>> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the clerk please repass it out d the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. any member of this committee that will remember our former colleague john hostella will remember he was an engineer by training, a very valuable member of this committee. this naming of this electric chemistry engineering facility in crane, indiana, is to honor a

man that was a true patriot that led th loved this institution but even more so loved the united states of america. i'm very pleased the congressman from crane, indiana, at least has him in his district, dr. bucshon has this in his amendment. that's the purpose of the amendment is to honor one of our former colleagues i think deserves this recognition. >> any further discussion on the amendment? >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, this is congressman young here. if i could have 30 seconds. >> gentlemen, mr. young is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. >> i'm very pleased my colleague, mr. jones of north carolina has offered this amendment. i happen to represent a district right outside of crane, indiana,

and i would just say that mr. h hotstettler represented the eighth district of indiana in a very professional fashion for a number of years. he's a man of high character and good southern indiana values. i know we've worked very hard to see that crane continues to continue to be a center of excellent for our country in our nation's defense. thank you very much for putting this amendment forward. i will be supporting it wholeheart wholeheartedly. i yield back. thank you. any further discussion on this amendment? >> the congressman from virginia will be recognized for five minutes. >> i did not know the gentleman.

i have no idea if he is a fine man or i have no doubt he is a fine man if he's still living. it's been my practice to not vote to designate federal facilities after elected officia officials. i don't expect others to fiscal what i'm doing here, but it just seems to me -- and i'm not trying to claim any moral high ground here but i have just voted for those destinations for the fall en and i just wanted t share that, so that my good friends and colleagues would know why i'm going to vote the way i am. i appreciate the opportunity to address the committee. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. any further discussion on the amendment?

if not, the question on the amendment is offered by mr. jones. those in favor, say aye. >> aye. >> opposed, no. >> no. >> ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. any other amendments to the subcommittee's report? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendmen amendment. >> yes, recognized for the amendment. the clerk please pass out the amendment. without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. >> mr. chairman, i will speak. i have two amendments. >> gentlemen, suspend until we get it passed out.

>> the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering his amendment. >> thank you. i have two amendments and will give you a presentation that will combine discussion for both to give the committee members the understanding how they're fitting together. i want to thank the chairman for his support for these next two amendments and also chairman forbes for his support for these two amendments. i'm the chairman of the strayingic forces of subcommittee and have

responsibility for nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons infrastructure. we're struggling to maintain the nuclear weapons infrastructure to make sure we have a strong nuclear deterrent. the president recognized this as we went forward with the new start agreement. the president went to the senate and recognized his acknowledgement there were investments that need to be made to our nuclear weapons infrastructure, specifically two facilities this amendment deals with. this amendment basically takes two large nuclear facilities currently being designed by the department of energy and national nuclear energy administration and transfers the department of defense, in effect the customer of the national nuclear administration's work for this building and the secretary of defense utilized the nuclear construction and milcon ability to build these facilities. the nuclear replace center to be located at loss ail moss and

oakridge are two facilities necessary for us to be able to insure our nuclear weapons deterrent is sustainable. president obama in april of twen twenty -- 2010 posture review the president of the united states own words ratified 10 months before the ratification stated the following key investments were required to sustain a safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal. quote funding the chemistry and met lurgy replacement project at loss almos laboratory to replace the 50-year-old chemistry research facility in 2021. in order to sustain a safe nuclear stockpile, the united states must possess a modern physical infrastructure comprised of the national security laboratories and a complex of supporting facilities, again the president's words, implementation of stockpile stewardship program and nuclear

infrastructure investments redded in npr will allow the united states to shift away from obtaining large numbers of nuclear weapons. the president went to the senate and requested new start approval ratification, he made a commitment to accelerate the construction of these facilities, identifying them again as required and essential for us to be able to reduce to the levels that are proposed in new start and for our ability to maintain our nuclear deterrent. the president in the 1251 plan again recognized the importance of these facilities and provided funding. the nnsa has had difficulty and struggled with their ability to deliver this facility. in that we're certain by coordinating this work with the defense of defense, we'll be able to accomplish the

