dollars on missile defense it remains a troubled system. according to the missile defense agency estimates congress has appropriated almost $150 billion on these programs between fiscal year 1985 and 2012. this does not include the $8.6 billion for the fiscal year 2013 service spending on programs such as the patriot system or the many tens of billions of dollars spent since work on anti missile systems first began in the 1950s. basically, my amendment would say, why are you adding more money? general o'reilly says he doesn't need it. he needs to get through these tests. and when he finishes, we'll talk about what we need to actually

build. and i yield back my time. >> mr. chairman, you know, i -- i hear that discussion and the money we have spent and probably not all of it is very productive. but then i also sit on the education committee. and i was just asking the chairman how much we have spent on title i since it was first passed. over $100 billion. and we're not going to stop. we're going to keep working because we haven't solved all the problems. and i think we probably are not going to stop missile defense because we have not solved the problems. and until we have a totally system that's going to do all the job, we're going to have to keep working because we need to be protect tkpwhrd mr. chairman, may i just say something to you on that? >> i now recognize the gentleman from arizona mr. franks, five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you.

i guess i would just really begin by reiterating the point that you just made. when one runs into difficulties in almost any low skwreus cal system you don't throw up your hands and give up. i know of no completely solved problem in the world almost. i never run into it. but when it comes to our gmd system, mr. chairman, it's important to note this is our only tested and proven system to defend the homeland of the united states against incoming intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles. and to me that puts them in a fairly important category for all the consideration we might have. there has also been some discussion about some of the recent test failures. it almost hearkens back to some of the earlier debates in the first place. there was a time when people

said this is star wars. this is an utterly unworkable, unreachable system. that's like hitting a bullet with a bullet. so many times i remember that debate two decades ago, hitting a bullet with a bullet. how impossible. how ridiculous. yet, mr. chairman, as you know, today the closing speeds of our hit-to-kill technology is far beyond that. those closing speeds are for yount 30.06 bullets. the truth is we don't just hit a bullet with a bullet. we hit a the side of a bullet with great consistency most of the time. we live in a different world where there may come a time in the four where some jihadist mind-set might gain access to be able to launch some type of nuclear missiles against the united states, and we should not strip ourselves of the only tested proven system that we have to defend our homeland. every year, every year since

this president has been in office he has requested a reduction in our ground-based mid court missile defense capability in the appropriation process. and mr. chairman, i just sometimes wonder what the pressed alternatives -- if i heard from my colleagues on the other side that we have a better system that will more effectively defend the homeland, i would listen with baited breath. but it seems the only alternative is to cut funding or to reduce funding when we face a different world than we've ever faced. mr. chairman, i just find that to be irresponsible given the committee and station in life that each of us is in in that room. i would hope my colleagues would defeat this amendment and we would move forward with the markup. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman mr. g for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

it's been said by most everybody here that everyone on this committee shares a common goal of protecting the united states from a missile a take and any other attack. and i think that's really true. i don't think there's any doubt that we all share that mission. the question here in this amendment is how are we going to spend our money? are we going to spend it wisely in a way that would continue to allow the necessary research and development of a system that presently doesn't work very well and doesn't really have the capability to achieve its stated goal. instead of putting an extraordinary additional amount of money and appropriating it or making it available for appropriation, this amendment simply says cut it back, spend

the money that you need to spend in the coming year to achieve the improvements that are necessary and the men and women in charge of the system say must be made before it is deployable. and reduce the expenditure but spend only what you need. that's what this amendment does. it's not a debate whether we should proceed with this or not. it's just we ought to spend the money wisely. and no more than necessary. next year, if they are able to solve the problems and the intervening year, we'll come back and continue to make money available for a continuation of the program. we're not talking about the sm3. we're talking about a different system here. we will take up the sm3 later. but this one isn't working well. we ought not put more money out there than necessary and save the necessary money -- the re

maining money for those things necessary. now, those of us that are on this committee know there are other technologies that are being developed which may be successful. we don't know, but we're putting money into those technologies also, as we shaofplt we do need to protect ourselves. and in all probability it is not an icbm but rather some other mechanism delivering a nuclear weapon to our coast and exploding it. and that is in another different world. so i just urge you to take a look at what is in this amendment and put aside the rhetoric all of us have been engaged here which is a limitation on the amount of money we're going to spend, allowing us to take the unnecessary expenditure and spend it on something that we do need. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair yields to the

gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to focus the debate on this particular amendment on the fact that this, unlike the last discussion we had that was broad on our missile defense system, this is a relatively narrow amendment on our ground-based system. and the ground-based system that we have is the only system that protects the intercontinental united states from the icbms. portions of it have been tested and worked. and it absolutely works and it is the system we rely on for existing threats and for the immediately emerging threats. to cut this system is to actually go to the heart really of our current capability. all the other systems, egis systems, sm3, all the different missiles that people are referring to during these debates are either future missiles or missiles that

