >> gentlemen from alabama? >> i want to offer my thank to the gentlemen for offering this.
8:52 pm
it helps set priorities which is a key thing. i want to say accelerating the united states weapons dismantling rate sends the wrong message we want to send to russia. russia continues to make threats, we accelerate our disarmament disarmament. this is crazy. >> further discussions? those in favor of the amendment say aye. those in favor say no. the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. does the chair recognize the gentlemen from arizona? mr. franks for the purpose of offering an amendment. >> thank you. i have amendments at the desk.
8:53 pm
>> if the clerk will distribute the amendment. i think it is good to our folks a chance to distribute the amendment so members can see it before we start talking about it. >> without objection the amendment will be considered as read and the gentlemen from arizona is recognized for five minutes. >> the amendment before the committee will task the agency to begin initial concept development for a space-based defeat layer. it could defeat ballistic missiles and anti ship muscles and hardened against solar pulse
8:54 pm
and kinetic anti satellite weapons. mr. chairman there were many people as you know who doubted missile defense would work in the first place and it would be like quote hitting a bullet with a bullet as the bumper sticker read, but today as everyone knows on the committee the missile defense accuracy is equate to hitting a dot on the side of a bullet with a bullet. missile ballistic technology is now increasing at a pace we have never seen before. they are investing in technologies with the explicit purpose of defeating our defensive capabilities. in 2011 the director of missile defense agency general o'reilly stated the technology exist that a space-based layer could be developed within ten years. further this limited capability for the defense of the homeland
8:55 pm
would be a fraction of the cost of a global constowconstalation. there are those who will argue this is not the right approach to missile defense. that it ask too expensive. and we should focus on left to watch. but mr. chairman we are in the mist of negotiations are iran and we will lower their nuclear state and we will make no mention of their ballistic missile program let alone their state recognized quote most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world. mr. chairman just related to north korea alone, our left of launch solution was a surgical strike into that country to try to take out the rapidly
8:56 pm
developing ballistic missile program. in the absence of left of launch options, we need to consider our own advances in defense because our advisaries grow stronger and more sophisticated every day. >> gentlemen from tennessee, mr. cooper. >> mr. chairman, i support missile defense. but this proposal is so bold and so expensive and probably so impractical i am worried it does a disservice to the cause of missile defense. the national academy of science issued a statement saying it would require 650 new satellites costing $300 billion. we are not even paying for our current defense bill. we are pretending that funding is somehow taking care of the
8:57 pm
most basic readiness needs. we are borrowing money from china now to fund the current defense bill. this should be brought up. going for a pie in the sky proposal is an extroidinary thing. it is estimated to be a $100 million for two countries and i don't mind doing this as long as we are not baronotber borrowing the money from china. all of our satellites are vulnerable right now. the key point is this; i am for missile defense and what works and what is practical and this is not it. i mind urge my colleagues to apoisea oppose the amendment.
8:58 pm
>> i yield my time to representative franks on this amendment >> thank you, gentlemen. i want to address briefly the item of cost. mr. cooper is correct in the predictions are a global situation would be around $280 billion. but what we are talking about here is a homeland defense for the united states. and that would be approximately $26 billion over a 20-year period. i think that equates to $600 million a year. with a missile defense budget somewhere in the neighbor of 8-10 billion a year we are not talking about something far out of range here. we are talking about one of the most significant advances and pushing back one of the most important frontiers we can have for missile defense. it has implications ultimately for far more than just iran and
8:59 pm
north korea and has implications for cruise missiles and a lot of different technologies that are in the future going to be a major threat to the united states. and i would suggest sometimes we save money. in the '90s we saved some on human intelligence some on surveillance, and when to airplanes hit to buildings it cost us $2 billion. if it was a nuclear attack i would ask how much it would have been then? i hope the committee would support the amendment. i yield back. >> gentlemen from colorado yield back. >> mr. larson? >> thank you mr. chairman. one of the advantages and disadvantages of being on a committee for 14 years you can look back and say i remember
9:00 pm
when. ...