construction of this facility and delivery of it and have it placed on line. currently, the president is calling on a five year delay in implementation of this facility. we believe with a partnership between the department of defense and doe and nsa, we can accomplish the construction of this facility. we have two amendments. the first one brings the department of defense in with their expertise for that construction. i want to put a footnote on that. this is very much like how the private sector would undertake a construction project and partly why nsa has struggled. they've been trying to undertake this alone. in the private sector you bring a contractor, construction manager, tenant lessee, you bring forth the owner. in this instance, what we're trying to do by legislation, bring all these parties together so we can accomplish the construction of building nsa is failing at. with the president's own words, is the essential for us to maintain our nuclear deterrent. i want to thank the chairman for

their support for this nuclear facility and having these two facilities, cmrr and ntf to be undertaken with nocar facilities. >> thank you. i yield back to miss sanchez for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i am against this amendment number 47. basically, what it's doing is taking away the construction of these defense nuclear facilities currently being designed by the department of energy and nnsa and any future similar facilities to be transferred to dod and that the secretary of defense utilize military construction authority to build these facilities. my colleague, mr. turner suggested that the d.o.d. corps

of engineers have expertise building these facilities. in fact, they don't have expertise in that. this building is a one-of-a-kind nuclear facility. ar army corps of engineers, this particular sect of it builds office and medical and housing facilities. it doesn't build one of a kind nuclear facilities. in addition to that, we're taking away the focus where d.o.d. is building and may take away some major projects the d.o.d. has to build. the united states army corps of engineers may not have a better records than the nnsa construction track record. for example the lock and dam that began as a $745 million project is now more than a $3 billion project. again, their expertise does not lie in this one-of-a-kind nuclear facility.

but what this really brings to a head is this whole issue of civilian control over nuclear weapons facilities. i believe that's an important distinction, we should have concerns that the d.o.d. has even more of a hand on our nuclear facilities. i think that it's incredibly important that we not do this amendment. we -- i think that we should be improving the nnsa, not taking time and money to remove the responsibilities from one organization to another organization who may not be better equipped, may not have the expertise, certainly doesn't have the expertise to do this nature of facility. it will also take the authority for funding this project out of energy and water appropriations and it will shift it to the

house armed services, the defense appropriations side. so i would ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. >> mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i want to compliment mr. turner for his leadership on the nuclear issues for this committee for so long. as i look at the priorities that we have, i can think of few that are greater than our nuclear capability. this is not just any issue or any program, this is one of the top ones that we have for defending and protecting the united states of america. it's not that the d.o.d. has particular expertise in this particular structure, they have the expertise in the process. the military construction

process has long been successful in providing specific congressional oversight. it gives us a much greater capability, we know how to do this, have done it before. also d.o.d. has experience in building highly secure, highly safe nuclear qualified facilities which i think is what mr. turner is trying to get at here. by leveragiing doe's expertise. dod can build it cheaper and quicker than doe and doe funding won't have to be siphoned off for non-dod purposes. mr. chairman, i want to thank mr. turner for bringing this to the committee's attention. i hope this is an amendment we will get behind and support and think this is vital to do for the security of the united states. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from -- mr. andrews. >> i oppose this aamendment for

the substantive reasons the gentlewoman from california has given. i think the subcommittee chairman from ohio is absolutely right to bring this up. i think the committee is absolutely right to consider these questions and make a decision about them. i find it to be an interesting contradictions with the underlying policy stated at the beginning of the mark-up that's against quote earmarks close quote. i think the decision to remove earmarks from this process was a bad decision. i think it divests the congressional decision-makers of our authority to do what we were elected to do. i think this aamendment is an example of the metta physical difficulty that comes along when one tries to distinguish between an earmark and non-earmark. this amendment deals, as i understand it, with one project that's two facilities, i may be wrong but very narrow in scope. it's also entirely appropriate this committee make this decision, entirely appropriate.

