the lab directors then came to the nnsa and says we don't think you're going to get the money that we all agree we need to build all of these facilities. and we think we can save you -- this is the lab directors coming to nnsa saying we think we can save you money, all right, perhaps an unprecedented step, and saying we think we can do plutonium work without building the cmrr in new mexico. it's a big facility. it's estimated to cost about $5 billion. what the lab directors are worried about rightly is we're going to build facilities and not be able to fund the people that do the real work in those facilities. so they came to us with an alternative plan. the administration says -- asked the entire nuclear council from stratacom, nnsa will this work and a yes. went to congress with that and here is the new plan. a and all of the sudden a congress is screaming you broke your promise. i think it's partisan gamesship. it's largely designed to detract on the president's pretty impressive accomplishment in investing in the new complex in a reasonable way. and my hope is the congress will fi

this will be added personnel and nnsa should reflect this. my amendment moves fund from the nnsa regulatory arm to a place where they puts boots on the ground and support cleanup. while i very much appreciate the work of the chairman and the ranking member of the entire committee in this area with their commitment to cleanup, it's my hope, mr. chairman, that i'd be able to emphasize through our distinguished leaders managing the floor of the dire situation that needs attention in new mexico and around the country. with that, mr. chairman, i urge adoption of this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to the bill. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's amendment. i want to thank the gentleman from new mexico, as i did to mr. pearce, for his continued advocacy for the cleanup a

the report went on to note the increasing operational formality of being dictated by the nnsa headquarters that had contributed to a bias against experimental work and the report said without a strong experimental program the quality of scientific and engineering at the laboratories will be at risk, as will the core mission of these laboratories. since this report came out last year, are you aware of anything that nnsa has done to repair the distrust and the damaged relationships that the report outlines both with the directors and with the scientists at our national labs? >> thank you for the question. first of all, i'm very much aware of the report. >> i know you are. >> we discussed it offline. we have a task force in osdp in the national security and international affairs division following up on that report's recommendations looking at the health and adequacy of the way we're running our national security science technology and no innovation enterprise. i myself two weeks ago visited both the sandia national labs and loss alos alamos lab to tal to them about problems among others and

since this report came out last year, are you aware of anything that nnsa has done to repair the distrust and the damaged relationships that the report outlines, both with the directors and with the scientists at our national labs? >> thank you for the question. first of all, i'm very much aware of the report -- >> i know you are. >> and we discussed it offline. we have a task force in ostp in the national security and international affairs division, following up on that report's recommendations, looking at the health and adequacy with the way we're running our national security science technology and innovation enterprise. i myself, i just two weeks ago visited both the sandia national labs and los alamos lab. i spoke with the directors of both labs and i will be going to livermore to talk to the management at livermore about this set of problems, among others. and what we can do about them. and i've talked to secretary true about it. and with the administrator augustineo. and they understand there is a problem. and they're as determined as i am to address it. obviously we have to mainta

academy of sciences issued a report titled "managing for high quality science and engineering at the nnsa national security laboratories." i'd ask mr. chairman unanimous consent to submit this report into the record. the report highlights and it's a long report but basically it highlights the broken relationship between the national nuclear security agency and the scientists at our research labs. one senior scientist at los alamos was quoted in the report as saying this. when i started as a young post-doc and later in my career as a university professor and also here at the lab, there was a social contract which basically said, you'll never get rich in science, but we treat you as adults, respect you for your commitment, and in turn you can pursue science and have fun. today this contract is badly broken, an atmosphere of

that was a very open process with nnsa, pentagon, the nuclear weapons council, and the lab directors well as owning be who said over the next 10 years as a reasonable estimate that we could provide from what this will cost us. congress chose not to fund that number. the house in particular controlled by republicans who pushed for the 1251 report chose not to fund administration's request and shorted it by roughly 800 million tons but the lab directors came to the nnsa and said we don't think you're going to get the money that we all agree we need to build all of these facilities. and we think we can save you, this is the lab directors coming to nnsa saying we think we can save you money, perhaps an unprecedented step, and saying we think we can do plutonium work without building the cmrr in new mexico. it's a big facility that's estimate to cost about $5 billion. what they are worried about is we will build facilities and not be able to fund the people who do the real work in those facilities. so they came to us with an alternative plan. the administration says, asked the council rep