9:01 pm
>> >> and as an important point of the environment that we are in. ed -- in comparison is a low-cost interceptor and the money spent that comes at the expense of current missile defense programs in the era of increasing budget constraint. and there is no operational requirement we have a robust missile defense program that continues to improve for a
9:02 pm
perspective that is where we ought to focus on missile defense to the ground-based interceptors and going back to the future of any missile defense is better missile defense as opposed to use smarter and more effective that we test then deploy as to just direct the of the department to go do this that this is not fiscal be sustainable and expensive rand we're moving forward aggressively on the missile defense programs that we have. so i would encourage the committee to look hard at this amendment and implore you to vote against this but we're going back to the
9:03 pm
future in the early 2002 was not a good feature. we got on the right track don't want to go back on the wrong track again. >> i support this amendment calling for improvement of china and north korea a and i rand it is the responsible thing to do i urge the adoption. i yield back. >> i support the amendment i yield my time to mr. franken >> the chairman of the subcommittee made my point this is asking the missile defense agency to begin an initial concept development not building al the system they use. >> if not it is offered those in favor say aye.
9:04 pm
the aye have it. >> we are calling for able call that will be postponed. >> we recognize the gentleman from alabama. >> if the clerk will distribute the amendment. >> without objection ended is considered red and the gentleman from alabama is recognized for five minutes.
9:05 pm
>> the rationale is simple we should not be spending money on advanced stages of technology development with no clear requirements early r&d is an touched by this amendment how we have new science and new ideas the requirements of late stage development to have clear requirements and a clear objective. we cannot fund late stage technology development for proliferation and verification technologies of this and has clear requirements recognize the the circumstances we cannot anticipate it has the authority to waive the prohibition in we cannot spend millions of dollars when we don't even understand how it will be used that is just the jobs program for board
9:06 pm
scientists. , etc. piraeus that attribute to a national security i and encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment. >> the gentleman from tennessee's dreyfus is the third that did not have a hearing before the subcommittee i wonder if my colleague from alabama heard the previous debate talking about a finance technology but here we try to limit the full development of technology? from nuclear powers around the world? we need to advance technology now more than ever because it is known that several other nations has been cheating and we need to catch them with the most advanced technology possible there really makes me wonder for i tried to attend the hearings i don't remember about a limitation of technology it seems to be
9:07 pm
anti-scions an anti-national defence orders my colleagues to vote for the amendment and i hope there would reconsider. i yield back the balance of my time. >> further discussion? those in favor? those opposed? the aye have it. the amendment is agreed to. next we recognize mr. cooper to offer an amendment. >> several of us gave up with the same idea so i want to give them credit. >> please distribute the amendment make sure israel
9:08 pm
gets the missile defense right now iron dome aero. there are some legitimate issues that the chairman of the subcommittee and i are well aware of with the dirty laundry issues in the weeds negotiations but we should not let those concerns delay or hinder israel, our true friend in the middle east getting what it needs right now orders my colleagues to support this amendment that
9:09 pm
is totally bipartisan as long as they're not afraid to be associated with me this would do a lot to improve the market not only have a sustainable on the floor but in the senate i would urge my colleagues to make it easier for israel to get funding in their hour of need to support this amendment. i yield to my friend from colorado. >> des moines to complement you think it is well thought out i will support you wholeheartedly i appreciate we were trying to do is a great example of working together somewhere urge my colleagues to vote on this also. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> is a gentleman with the yield to the chair, a maya understanding is there is an issue with this amendment?