i guess the question i would ask here, how are we distinguishing this discussion of one project from the general principal that anything that deals with one expenditure or one project is somehow beyond our capacity to do. i don't ask that rhetorically, mr. chairman, i would ask you, why is this not an earmark? >> do you yield to -- >> i would be happy to. and i say that i think he's absolutely right to bring this up, i'm not criticizing him. i'm saying why are we limiting ourselves to having similar discussions about important questions because they, too, deal with one project. i'd be happy to yield. >> we'll have to get a ruling from staff, they've already given, as you know, this is not an earmark. the thing i think is the most important with this is that this is a provision that goes to the cooperative authority on execution of a project approved

and requested by the president. is the not my project. i can give you five or six great quotes the president of the united states has given as to the essential nature of this is and all i'm saying is to accomplish it, we need to have this cooperative collaboration. >> claiming my time, i understand is the not parochial at all for the gentleman, nothing to do with what people normally think of an earmark, very interested in this policy question and has a very credible position and our side has a more cred credible position so i will vote w with miss sanchez. we have made a virtue not discussing narrow specific projects because somehow that's a great thing to do. i think it's a foolish thing to do. i think what it does is divest the authority of the legislative branch, give it to the executive branch and let them make all the decisions, something we ought to think about, mr. turner is

absolutely right to bring this up because there's a serious concern how this is being executed, this decision. i don't think we should divorce ourselves from that discussion, i'm glad this amendment is being offered. i think our underlying policy, the floor policy, not any -- not the committee policy, i understand that. to vest ourselves of that authority i think is a very bad decision. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair has to make the decision whether it's an earmark or not. this was a project requested by the administration. the definition that we've been living with on earmark is something that's requested by a member, something that would come to a member's district, whether or not it would be built in a member's district, whether a specific member would benefit from that expenditure, or his district or her district would

benefit from that. this does not fall anywhere into that. this is a project that was requested by the administration. all we're looking at is who would build it. has nothing to do with any particular member's district or benefit to any particular member. >> would the chairman yield? >> be happy to. >> that's my point. this will sound a little parallel universe here for a minute. what i'm saying to you here, because the administration made a decision, it's okay, but if we make one, it isn't, which is the premise of this. an executive branch decision is presumptively valid but a decision made by the congress is presumptively invalid. i think that's really not what we should be doing. >> reclaiming my time, it really has nothing to do with that. i think what you're bringing up is the discussion whether or not congress should have earmarks. that was discussed when we voted

on the rules for this congress at the beginning of the congress. that's where we should have that debate. i think that i probably would agree with the gentleman. i've been concerned about the fact that we cannot ask for earmarks, but that is established rule for this particular congress that was voted on at the beginning of this particular congress. this particular amendment does not fall under that particular rule or that earmark. recognize the gentleman from colorado for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just briefly, i would like to support this amendment by saying there seems to be a lot of consensus that the projects are needed and that when they're finished, doe should operate them. but in the meantime, who should construct the two projects?

that's the question in front of us. i agree that dod would do a better job through the process of getting everyone together, getting more buy-in from the stakeholders, the agencies, the committees of congress, and that it would be a more stable and predictable and ultimately the potential of a more cost saving approach. but certainly more stability and predictability, which is critical when these two projects have such national security implications. for all those reason, mr. chairman, i would ask support for this amendment. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. chair recognizes ranking member smith for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just quickly. i share the concern. >> these projects obviously need to be built. doe has not had the best record of doing it. i think there is legitimate concern about doe taking this over and the assumption doe will

do it better misses the fact this is a different type of project from what doe normally does. i think if we transfer this over we may find we create more problems than we solve. i certainly think it's appropriate for this committee to put pressure on the doe to get moving on this and do it better and more quickly. i don't imagine the doe is necessarily more efficient and effective. the type of military construction projects doe regularly does, they have a decent records, they don't have a record on this. i think we're taking a big leap into the unknown and creating perhaps more problems than we will solve. i think it's a legitimate concern to make sure the doe maintains control of our nuclear programs. that's a very firm thing in our law and this committee and throughout congress. stepping across that line i think is a dangerous thing that should not be done lightly and i don't think the merits here warrant that step so i'll

