or necessary, the ones included. we have put them together and provided them as a to-do list for this committee and the department of defense and this administration. i yield back. >> chair will now recognize young lady from california, ms. sanchez for five minutes. >> as you can probably tell from this amendment and i'm sure most people have not read it because it could be a book, 45 pages long. basically what this amendment would do is to infringe on the pentagon's flexibility to implement the new treaty in the most cost effective manner. the implementation of the new start and future reduction should not be held hostage to

predetermined levels of funding that can be taken by unforeseen economic or other developments. we had this issue earlier where we talked about what we assumed would be funding moving forward and we find ourselves in a budget constrained atmosphere. i've talked to you about our hearings where the generals and the administrators have said we feel confidence in what we are doing. we believe the money is in the budget that the president has put forward will allow us to do our job correctly. we had a couple of amendments where we tried to strike some of that money because the administrators and others had said they wouldn't know what to do with that, etc. so this really speaks to what

the administration said it would do as it was working to pass the new treaty and really what is going on now in congress and with our nation. i would like to say that as i said earlier that the cuts to the weapons activities were spear headed by the republican led house, not by the administration. and the administration has gone forward in this budget year and put more moneys in. i mean, your amendment just passed to continue to put more. $320 million more into this. the key measures as to whether the united states is funding capabilities necessary to maintain the health of the nuclear stockpile, that should be a standard. that should be the commitment. i believe that the president has that standard that it wants to

ensure that our capabilities are there as they work through the reductions in the new treaty. how we fund that, how the numbers are cut will depend on this congress. it will depend on tradeoffs and it will depend on our military experts who are working with these weapons to tell us what is an acceptable stockpile, whether or stockpile is in good shape, etc. so i really do believe that this 45 pages of come in and check with me every other day and let me see how much money you have spent or how much money you are allocating or did you go through the left door or the right door, i mean, i don't really believe that that is an effective way for us to ask the administration

to move forward and implement this new treaty. so i would ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. and i yield back. >> any further discussion on this amendment? gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> i only wish that the ranking member had been able to talk for ten or 15 minutes so i had time to read the entire amendment. 46 pages. it appears to me that there is an inconsistency here. the general notion as i understand it of the amendment that i have been able to read quickly is that it is designed to assure that the nuclear stockpile is safe, secure and reliable. fair enough. a law has been on the books for a long time that requires the

directors of the laboratories, nnsa to annually certify under some real serious penalties for them that the stockpile is safe, secure and reliable. that's already in place. i'm not at all sure why this is necessary. i noticed a serious inconsistency in the bill itself. one of the major ways in which the safe, secure and reliability is to be achieved is with the utilization of the national ignition facility in lawrence livermore laboratories. it is there for that specific purpose and has other purposes, also. that was why it was built. now, in this bill there is a 50%

fence built around 50% of the money allocated to the laboratory for the operation of the facility. in other words, they can't use that money until some sort of report or ignition is achieved. now, if the facility was only to be used for ignition, that is fusion, okay. but the facility is specifically there and the reason it was created was to provide the science necessary to understand whether nuclear weapons were safe, secure and reliable. so in one part of the bill we say you have to do all of these things. another part of the bill says you can't use 50% of the money that was allocated for that purpose. exactly what is going on here is presidential politics and some really bad policy development. that's what has happened. you want to take a shot at the

president over the start treaty and tell the whole world we are not safe because because because 46 pages of requirements tying them in knots nine ways to sunday and in the same very bill by the same subcommittee you take away 50% of the money necessary to do the job to find out if it is safe, reliable and secure. doesn't make good public policy. and we seem to have fallen into a swamp of presidential politics here. unfortunately we should do better. i yield back my time. >> any further discussion on the amendment. chair recognizes ranking member smith from washington five minutes. >> this is unbelievably prescriptive in terms of restricting the administration's ability to implement a rather

key piece of policy, unnecessary and also the amendment is 48 pages long and i can assure you other than mr. turner not a single member of this committee will have any idea of what they are voting for so i urge us to reject it. if there are ways we want to monitor this process i think there are ways other than a 48-page detailed amendment. i yield back. >> any further discussion on the amendment? >> so many as are in favor will say aye. those opposed no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. roll call vote has been requested. we'll call this vote at the end of the subcommittee mark. any further amendments on the subcommittee mark? >> i have an amendment.