9:10 pm
>> there is isn't that is what i regret about the markups it is a legitimate issue of international importance. it shows the problem when bad language gets in and it is important for this committee to go on the record of not supporting the bad language because we're all supportive of israel we need to reassure the is really fran several supporters know our hearts are in the right place. ideally before we get to the floor when procedural considerations i know the gentleman is urging me to withdraw the amendment but is there some way that most members could go on record to do the right thing for israel? >> if i could respond the issue we apply to all members is if there is a referral that a committee
9:11 pm
has not weighed in means the bill cannot go to the floor a gets referred to the other committee why under both parties were released last 20 years i have spent on this committee we do not allow amendments that you can have the waiver from the other committee. my hope is the gentleman all colleagues to support this amendment five lead on the floor because then you aren't passed the refer to another committee issue and this issue which seems there is the interest to have that made in there is support but at this point we just cannot consider it. >> it is cleaner procedure of the with the chairman support of a happy to pursue that avenue i just hate to have international relations tied up with their own parliamentary procedure i wish the house foreign affairs committee acted faster on the referral.
9:12 pm
>> i agree although i do think our country is understand and will be sympathetic. with that the amendment is with strong. -- withdrawn. now mr. frank's? >> thank you mr. chairman there is an amendment on the desk. >> please distribute the amendment. >> without objection and it
9:13 pm
is considered as read the purpose of mr. frank's is recognized five minutes. >> mr. chairman want to thank the chairman rogers to go far beyond the presidential request for israeli missile defense funding and once again to be a for a -- reaffirmed his intent to support israel in their never-ending fight against islamic terrorism and i want to express my appreciation to mr. cooper for his efforts. this support congress has shown in the past half century has saved countless lives with his help to keep the world's only jewish state strong and prosperous for or unfortunately groups like a lost hezbollah and the regime's continued to call for the deaths of all jews and destruction of israel while getting more
9:14 pm
advanced weaponry to hit that goal. with water ranges and precise missiles israel's survival rest on their survival in their ability to outpace their threat by building more advanced defense capabilities like the iron dome. and those that could have more longer-range destructive missiles are developed so quickly that for the first time ever the fyi 16 willises to israel in procurement of those systems i know chairman rogers wholeheartedly supports israel to fully fund the missile defense program rileys seek to make changes to the underlying bill to expedite these to israel. chairman and industry and there is some confusion and apprehension about the
9:15 pm
underlying language that you drafted when you did that for agoraphobia understand your intent as well as his to discuss the issue with you personally today so with your assurances we will work together to perfect the language tabloid field for any comments spinning thank you for your colloquy glading we disagree is to support said more? it is me. since becoming chairman i have included more than $1 million for the missile defense program in tristan the apprehensions around the language and i can promise them we provide any needed clarifications to be sure that defense is assured. >> mr. chairman i think chairman rogers with that i
9:16 pm
will ask consent to withdraw my amendment. >> the amendment is withdrawn. we now recognize the gentleman from oklahoma. >> if the clerk would please distribute the amendment. without objection and it is considered red end your recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. i intend to withdraw this
9:17 pm
amendment as it is strikingly similar to ranking member coopers amendment and i appreciate his support for these efforts for reasons introduced the authorization act with congressman from the state of washington as a bipartisan bill per order authorizes procurement in funding for the missile defense system and i am grateful for section 1670 of the chairman's mark that includes $150 million for aero upper tier procurements. it also specifies the terms and conditions for releasing the funding to the government of israel. of light to enter into a colloquy to clarify one part of this section and realize this language was carefully crafted but if feasible will you except adjusting the conditions to have more
9:18 pm
flexibility to israel to accept -- access authorized funds? specifically or work with me on the floor as the chairman indicated would be appropriate to give more flexibility to excess funding to procure a long lead items before the:production contract is signed? >> i thank you for your support i agree there are vital funds and urgently needed and you have my agreement to see what language may be needed for the missile defense funding i think we're all on the same page here. >> thank you mr. chairman chairman and i also yield back i withdraw my amendment >> now we recognize mr. rogers. >> ask unanimous consent to
9:19 pm
call up the package of amendments we have worked on with the minority. >> please distribute the amendments. without objection and they're considered red the gentleman is recognized to explain the package. >> i call upon the following of the army version of the weapon and amendment number 11 regarding a briefing on electromagnetic interference
9:20 pm
requirement add a 15 year sunset of the prohibition of sharing missile defense information with russia. concerning the feasibility and benefit and cost of the standard missile for any warfare. and amendment number 60 with 15 years and set in number 62 regarding correction. number 63 with briefing and planning with capability number 65 regarding technical correction. and concerning notification of the committee concerning capabilities. amendment number 81 regarding the requirements for tactical communications for i yield back. >> is there further discussion on these amendments? if not the chairman those in
9:21 pm
favor? those opposed? of the aye have it and the amendments are adopted. >> we will go out of order for a second in the chair recognizes mr. cooper to offer an amendment. >> if we give the clerk just a second. we're changing things around and it messes up the system. if we can distribute 51 are one. -- 51r1.
