the chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. contrary it to the tenor 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 of them is going to be this amendment that's coming forward. and this amendment is in response, in fact, to concerns raised by the minority and my ranking member, loretta sanchez. as we had indicated nnsa reform is a priority of our subcommittee. the nnsa must be reformed to act responsibly and for the opportunities for cost savings. in putting forth our suggested nnsa reforms we're hoping for a valuable exchange both with the minority and with the administration on ways in which the reforms that we propose d cn be improved. these measures that are in this amendment are in part a response as the ranking member have provided us to them that would

help reform those we have in the bill. with that i ask support for are this bill, this amendment, 4310. yield back. >> for what purposes does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i just want to say i support this amendment, particul particularly the restoration of nnsa ftes focused on oversight to a more workable level. and i want to thank chairman turner for his work in this effort 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 significant any fy 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. >> the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn is recognized. >> 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 chair recognizes the gentleman for the purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the administration announced in january of this year that it is negotiating an outer space arms regime. they said it would not be legally bind iing and therefore would not need authorization by congress, yet the draft code would affect the u.s. military and intelligence 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 preserve 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 resembles 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, up quote. 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 not doing things that would otherwise not happen. becoming a signatory on this type of code of conduct without congressional approval appears intended to implement international policy that congress has not agreed to. i'm very troubled by that. it if the administration is allowed to promulgate arms control agreements in this way without congress,

who knows what the next step would be? could it be nuclear reductions and furtherance of the president's goal of a world without nuclear weapons. i don't know but let's don't go down this path and do so in the area of code of conduct in outer space. this amendment sends a clear and unambiguous guidance to ensure that we will have congressional oversight on matters pertaining to u.s. freedom of operation in space. we enjoy an asymmetrical advantage over the other countries in the world in our space operations. we need to preserve that and not willingly give that away. this amendment also requires the secretary of state and defense to submit periodic reports on the progress of negotiations and international agreements concerning outer space activities which keeps us in the loop by giving us oversight.

agreements in the codes of conduct would restrict our action in space and potentially negating advantages that we work so hard and invested so much money to attain. the executive branch must keep congress informed on negotiations of potential international agreements with other countries on matters that affect our defense and intelligence activities in outer space. that's the reason behind this amendment, mr. chairman, and i would ask for the committee to consent to it. thank you and i yield back. >> ms. sanchez is recognized for five minutes. >> okay, so let's set the stage for this. basically today the u.s. depepdz on satellites for more than any other country. satellites are crucial for national, economic personal security. they help u.s. soldiers in harm's way, they minimize

casualties, they support first responders, disaster relief workers, modern agriculture, et cetera, et cetera. we are the country that has a lot of satellites. satellites are increasingly vulnerable and harder to protect from debris and hostile action. the asap test including by china in 2007 which created a massive debris field and endangered over 400 satellites. u.s. satellites are now at risk mostly from space debris but also from a growing competition with china and the absence of rules of the road. what we're talking about is rules of the road. right now anybody can put anything up there if they can get it into space. so a code of conduct, we are not saying adopt the e.u. code of conduct. we are saying we need to negotiate some rules of the road

in space otherwise our satellites are going to be the ones that are hurt. and worse, china wants to have its own code of conduct and it's talking to brazil and india. so either we get together and we discuss this with our european allies and others and bring brazil and india in with us or there might be a completely different road. we might be wanting to drive on the right side of the world and maybe china puts in the system with so many others following it to drive on the left side of the road. this is the reason why we need to discuss, have the ability to discuss. this is not about going around the congress. there are precedents for codes of conduct in 1972 the nixon administration negotiated an incidents at sea . agreement to help prevent dangerous games of chicken involving warships and submarines.

in 1989 president george h.w. bush negotiated a dangerous military practices agreement with gorbachev. establishing norms for ground and air forces operating in close proximity. the george w. bush administration agreed to two codes of conduct to help combat proliferation. all of these useful diplomatic initiatives took the form of executive agreements, not treaties, because they don't control or reduce military forces. in fact, our joint chiefs of staff support the administration's effort to negotiate a code and they have been closely consulted. although they have raised potential for impacts on defense activities they have expressed support for this approach as the u.s. enters into discussion to resolve areas of disagreement. >> will the gentle lady yield? >> i would yield. >> a quick question for you.