>> gentleman is recognized. will the clerk please distribute the amendment. without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. >> thank you. >> we better not do anymore

before we come back. chair recognizes gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would direct the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the secretary of defense to report regarding the impact on national security of reducing our nuclear weapon stockpiles as required by the new start treaty. i think there is for strong supporters of the new start treaty such as myself it is self evident that reducing our nuclear stockpiles when we already have the kaublt to destroy the earth many times over is within our clear national security interests. in fact, i think the united states should be boldly leading the world towards the eventual

abolition of nuclear weapons rather than dumping needless billions into more weapons when we already have more than enough nukes to deter any rational actor who may threaten us. i think there are some irrational actors out there but they are all from ten horn dictatorship run countries like north korea which just this past april fired off a missile and it was a long range missile that they were testing. but it was a complete and utter failure. so i'm not afraid of north korea at this time though i ad mimit need to be prepared for anything

they can throw at us. but i think there is no objective case to be made for maintaining a stockpile of thousands up on thousands of nuclear war heads. that is why i welcomed the new start treaty as a step in the right direction. but i understand that some of my colleagues on this committee have some consternation about the new start treaty. and i respect those views and i believe that those views should be addressed. so i propose a simple remedy. let's get our senior military leadership, the most experienced and capable officers in the armed forces with much more broad and fact based perspective than we can ever have on this committee on how such policy

changes impact our security. let's give them the opportunity to give us their views on this question. and that's what this amendment would do by requiring our top military leaders to report to us swiftly and directly regarding their view of the merits of our policy. i'm confident that our view which is cutting the stockpiles is perfectly within the security interests would be validated but in the national interests i am happy to put that question to our military leaders even if it risks getting the wrong answer or getting an answer that i don't want to hear. let's pass this amendment, get that expert advice and it's just a common sense amendment and i'll yield back. >> gentleman yields back. any further discussion on the

amendment? if not the question on the adoption of the amendment is offered by mr. johnson. it's log 197 r 1. so many as are in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. opinion of the chair is the nos have it. a role call vote has been requested. we'll call this vote at the end of the subcommittee mark. any other -- >> mr. chairman -- >> please pass out the amendment without objection reading of the amendments will be dispensed

with. gentleman is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendments. >> the package is compromised of a series of amendments that have been worked out with members of the minority addressing some corrections and some issues that members of the committee have brought to light. it includes an amendment to amend section 223. amendment to insert directive report language. and amendments to amend title 10. amendment to tielt 9. an amendment to section 137.

an amendment to insert directive report language and to amend section 227. amendment to insert changes to directive report language. amendment to the following two to directive report language. ms. sanchez has an amendment to title xxxi. and an amendment to title two. >> any discussion? if not the questions on the adoption of the amendment so many as are in favor will sig niify by saying aye. those opposed no. opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. are there any further amendments to the subcommittee report? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> will the clerk please pass

out the amendment? >> it's number 211. >> without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. >> if you don't want to stay until 6:00 in the morning i don't want to stay until 6:00 in the morning. may i, mr. chairman? >> gentle lady is recognized for the purpose of offering and explaining her amendment. >> so this amendment is about preserving effective oversight for health, safety and security for workers in the public. sections 3113 of the mark

contractor governance, overnight and accountability mandates that the national nuclear security administrator establish performance based oversoilth as opposed to transactional. and gives limited authority to waive this type of oversight if he reports it to congress. what am i talking about here? let's say just to give you an example of what type of oversight we are taking away, we are going to a performance based instead of a transactional based. currently it's transactional based. for example, if the national transportation safety board goes to a crash site to uncover what went wrong with an aircraft that is performance based. if after doing that they make recommendations on the safety of that particular type of plain then that is transactional based. and i believe that we should ensure that there is

transactional based oversight especially with our nuclear facilities. performance based oversoithd is good for acquisition, for budgeting, for personnel programs but health, safety, the security, the oversight of all of these in particular nuclear safety and hazardous operations i believe requires transactional based oversight to relybly reduce the risks of accidents. examples of catastrophic accidents that resulted from inadequate overnight, three mile island. fukushima dai-ichi, performance based oversight allows a shift to more self-regulation by contractors and is i believe inappropriate for an industry using ultrahazardous materials and technologies.

this amendment was also to ensure that the administrator cannot limit the oversight fromd seeing nsa. in other words, i believe that with respect to safety we should have this type of oversight. and i'll yield back my time, mr. chairman, and ask everyone to, please, vote for my amendment. >> gentle lady yields back her time. mr. turner for five minutes. >> we oppose the amendment. miss sanchez talked about several that were valid. the others are issues of -- of concern that we would oppose. >> would the chairman yield on that point, please? yield some time? >> i had already yield back. it will be up to the chairman. >> the chair recognizes -- no, the chair asks if there's any

other discussion on the amendment. the gentleman from california is recognized for a minute and a half. >> i yield my time to the ranking member. >> thank you. mr. turner, the amendment seeks to correct some of the deficiencies but it still leaves the authority for determining the type of oversight for high hazard operations to the nsa administrator. this would result in weaker standards and long-standing oversight. again, i would urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment. if you care about health and safety of those workers in those facilities, you should be voting for my amendment. and i yield back to the gentleman from california. >> gentleman yields back no.