9:22 pm
>> without objection indeed an amendment is considered red and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> this is perhaps the most important amendment of this subcommittee section. for those were not familiar with the monitoring system united states has invested almost $1 billion to put the radioactive detection monitors in 49 countries
9:23 pm
around the world and the purpose is to try to track plutonium uranium things that could be used as a weapon of mass destruction against this company -- country. we have some of the most dangerous smuggling borders in the world with this fix portal monitoring it is important to keep that capability. the russians use the independent and the chinese use the independent -- depend on it are we going to do without that? i would surprise -- a price on the prohibition continuing the use of the fixed portal monitors and to be clear the markup language does not prohibit mobile monitors just the fixed ones. there is a legitimate argument the fixed one can be circumvented but just
9:24 pm
that forces them to go places that our harder to reach or where they could be caught with a mobile water. but to sacrifice our security and existing investment over $1 billion? i have another briefing on this just yesterday the threat is real road states and actors are trying to proliferate we have got to stop it wherever we can. that is where these portable radiation monitors are. i hope it was a mistake that the prohibition got into with i think we need to remove that so the united states of america can continue to rely on fixed portal monitored - - monitors as our system to keep his country saved. some of these godforsaken
9:25 pm
place is the borders of russia, pakistan many locations are classified a man not always work but it puts the fear of the board that they will be caught and make them divert to other ways to get the material out purple let's keep our investment to improve technology and keep america safe which is what this amendment is all about her or urge my colleagues to support this amendment. >> said gentleman from tennessee we agree on most things he has been a great partner running this committee the last two and a half years but occasionally we disagree and this is one of them bright understand the concerns on this provision but we're here choose set priorities we cannot find everything the taxpayer dollars are not unlimited we've made other
9:26 pm
prior to rescissions' with bipartisan agreement. unfortunately eliminating the of funding for this program was not enough to get up prior to irritation that is why we included section 3117 to set priorities to follow through on them. the mark also provides funding increases to more effective non-proliferation counterterrorism programs it is a $55 million increase and that is real money to help build on improvements. it is prioritizing the most effective programs i urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back. >> i want to speak in support of the cooper amendment. let me start by prohibiting
9:27 pm
funds for their radiation detection monitors does not go into a category. i have spent eight years on the house subcommittee and one thing it has taught me is you have concentric layers of security. what you want to do is push out the detection of threat as far as possible from the home. that is why we have troops in combat right now in harm's way overseas to prevent the threat at home one of the greatest threats but we faced u.s. national security is the use of weapons of mass destruction or nuclear or idiological threats are among the most severe.
9:28 pm
obviously a good intelligence will be the best but beyond that to detect the most dangerous weapons coming to your country and you have a lead detective -- with the way to detect that why would you want to prevent them from being in place? will also say that without the monitors there, it is very easy for a terrorist to put a weapon or this material on a vessel to go through the regular shipping process and procedures to shipping over here without fear of detection. we want to make it as hard for the bad guys as possible. let's not allow them to have an easy passage through
9:29 pm
ports overseas route is convenient for them to put it on the ship were travel to sail over here. no. i know that we cannot prevent every possible threat to this country and with an adversary perhaps they will find a way but let's not make it easy for them let's make it as difficult as possible and radiation portal monitors overseas is one of the best things we can't do in terms of taking away an easy point of passage to bring that material into this country. applaud mr. cooper for his amendment it is more than reasonable and i urge my colleagues to support it if you really truly want to protect the woman dead the american people then the
9:30 pm
best thing we can do is push those layers of security out as far as we can. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas. >> how much money are we talking about and where does it come from if we strike section 3117? >> i as scientist and a markup language and $90 million cut for this program for i agree we have to set priorities. i am not objecting to the cut but it is the prohibition to shut down this technology for ever after words billion dollar investment? . .