currently do not have the capability of responding to an icbm threat. now, i don't know what the president meant when he said with that open microphone that i'll have greater flexibility after this election to medvedev to be delivered to putin about our missile defense system. we have asked the president to disclose what the future of that flexibility is but he's not told us. but the one thing i can be pretty sure of is that if the russians were going to like what he's doing, they would really like this, cutting the only system that protects the intercontinental ballistic threat to the united states. i think when we talk about future capabilities and failures in testing, it's our reach. it's our trying to get greater technology, greater innovation, greater understanding of how to better protect the united

states. now, the ranking member said the system does not currently respond to. there's a bunch of list of future threats. they are things we want to design in the future. that's what this money helps us do. it says the risk is evolving. we need to evolve. with that i will be opposing my ranking member's amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. >> if there's no further debate on this, the question is on the pwaopgz of the amendment offered by miss sanchez from california, amendment 4310. those in aver will say aye. >> 147r1, mr. chairman. >> excuse me, 147r1. those opposed, no. >> no. >> the nos have it. >> i'll ask for a recorded vote, please. >> the amendment is not agreed to and a recorded vote is requested. roll call vote is requested. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk.

>> will the clerk please pass out the amendment. without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady for the purpose of offering her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would reduce funding for nuclear weapons opportunities by $369 million beyond the budget request. this funding increases unexecutable. and on april 17 house strategic forces subcommittee hearing,

nnsa administrator tom d augustine know stated it would be irresponsible of me to try to jump back onto the 1251 curve that. would be like $100 billion increase in one year. we can't responsibly spend that kind of money. that from the administrator. the bipartisan and reason house pass budget control act has imposed a new fiscal reality that is putting enormous pressure on all government programs, including the pentagon and the nnsa. the section 1251 report which committed unprecedented levels of funding for nuclear weapons and new delivery vehicles was crafted in the prebudget control act era. even though these promises in exchange for new start were made nine months before the budget

control act became law, fiscal 13 target falls 4% short of the $7.9 billion target. and the fiscal year 13 budget increases nuke lass weapons budget by 5% over fiscal year 12 appropriations when most of the agencies in the federal government and most of the programs are taking cuts. the fiscal year 2013 request of $7.58 billion for weapons activities is an increase of $363 million above last year's enacted level. no small feat in a budget environment in which many other security and nonsecurity programs have suffered decreases. by way of additional comparison the fiscal year 2013 request is an unprecedented increase of 1.2

billion over fiscal year 2010 enacted level. the cuts to the nnsa weapons activities began before the budget control act was negotiated. and it was spearheaded by the republican-led house, not by the administration. house budget committee chairman ryan and chairman rogers proposed to reduce fiscal year 2011 requests for weapons activities by over 300 million in february of 2011. this cut was ultimately reversed in the 2011 spending bill. the final 2012 enacted level was also higher than what the republican-led house appropriations committee approved during the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process. the u.s. can still meet the highest priority goals of the nuclear posture review with less than the 1251 report sanctioned lens of nnsa weapons activities.

2011 and 2012 appropriations and the 2013 budget request provide more than enough to maintain safe, secure, and effective nuclear warheads. these increases are hollow budget authority, both the senate and the house fiscal year house appropriations committee funded nnsa weapons activities at the fiscal year 2013 requested level. i'll finish by saying that nnsa administrator tom augustino testified to the energy and water subcommittee on february 29th. the fiscal year 2013 budget request for nnsa weapons activities fully meets the requirements and will be able to take care of the stockpile, maintain, do the annual assessments that we need to do, commence the life extension work that nuclear weapons counsel has

recently improved on the b 6112 as well as take care of the scientific and technical infrastructure that is so critical in order to evaluate the surveillance data that we get from the stockpile. so the stockpile is safe, secure, and reliable. the commander, general robert kaoerl stated, i wouldn't want to suggest that the four sets deployed today is not safe, secure and effective. it is. i believe it can achieve its deterrence responsibilities as we sit here today. in fact, i'm extremely confident of that. i ask support in cutting this over $300 million redundant amount of monies towards -- >> the gentlelady's time has expir expired. mr. turner from ohio for five minutes. >> i want to briefly say i oppose ms. sanchez's amendment. as a ranking member knows the

mark provides $7.9 billion to the national nuclear weapons activities. this is a modest increase of $324 million to a budget increase. what's important about that increase, it's an increase based upon the president's request. that's the president opens own number. in november 2010 that is the number he put forth for fy 13. in his report to congress where he has to lay out what's necessary. in fact, i want to underline the word necessary, for preserving our nuclear deterrent, this is the number he utilized and the number they put forth for their activities, for the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. if we go to lower levels we will have to invest in our nuclear weapons infrastructure. we didn't come one this number. this is his number. it's the president's own description of what's necessary. we should defeat the amendment. thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back.

chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi for five minutes. >> i don't think i'll take five minutes here. while this number may have initiated in 2010, in the intervening time, several things have occurred. one is a very serious deficit problem that we have to address. and we only need to and must only spend that which is necessary. the nnsa has been very, very clear that what is necessary is the amount that was in this year's president's budget. the augmentation put forward here is not necessary. you can spend an unlimited amount of money on this. i wouldn't recommend it. i would recommend that we deal with the deficit in a prudent way. the amendment that's been forth by the ranking member does that and meets the need as stated by the nnsa officials. i'd ask for support of her

amendment. >> the gentleman yields back. no further -- mr. thornburg, the gentleman from texas, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think mr. turner makes the essential point that is worth emphasizing, however, and that is the ratification of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty was dependent upon a certain level of funding of our nuclear weapons infrastructure. now, the reason they were connected we had something that was central to our national security and the national security of many of our allies. we were going to have a lot fewer of them. that means that if something goes wrong with nip one, we are hurt much more. and the ones we have left are already beyond their design life and getting older and older and older. so if we are going to to make

the significant reductions down to 1,550 warheads, we better make darn sure that they are as darn sure they are as reliable and safe as we must have them be. that's the reason that the number, the administration comes up with and says this is what is necessary in order to support these much lower numbers for the weapons. if you take the funding away the whole deal falls apart. we're restricted in how much we can talk numbers in this setting. but i've got an article from strategic studies quarterly from last fall that makes a couple of important points i think most americans don't realize. as far as how many nuclear weapons have been and are in our stock pile we hit the hot point

about 1966 with 312,555 weapons. now we are less than 5,000. remember it takes us to 1,550. that's a big, big difference. the other point, another chart in the same article looks at the average age of u.s. nuclear weapons stockpile. in recent times had hit a lull of about ten years in the early '90s. the average, average age of the u.s. nuclear weapon stockpile is 25 years and these are designed to last 20 years. they are already five years on average beyond their design life and we better make sure we have the diagnostic tools and infrastructure in order to keep these things running because our security and security of allies

are depending upon it. that is the reason this money is important. it is that we can't guarantee our security if we don't make the investment necessary. whether the administration backs off or whether some committees back off of what is necessary. our job is to defend the country with what we believe is necessary. so i oppose the amendment. yield back. >> if there is no further discussion on the amendment the questions on the adoption of the amendment log 153 so many as are in favor will say aye. those opposed say no. the noes have it. >> i will ask for a recorded vote. >> recorded vote has been requested. we will call the role call at the end of the subcommittee

mark. are there any amendments to the committee's report? >> mr. chairman i have an amendment. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment? without objection reading the amendment will be dispensed with.

the chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> contrary to the tenure of debate over amendments where we disagreed there is a great deal that we agree on the entire committee, both sides of the aisle here. one is this amendment coming forward. and this amendment is in response, in fact, to concerns raised by the minority and my ranking member. as we had indicated nnsa reform is a priority. the department of defense and all of those who have reviewed the matter have indicated that it must be reformed so it can both operate effectively and

responsibly and also for the opportunities for cost savings in putting forth our suggestion reforms we're hoping for a valuable exchange with the minority and with the administration on ways in which the reforms that we propose can be improved. these can be in response that would help reform some of or refine some of the reforms we have in the bill. with that i ask for support for this bill, this amendment 43-10. yield back. >> for what purposes does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? >> i want to say i support this amendment particularly the restoration of nnsafte's focus on oversight to a more workable level. and i want to thank chairman turner in his work and his

cooperation with us. i believe those can be addressed further down the line with other amendments and i want to thank subcommittee chairman turner for his work on this issue. >> any other discussion on this amendment? hearing none the question is on the amendment. all those in favor sig niify by saying aye. opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. are there any other amendments on this subcommittee mark? >> mr. chairman. >> i have an amendment at the

desk. the clerk will hand out the amendment. without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the administration announced in january of this year that it is negotiating an outer space arms regime and it would not be binding and would not need authorization by congress yet the draft code would affect u.s.

military operations in space. the concern that this appears to be an end run around congress so this amendment would prevent that from happening. it would there by preserve u.s. freedom of action in outer space and observe the balance of powers between administrative and legislative branches of government. i want to say that the administration did make the right decision by not signing on to the draft european union code of conduct for outer space activities. what troubles me is that they say that they agree with much of the intention behind that code of conduct and they want this to be the foundation for future arms control regimes that would bind the united states. and by doing so in a way that is never submitted for congressional specifically

senate approval that just keeps congress out of the loop and unable to have its proper role in these issues. and why it's so important, mr. chairman is because there are significant policy and operational concerns with the e.u. code of conduct or something that resemables it with regard to our security. for instance an unclassified excerpt from the executive summary of the joint staff operations assessment of the draft e.u. code said if the united states were to make a good faith effort at implementing the requirements of the draft code there could be operations impacts on u.s. military space operations in several areas. and i have no doubt, mr. chairman, that attempting to comply with something like the e.u. code of conduct would impact our space operations. we would be doing things or n