>> no, i don't. not yet. this issue is not one that has become new to this committee or to the nuclear labs. the issue of safety has been around for a long time and, in fact, the current situation which is burdensome and should be modified, and the chair is correct about modifications, i'm not sure about the details that have been proposed but this is also a community issue. the issue of safety in the surrounding communities is extremely important. livermore now surrounds or nearly surrounds the launch livermore national laboratory and the issue of nuclear safety on that -- in that laboratory and in the community is very, very much in play. i have not had a chance to review the chairman's detailed amendments and the details of it. but i would hope that they deal with the security. not having that information and not having the kind of information that is necessary at

leasts as a representative of livermore, i would suggest that the ranking members that are apra provide us with enough time on the floor or in a conference committee to work that out. but right now this is a matter of immense importance, not only to the workers in the laboratory but in the surrounding communities. i support the amendment -- the amendment by the ranking member. >> gentleman yields back. any further discussion on the amendment? any options offered by miss sanchez, log 211. those in favor, say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. >> the nos have it. >> i'd like a roll call vote.

>> a roll has has been requested. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> please pass out the amendment. without objection, reading the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the lady. >> 230 relating to a 75% fence on funding for the phase adapted approach to missile defense in europe. now, i know that a lot on the other side are not very happy with the phase adapted approach but the phase adaptive approach is a u.s. system. let me restate that. it is a u.s. system. it is intended to protect the united states troops and their

families that are foreign based in europe. the deployment of the eeaa allows the fielding and defense of u.s.-deployed forces. the further of the epaa and architecture to counter potential iranian nuclear programs and assures the allies of the u.s. commitment to their defense. to fence even with a waiver authority is an unreasonable obstacle to the u.s. to deploy missiles to europe for the protection of our troops, of our families, of our homeland, of our allies. waiting for cost -- and believe me, with respect to nato, there's nobody who harps more about those european allies putting their money in to all of

our issues and up to their 2%. but waiting for cost reimbursement undermines our cooperation with nato and missile defense including potential missile threats from iran as they develop. this would, in effect, outsource our national security to nato and european allies. some of you have problems when you say that our troops go under command of nato. can you imagine you're letting our assets be determined by whether nato -- allies put money in or not? these assets that are deployed that we're putting up to protect our troops and our families and our homeland. the proposed requirement for the secretary of defense to submit to nato a prefinancing request for the expenses of missile defense equipment would diminish the u.s.'s ability to protect

the deployment. to implement the eepa was made prior to the list bon summit. after the agreement of nato to accept this new mission, the u.s. offered the eepa and nato missile defense will include contributions from other nations as well as nato common funding for the active theater, ballistic missile defense command and control system. the united states also has concluded several bilateral agreements that include host nation funding for the use of their bases and host nation funding for perimeter security. the prefinancing request requirement would force the administration to take an approach that is inconsistent with the alliances well-established and long standing resource procedures with each of the 28 allies expected to pay the cost of the

forces and capabilities t., it elects to contribute any nato mission. such a request would jeopardize the support for the missile defense and the progress we have made for missile defense in europe, including our bilateral agreements that we have reached with our allies. this fence is intended to undermine the eepa defense. and it's based on ideology, not on the reality that we are protecting our own troops. by comparison, president george w. bush never indicated intent to seek reimbursement from poland or any other country. i would ask to my colleagues to please vote for my amendment. this is a very important issue. and i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. chair recognizes the gentleman for five minutes.

>> okay. now iran's a threat. now we need a missile defense system but in the earlier debate iran wasn't a threat and we didn't need a missile defense system for the east coast. it's an evolving target. >> does the gentleman know the difference between regional and intercontinental? >> the issue that we have before us is that the phased out approach, as proposed by the president is a nato mission, as you said in your comments. what we have here is an attempt to have the -- this administration engage our european allies into negotiations concerning the cost structure for that system, which we all have agreed in the debates that we're in a period of time of expenditure difficulty, spending difficulty, wanting to rein in spending. i think everyone