9:31 pm
>> the comment was made that the farther we can move interception to the left the better off we are. when we have these monitors and place where moving interceptions before the.gets on the graph. it is not far left. having the ability to intercept well before material leaves the country is important. one general said with
9:32 pm
regards to the importance of fixed radiation, to leave one unequipped border crossing is like leaving a window open. when i leave the window open at home flies get in. if i leave a window open at the border nuclear material can get in and do harm. having this out right been on procreation monitors is not the right approach. i yield back. >> the question is on the amendment offered by the german from tennessee. the nose have it. a rollcall vote. rollcall vote will be postponed. we will go back to
9:33 pm
originally from california recognized for the purpose of offering amendment. >> i have an amendment number 164 at the desk. >> if the clerk would please distribute sanchez number 164 without objection the amendment is confirmed. >> thank you mr. chairman. independent reports on extended nuclear deterrent.
9:34 pm
the committee directs the secretary of defense to conduct an independent study on nuclear deterrent and assurance, particularly the role in the near term and longer-term of nonstrategic nuclear weapons in providing military and political contributions to extended deterrence for and assurance of us allies. this language requires an independent report and is just that. this is not a prescribed outcome of any type. i would like to know where our allies are what they are thinking what we're looking at. and this has manifested in many ways.
9:35 pm
we talked about that earlier in the day used for nuclear sharing commitments, but several have not. for example, germany has not this would provide information on continued nato nuclear sharing and cohesion. in 2011 nato used their deterrence posture and would be good to do it again. a better understanding of the allies reliance. more importantly the us is spending about ten to $12 billion for refurbishing the b6 one and spends nearly 100 million dollars to.tactical nuclear weapons. there is also on the horizon an extension program that
9:36 pm
the -- there will be required for the same. understanding the benefit we get from extended deterrent is relevant to oversight. i would ask my colleagues to please vote for this report. >> mr. rogers. >> similar if not identical. if anything it is a worse idea. allies have reaffirmed the continuing role of nuclear weapons. nato has repeatedly reaffirmed that as long as they are nuclear weapons in the world nato will remain and nuclear alliance. repeated assurances and in consequence. i have been to eastern
9:37 pm
europe twice. they already wonder whether we are willing to defend our commitment. the sanchez amendment would send the wrong message to our allies and mr. putin. >> further discussion? >> there is no doubt there is trouble in europe. this issue goes hopefully way beyond whatever we will come of the ukraine situation. the question is how we provide this extended nuclear umbrella and the most effective way. we can do it correctly in a way that would be both strategically important or we can stumble on.
9:38 pm
our allies are not in unison we want to be in the dark your? i don't think so. we want information. how we move forward with nuclear deterrence. what is wrong with getting knowledge and information? we ought to vote yes on this one. yield back. >> further discussion. >> questions on the amendment. >> i will take a week courted vote on that. >> it will be postponed. the chair recognizes the
9:39 pm
gentle lady from california for another amendment. >> this has to do with nuclear nonproliferation. >> the clerk can distribute. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> when you clump them all together. >> without objection considered as read. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is about flexibility
9:40 pm
and about nuclear nonproliferation. last year or the year before we started to allow some flexibility in the way that the department to transfer funds and currently they are able to transfer funds if they need for weapons activity and naval reactors and only to that but it excluded nonproliferation. this is about adding nonproliferation to transfer funds in that direction. it does not it does not take funding away from weapons programs were naval reactor programs. so here is an example of why we might need something like that. in 2013 the nsa removed all of the highly enriched
9:41 pm
uranium from the ukraine a total of 340 25234 kilograms, equivalent to ten nuclear weapons. it is difficult to predict where a crisis might arise but allowing the flexibility to ramp up removal is critical in the event of a crisis. again, this does not take away but allows for transfer already should they have a need as they did in ukraine in 2013. i think this amendment is insurance in case of a crisis in nuclear security.