there is no objection to treaties per se as long as congress has been in the loop. for instance the senate ratifies a treaty and congress has been consulted. that is all that this amendment does. it says the administration can't go and do these without congress. >> that is one of the reasons i shoulder you precedence where the president has gone and talked and has been able to put in place a code of conduct and has been able to negotiate some of these without all of this having to be involved. that doesn't mean that they are not talking to the military. it means it is a diplomatic effort. to go out and to deal with this. yours would keep them away from doing that. and that's why i'm opposed to it and i hope that my colleagues will oppose it. >> gentle lady yields back. chair now yields to mr. franks of arizona for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, briefly, i wanted to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment forward. i think it's very insightful and it is a clear example of long range thinking. historically each time that the united states has entered into almost any kind of treaty we have been very assiduous in doing everything we could to follow that treaty. we have not always been afforded the reciprocal courtesy. i suggest that a new start is a good example of what happens when we don't negotiate in a way that is only in the best interest of the united states. we in the first phase of new start reduced our strategic war head counts significantly without really impacting the russians a great deal when the tactical war heads were left completely out of the equation and part of that promise was that we would modernize our nuclear weapons capability.

and that promise now is being debated in this committee whether it's still offerable. and it just seems like over time things degrade. and to give a president as flexible as this one the ability to enter into treaties without congressional approval on something as critical as our space assets and our space access is, i think, a foolish errand on our part and i hope we would support mr. lamborn's amount amendment. i yield back. >> the chair now yields to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi for five minutes. >> some time ago mr. andrews suggested that we try to avoid presidential politics as we continue this work. that seems to be very difficult to achieve since comment after

comment seems to go back to presidential politics. we got really important issues to deal with and we are continuing meyer miring ourselves down in presidential politics. secret deals. in fact, i believe the treaty was approved by the senate. the question there was not only one of the remaining nuclear weapons but their capability. it's been certified as required by law the nnsa and laboratories and others have certified that our nuclear stockpile is safe and secure and reliable. how much money you need to continue that in years out is worthy of a debate. it is not debatable unless some of us think we are more qualified than those nuclear physicists to make the determination that they are safe, secure and reliable.

we can debate the amount of money and we should. but this is not about -- and we ought to leave presidential politics out of this. this amendment however severely limits our ability to protect ourselves. this amendment severely limits the ability of the department of defense and our international -- our intelligence agencies to engage in discussions in reaching agreements that would fall less than a treaty in their nature. about things that are really important in space. the ranking member clearly laid out a series of agreements that have been reached over time that are extremely important to this nation about how to conduct aircraft flights, how to do numerous other things so that we are able to continue to protect the nation without falling into dangerous territory where satellites might collide in

space and setting off all kinds of problems or airplanes might collide in the air space setting off all kinds of problems. it is wise to engage in discussions with people that are perhaps our competitors or perhaps our enemies. but to shut it off entirely as this amendment would do makes no sense at all. so we ought to proceed. and at any moment this house and the senate have the opportunity to engage. if we think something is going in the wrong direction we could stop it by pulling out the money. there is no indication that these negotiations and discussions are going in the wrong direction at least not as presented here or in the subcommittee. why are we doing this? it doesn't make much sense to stop the process of trying to coordinate activities in space

unless somebody knows something that has not yet been said here this doesn't make much sense to do this. >> gentleman yields back. chair recognizes gentleman from ohio mr. turner for five minutes. >> i want to speak in favor and support of the amendment that would prohibit this administration from entering into a binding agreement which would affect our ability to operate in space known as the eu code of conduct. our constitution, we are always amazed when we look to the constitution of the foresight of our forefathers. when they put in the constitution that no president would have the ability to bind us to another nation they understood the risk of allowing one man to bind us to a foreign nation without the consent of the government. they put in a mechanism, a fail safe, if you will, so that one man can't bind us to another

nation without the review and discourse over what the effects are on our freedoms, our security and international security. therefore the senate was placed in as the back stop where the vigorous and open debate would occur on the terms and effects of an agreement to bind us. this e.u. code of conduct is absolutely an agreement that would restrict our capabilities in space. everyone knows that we are the preeminent force in space. both in technical capability and in future capability that is under development. we should not ever allow one man by agreement to negotiate that away. if the provisions that the president wishes to bind the united states to are so good, go to the senate and defend them. that's all we are saying. we don't have to debate them here although i would say there

are many that i would have serious concerns about. what the constitution says is that the president has to debate it in the senate. this provision says this president who says he does not intend to the senate would not have that authority. we would look to restricting the funds. i support the lamborn amendment. i support the constitution. i support the senate having absolute ability to review the president's ability to bind us to another nation. with that i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman from virginia, mr. whitman, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to yaeld to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. 9. >> thank you, mr. whitman. i will answer representative garamendi's question. why are we doing this? let me give you an example. recently a foreign government labeled the u.s. military's use of the space space infrared