apologi oppose the amendment. >> gentleman from texas, mr. thornburgh is recognized for five minutes. >> i will make two points. number one, these are in and of themselves unique facilities but dod has constructed nuclear storage facilities all across the country and they exist all across the country. it's not like they don't know how to do this or have no experience doing it. they have constructed facilities in some ways with greater danger than these have for some time. i think the point is these are dod and core of engineers constructs stuff all the time and nsa does not construct stuff all the time. i have some problem with past challenges as well and surely they can do a better job than nsaa and that's the bottom job of what this amendment means.

just because the corps constructs it does not mean we're turning over control of the nuclear weapons building process, research and so forth, turnover dod. we may have discussion later about civilian control of the military and nuclear weapons and organizational issues. just because the corps is going to help build this thing, hopefully more efficiently and faster does not mean we're throwing away 60 years of civilian control of the military. yield back. >> yes-man yields back. gentleman from texas. mr. reyes is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate being recognized and yield my time to miss sanchez. >> thank you, mr. reyes. because you're lumping these two together, we're really on amendment number 47 that you're talking about at this point, right? i want to make it right for the record because number 46 is

certainly not in the fiscal year 13 president's budget. thank you and i'll yield back to the gentleman from texas. >> i'll yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield to the gentleman from ohio, mike turner. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to echo what mr. tho thornberry just said, in the department of defense they built in new mexico and washington and kings bay, georgia. one thing that was pointed out important, this is a one-of-a-kind facility. i guess that would mean no one has experience in doing it and having the dod and nsa work together would probably be a good idea since they probably have similar expertise in these facilities.

>> would the gentleman yield? >> just a moment. >> i believe bringing the dod experience to the table makes a difference and i want to point out before i yield to my ranking member, if you look at the text at the bottom of page 3 it states the administrator for the nuclear security of the national nuclear security administration and secretary of energy shall retain authority to regulate, design construction activities pursuant toe atomic energy act and other applicable laws and goes on to still say how nnsa shall be in control of the facility so it does not turn over the authority, operation or design of this facility to dod and with that, i'll yield to my ranking member. >> you know, i mean, mr. turner, with all due respect, it is a one-of-a-kind facility, the army corps has not built these billionaire. the doe has. i just believe that to change that, to move construction into

another place just puts us further behind and as i said, on some of these projects, the army corps does not have a good record either. so i'll just put it at that. >> thank you. >> yield back. >> reclaiming the time, i just want to add in this debate, the one thing that we know, one thing that absolutely the administration agrees, doe agrees and nnsa agrees and everyone on this committee agrees, nnsa cannot do this or it would be being done and why we're bringing this amendment forward so we can get this facility done. please support this amendment. thank you, mr. chair. >> if there's no further debate on the amendment, the questions on the adoption offered by mr. turner, so many in favor, say ai. >> ai. >> those opposed, no. >> no. >> the ayes have it. >> i'd like a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote has been

requested. we'll call this roll call vote at the end of the subcommittee mark. are there any other amendments to the subcommittee's report? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment? without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offerring and explaining his

amendment. >> this aamendment with the prior amendment have the support of the chairman and chairman forbes and i appreciate your support. this is the further execution of the construction of the cmrr facility. this is a companion to the prior amendment. the prior amendment where we gave the authority to the department of defense, for them to undertake the construction, this amendment directs the secretary of defense to undertake construction. this does not move money. there is already money in the bill. this is not again falling under the criticism of correctionidiry to a particular project. this is a project that is the execution of the president's own plan, the president's 1251 plan required that the -- this facility be under construction and operational by 2021. in order to meet that deadline of 2021, we've got to get started. so this amendme