since the report came out last year, are you aware of anything that nnsa has done to repair the distrust and the damage relationships that the report outlined both with the directors and with the scientists at our national labs? >> thank you for the question. first i'm very much aware of the report as we discussed off line. we have a task force in ostp in the international affairs division. falling on the report's recommendations, looking at the health and adequacy of the way we are running our national security science technology and innovation enterprise. i, myself, just two weeks ago visited both the sandina national labs and los alamos national labs in new mexico with of the director of both labs, and i will be going to livermore to talk to the management at livermore about the set of problems among others and what we can do about them. and i've talked to secretary chu about it with administrator dogestino and the understand there is a problem and they are determined as i am to address it. obviously, we have to maintain the quality of the science and engineering at our national defen

le >>ur j's nnsa >> jis t kep t wom inhe ge anhavehe se oprtunies.tamec i imptantor t ovell alth >> a rig. faasti bile je kin andmpnt tve th aig fatiiljeind u ca wah threstf my inteiew th blie an kg torrowfter on a tca 2:0ath stmy east n aste wew alk be ab kt wometosower a :0righ and h lthnd staswe tenlks ab methe rrenlaye onhe gh nd h hcirct th she isen a e onstentlyyen rcth he xtins you n't nt tmisst.st y alrigh e incnn ewsru m"t onti tesss alrighnow ghth nnsrti ghw wf is eriser blitr inashiton. ptio by tac -- w wwvitacom r er itinhin. ioy c-- wwtam > th obadmistraon h justnnoued a majothba angemira h st ou th a u.sjo migr iongeolic th.s grnichat s poticaimplicaonmplition the itedattate will top po ca plportg yog ilgal a migrts w meecertn lion e requedemente.ll p we ill ar frtm pryoidenill obam shorgry as we iseertettg qu en rey to owentol fhepren amoraswhitishousttg retoooitarusnoarddre the nati. hesoingorehe tipea in fewheng mites om n andeaeilln haew livcovege o t mi s esid nt.nd alcorrpondts allove ng ha iv vee o t id alrr

and nnsa projects. their independent assessment and enforcement are crucial to worker safety and health at these facilities. with regards to the army corps of engineers i am pleased that the bill pros $83 million -- provides $83 million above the president's woefully, woefully inadequate request, ensuring that some ongoing projects will not be terminated. however, the bill provides $188 million less than current year funding. we must invest in our infrastructure by making preventive and proactive investments. just last year this bill carried more than $2 billion in emergency funding to respond to natural disasters. i believe this again proves that it makes more fiscal sense to prevent a disaster than to respond to one. specific to the applied energy programs at the department of energy, the bill provides appropriate funding for fossil and nuclear energy which continue to provide the bulk of our energy needs. however, i am disappointed that renewable energy programs in this bill are reduced by over $400

we do not cut -- nnsa accounts. we do not cut defense, nondefense environmental, nuclear disposal. what we've cut, mr. chairman, are things that need to be cut. we've cut federal research on energy efficiency and renewable energy. we propose to cut fossil energy research and development. yes, a republican is here, mr. chairman, arguing that we should get rid of what my colleagues across the aisle would call subsidies for big oil. we're trying to get rid of all of the subsidies. imagine that. a world where the federal government doesn't actually subsidize energy production at any fashion but that the market takes care of the supply and the demand and the prices for those products. we also get rid of the -- excuse me, we cut on the app lashan commission, the denali commission, the northern border regional commission, the southeast correspondencent regional commission. some of those are probably in my district but we probably have enough commissions in this government already. mr. chairman, this is the reasoned and a sensible approach to try and cut as much spending as we possibly can