9:42 pm
we don't know where the threats will come from. it provides flexibility to transfer funds to nuclear weapons, naval reactors and nonproliferation events. i would encourage my colleagues to allow that flexibility and vote for the amendment. >> does the gentle lady yields? the chair recognizes the
9:43 pm
gentleman from alabama for five minutes. >> thank you. i cannot believe we are having this debate again. every year my colleagues seek to amend this provision. every year it fails. every year we debated in markup talk about on the floor and then conference. dod has its own nonproliferation program. i urging our vote. >> is there any further debate? if not -- sorry, recognized. >> the goal here is to make certain that nonproliferation, funding needed flexibility are just as important as other areas of nuclear weapon material critical of these other areas. i think we want to take another look at this. i think it is an important and critical issue. >> as you know lady yields back the balance of her time. >> i would say to the chairman of the subcommittee
9:44 pm
i bring up nonproliferation every year because i believe it is important. we not only need to make better nuclear weapons and research better nuclear weapons and modernize nuclear weapons. as someone who looks at my family, if there is an ability high increases command the double digits. but yet nonproliferation has decreased by nearly 20 percent since fiscal year 11. i think that we should have all of the tools available
9:45 pm
for when the crisis comes up i would ask once again my colleagues to consider that nonproliferation flexibility and abilities are important for our country. >> the gentle lady yields back the balance of her time the nose have it. >> chairman, i requested a recorded vote. >> that will be postponed. >> amendment 311 three. >> has it been passed out? >> it has not without
9:46 pm
objection we will dispense with the reading. >> mr. chairman this is basically a movement of money increasing funding for army oh in am operations support by 213.7 million and restores funding for nuclear weapons programs by taking the increase. the army submitted an unfunded requirement of $560 million for base operations support which provides $213.7 million to meet nearly half of that requirement. while the committee has met other unfunded army
9:47 pm
requirements it did not address army base operations which were severely hit by sequestration and saw only a 4.8 percent increase in funding in fiscal year 16 president budget request. i have been to several bases talked to commanders put that maintenance on hold and they are looking forward to seeing an increase in the budget. a budget request is 8.8 billion. this includes an increase of 237.7 million that the administration did not request and quite frankly is not needed. just since last year weapons
9:48 pm
activities, budget request is over 10.5 percent higher than comparable fiscal year 15 appropriations. these accounts have been increasing steadily and significantly for the past five years. almost 30 percent higher than in fiscal year 11. i request my colleague to vote for this amendment and help our army base. thank you, and i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. >> thank you. i strongly oppose this amendment. no other capability we have is more important. nuclear deterrent has been called the nation's number
9:49 pm
one priority defense mission i want to make my colleagues aware this amendment would strike $150 million authorizing for addressing the 3.6 billion backlog in deferred maintenance. a chunk of concrete fell from the ceiling of a 60 -year-old building where we build components for nuclear weapons and are likely no one was killed or injured. we are one shot of concrete away from a dead worker in the shutdown of our nuclear weapons capability which increases the risk that they will occur. already putting increased funding for several army you have for us that are higher priorities. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote no. >> the gentleman yields back. any other discussion on the amendment? >> i think it is about time
9:50 pm
that we pause and consider our needs. we are into the 1st quarter of a knew nuclear arms race. start adding up these nuclear weapons systems all of which are proposed to be reduced by ms. sanchez's amendment and it does not begin to equal the increase for all of the nuclear weapons activities. we're well into it when you consider the bombs themselves listed here in the amendment and consider the delivery systems which we have not yet come to discuss. you will come to realize over the next 20, 25 years we will be spending well over a trillion dollars on the nuclear weapons systems. while doing that so our russia and china.