satellites which can be used for warning and tracking of intercontinental ballistic missiles coming to ourselves or our allies as a space weapons program. we have governments out there that would call our defensive satellites that give us warning a weapons program. i don't agree with that assessment. and yet that's what we could have under something like the e.u. code of conduct. people would label u.s. activities and paint it in a wrong light and try to restrict our activities. that's exactly why we're doing this. so to answer mr. garamendi's question, we don't want other countries dictating what we can and can't do just because of an overly restrictive view on what we're doing in space.

also, our open el lep tauscher, former chair woman of the strategic forces subcommittee recently said back in january that the e.u. draft code of conduct was too restrictive. so that lends credence to this amendment wanting to not have the administration enter into binding agreements on anything similar to the e.u. code of conduct. so even if you call it something else like an international code of conduct -- i think that's what the administration is labeling as an alternative approach. let's don't go down the road of letting binding agreements be made without senate and congressional oversight and approval. that's what this amendment does. i would urge its adoption. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> is a code of conduct the same thing as a treaty?

>> a treaty requires senate approval. >> and a code of conduct does not? is that correct? >> i'll ask staff to help on that interpretation. >> mr. lamborn, if you would like to yield. >> can i yield the balance of my time to mr. turner? >> we had a hearing on this very matter in our subcommittee. in the hearing it is clear that this would have the effect of having a restriction on u.s. operations. any item that is an agreement of our nation binding us to another nation where we agree to restrict our operations, our military operations, use, capabilities, is, in effect, absolutely a treaty. and as that when this

administration believes that it is advisable to enter into such an agreement the constitution requires that those go before the senate. that is what this amendment does. it says this is going to restrict our capabilities. we believe it should go before the senate. >> the gentleman's time has expired. if there is no further discussion on this -- >> mr. chairman, here. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a code of conduct for how america participates with other nations in the orderly trafficking of satellites in outer space would not be binding on the u.s. from a -- i guess --

an international law perspective. >> will gentleman yield? >> i will. >> we had this hearing in our subcommittee. we would be glad to give you the transcript of the hearing. specifically the code of conduct as approached by this administration would restrict the authority, capabilities of the states and, therefore, would be a treaty. it's a contract. it's an agreement. contracts between nations are treaties, agreements that require senate approval. that's what this amendment does. i yield back. >> will the gentleman yield? >> if i may -- this sounds like something because we do a lot of commercial activity up in outer space. and what is it that brings to the mind of those who support this argument that this is just

simply for military purposes that we operate in outer space? isn't it the fact that we operate commercial vehicles or commercial satellites along with other nations of the world? >> will the gentleman yield? >> if, in fact, we are doing so and i don't think it's questionable that that's a fact, but shouldn't we as a responsible nation -- we would not as the chinese did a couple of years ago without notice to anyone they fired off a missile and destroyed a satellite, one of their own satellites in outer space. and that is not something that

is commercially reasonable. so who in congress is going to start a dialogue and put together a treaty or a code of conduct as i would call it? who in congress would undertake that responsibility? if no one in congress is particularly interested in doing that because we get mired in politics down here. what arm of government, which branch of government would be best suited to engage in dialogue with other nations whose executives would be the ones to engage in this kind of discourse? how would we --

>> will the gentleman yield? >> we don't want to have many situations like china did a couple of years ago. >> you raise a very good point. mr. lamborn's amendment doesn't say the president of the united states can't undertake such negotiations and discussions. it says he can't bind us unless he goes to the senate and makes the case that the deal he struck, treaty, is the right one for the country. i'll offer to you, again, and the transcript of the hearing we held on this but i'm certain our staff would be glad to provide you a briefing that would show specific manners in which this would affect and restrict our operations. >> well, reclaiming my time, i think that the constitution of the united states which is beyond contesting, i don't think the obama administration would contest the fact that a treaty is something that has to be approved by the senate. >> then you are in support of

the lamborn amendment? >> now i'm questioning whether or not it's necessary. i don't see it as being necessary. so if it's not necessary it must be political and so therefore i would oppose it for that reason. and now i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now -- his tongue tied. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. i oppose this amendment because i believe what it does is legislate on a hypothetical which i don't think is the proper course. as i read the law there are three kinds of situations where the united states can be bound