9:51 pm
is an arms race and this one is particularly troublesome because the weapons are far more sophisticated the bombs are far more precise and the delivery systems are fast stealthy an old rules do not apply. just for a moment those of us that think maybe we ought to rethink and pause for a moment on this new nuclear arms race and even for those that want to get on with it and spend hundreds of billions of dollars to just think about the implications the implications are dire very serious. this is a complex difficult, serious matter command we cannot pile on. ms. sanchez puts a tiny break does not stop it
9:52 pm
hardly slows it down. it it ought to give us pause. look at each of these funding reductions. each and every one is a nuclear bomb extremely dangerous perfectly capable of wiping out cities and the rest. pause. we can spend this more wisely. i support the amendment. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. we reduce the number of nuclear weapons and russia increases the number. i don't know i don't know what kind of deal you call that, i don't think it's a
9:53 pm
great one. whatever you call it i would not call it a nuclear arms race. the one thing that we are doing that i do agree with and applaud is modernizing the warheads we do have which was part of the quid pro quo that the senate agreed to when ratifying the new start treaty that we would modernize our nuclear stockpile. this takes out 237 million that the chairman referred to. we don't do the modernization nearly like we should. i ask everyone to reject this amendment because it goes against the modernization. we have a reduced number of nuclear warheads.
9:54 pm
>> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the nose seemed clear. >> i asked for a recorded vote. >> it will be postponed. >> one more amendment. >> for the clerk pass out the amendment? we will dispense with the reading. >> mr. chairman as you know, i have been spending quite a bit of time with
9:55 pm
respect to our nato alliance, some but how well we were headed. we understand it is incredibly important. we have known many allies have not been funding their defense as they should command we have had several secretaries of defense call out and say they need to step up to the plate and do this. one of the things we have in europe of course is our forward deployed nuclear weapon. they are all weapons on bases in europe and for the most part the burden is
9:56 pm
borne by the american taxpayer. this amendment would require dod to make a request for proportional cost-sharing. what this amendment does is require a cost-sharing arrangement and asks dod to seek consideration for expenses related to proportional cost of forward deployed weapons and provide a response to congress. we are modernizing the b6 one in europe which will be expensive. it is about ten to $12 billion over the next few years and nato does not contribute.
9:57 pm
the united states pays for sustainment and manpower to support these forward deployed -- deployments amounting in the tens of millions of dollars per year nato provides some security at these bases answer infrastructure upgrade. by and large the cost of this entire system is pretty much born by the taxpayer. i am i am of the opinion that nato countries should participate in burden sharing by contributing a fair share of cost and that is my amendment it would simply ask for a better cost-sharing arrangement asked the department of defense to seek this out. i would hope that my colleagues would agree that some cost should be borne by our nato allies and not wholly by our american taxpayers and asked them to
9:58 pm
support this amendment and yield back. >> mr. rogers. >> thank you. i oppose the gentle lady's amendment. nato does not own or control these weapons. second, having nato allies fund this is likely a violation of the nonproliferation treaty. i will leave it there. i urge a no vote. >> i briefly add that these are basically paid for. cost-sharing is not significant, and i do not see the need and urging no vote. >> further discussion? if not the question is on the amendment offered by ms. sanchez. the nose have it.
9:59 pm
>> chairman, i would like a recorded vote. >> the gentle lady asks for a rollcall vote which will be postponed. postponed. the chair recognizes the german from tennessee for the purposes of offering an amendment. >> 521. >> without objection the amendment is considered as read. >> thank you. i intend to withdraw this amendment shortly.
10:00 pm
before members stop paying attention, the purpose of this amendment it's too late for some of you. the purpose of this amendment is to correct micromanagement. one of the toughest jobs in all of american government. we have a heavy duty oversight responsibility but do not want to get into the weeds. we don't want to do anything from -- to prevent him or hinder him from doing his job. we can make an ms a function effectively. with the chairman's permission i would like to withdraw the amendment.

88 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on