tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 10, 2014 4:00am-6:01am EDT
delaney, off of twitter -- guest: in terms of the funds that are in the highway trust fund, the highway trust fund has been historically financed with the cap tax.led it is a tax that gets charged on our consumption of gasoline. the first problem is we haven't raised the tax since 1992. even though we have been increasing -- we have been increasing our investment in transportation and highways and roads. we haven't raised the sorts of revenues to pay for that. that is our first problem. patternsd problem is have changed. cars are more fuel-efficient and people are driving less.
cars thate electric don't use any gas and the use the roads and technically don't pay anything to use the roads. like many things in this world, as i like to talk about the globalization of technology, the and of technology innovation has outpaced congressional response to the changing world area we have the highway trust fund supported with the tax that brings and two thirds of that. that is the essence of the problems we have with the highway trust fund. we probably can't raise it enough. the second thing is to come up with a way of charging vehicles for my miles driven has not tied to gas consumption. if you are an electric car you will have to pay something to use the roads but it won't be typed using gasoline.
you have to integrate technology into cars -- the third solution is to find a new source of revenues to enhance the highway trust funds on top of the cap tax -- on top of the gas tax. i think we need to do all three .f those things look at fixing framework for funding it. we have to do transportation improvements every year. the gas tax will probably be part of that equation long-term. we are going to have to think about ways of charging vehicles that don't use a lot of gas,
charging urban dwellers who do not drive a lot the benefit from the roads because of all the goods and services that are coming in the highways. worked a new framework to this out. there are a lot of concerns and debate on this. i propose using this international earnings to do that. host: next call for john delaney comes from here in washington on our republican line. please go ahead. call, i was hearing about these the polls. who enforces these? i am a colored man who pays taxes.
i hear these people so you don't have to pay because of a loophole. i think we are losing money because of that. the rich people are going through these loopholes and then they save millions of dollars of money. the second part is the foreign policy, the immigration reform. they reside here illegally. americans pay services for these illegal and then we provide full medical health care. why is that?
about the's talk first part, the loopholes, then don't the immigration question, which is obviously a very important question. when loopholes we are are a provision of the tax code that was designed for something, somebody is using it for something else. we should be enforcing and closing these loopholes because they are not fair to americans. is in charge of enforcing these things. it takes congressional action to close these loopholes because we in chart -- we in congress changed the law. he came up with a tax law that was designed for one thing and people use it for something else. that -- legally about allowed to do that because the provision wasn't drafted right or we didn't think about how people should use them. it should be more bipartisan support for closing these loopholes. the number of these things would make you sick if you saw them. which is why some people have proposed things, like warren buffett has proposed a rule that
says everyone pays the minimum tax. if your tax rate is really low you have to gross it up to a certain number so everyone else is paying a fair tax. i support things like that. immigration, to you touched upon a couple of components with our immigration system. people in this country who we are provided services to a lot contributing x citizens. we have to fix the system. we have had a lot of problems over time with our immigration system. as we all know this country was built by immigrants and it is one of the great assets of the united states, that the majority of the world wants to come here. i referenced earlier how there are 7 billion people in the world. them had theof opportunity, they would go to the united states. no other country has anything like this. weis one of the main reasons have been so successful as a nation. we have to recognize this is a great strength of arms, people shores,come to our
build businesses here, it is a huge blessing have a summation. a lot of people came to this country and are now documented. that was something we failed at doing and we should have enforce our borders and made sure people immigrated appropriately to this country for a long time. we should be doing that now so we do not have more of this problem. i think we need to look at the reality of this situation. no one even knows what the number range is. we should be creating a path for these people to have citizenship. they should be getting ahead of other people. similar to what was approved in the u.s. senate.
i think it is fair, i think it is moral, and it is the bottom line. we need to be doing that. then we need to fix our visa system. the senate has approved an immigration bill. it makes a significant investment in those things. it deals with some of the visa issues they have and create a path for existing residents -- this is a bipartisan agreement. unfortunately it hasn't been taken up by the house of representatives and that is a tragedy. are waitingoncerns for this.
what we really need to be doing is acting on the senate immigration bill in the house of representatives and congress would improve -- would approve an immigration bill. the president would sign it and we would be on the road towards fixing the system that you are rightfully concerned about. everything you're saying is a legitimate concern. host: a group called citizens for tax justice sent out a press release after you introduced your bill. delaney's delusion was the press release.
guest: it goes back to what i said about ideology, which is the problem with ideology is people give you an answer before they look at the fact is. responses that have come out when i engage with people -- it is clear they did not understand what the bill was. they just heard we were doing something with the international tax system and it must be unfairly benefiting companies, so it is bad. this is a non-fact-based analysis. i said before, there are things going on with what u.s. corporations are doing in terms of shifting profits overseas. mostly around international property, where they develop intellectual property in the united states and becomes valuable. they make high profits on its internationally and pay lower taxes. close those
loopholes. they extrapolate and they assume this is what is happening with every company. that is just not the case. if you look at most large corporations, they do make up half of their earnings internationally. they have stores all over the world. they are making money in these markets. thathave a tax system taxes these companies. earlier, were 30 years ago the small number was interconnected globally, there was a small amount of the money they made. that is a huge percentage of earnings overseas and they have a lot of investment opportunities overseas.
they don't want to pay the double tax, they want to invest money internationally. we have to fix this. some of the comments they made are true. there are some things that are inappropriate. be doubling our resources against enforcing our laws so that those companies can't do those things, including prosecuting the officers of those companies. they should also prevent us from fixing -- they should also not prevent us from fixing what is the real problem. based on any serious analysis of the facts. i do not view it as serious.
objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the gentleman from utah is recognized for five minute. >> thank you, i'm pleased to offer this amendment that dealing with the naval air district with cook's district as well on the staff. the naval air station which is to expand by acquiring additional territory, actually exactly 7,546 acres of additional territory of what used to be called cutty-back range. this is an area that had been used for 23 years by the air force, to practice bombing,
gunnery, exercises so it's full of a lot of stuff you don't want to have to try to clean up. the air force -- i'm sorry, the navy would like to use this as part of its training at china lake by expanding into this corner of the area, this former air force land, which abuts china lake and fills out the southwest corner of its range area. it would be a natural extension of the range. i urge its adoption. yield back. >> do other members wish to be heard on this amendment? >> mr. chairman. >> there you go. this shea porter. recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, i speak in opposition to this amendment. this amendment makes perfect withdrawal and reservation public land already withdrawn and reserved for naval air weapons state china lake, california and withdraws additional land. and that's an important point because some of this is private land which is now around the bureau of land management. q would actually be
surrounded by the military. and the navy has described that situation as awkward. so we're also reserving additional land -- or withdrawing additional land. and i think it's a private property issue and a public property issue. while the department of the interior or doy and the department of defense, support the continued military use of these lands, as do i. neither doi or the military have asked for public withdrawal of these lands and they actually pose such withdrawal. it provides a real benefit to doi and the public. because it allows for cooperative discussion on how to best manage the land for the long term. and i emphasize the fact that the public can engage in that discussion. not only does this amendment undermine this relationship, but it adds additional land to the original withdrawal. this includes acres that the navy does not want and will only add additionalle burdens.
the legislative withdrawal process includes a comprehensive periodic review every 20 to 25 years which gives the navy and the dio a chance to evaluate continued use and need for the lands and to coordinate on research management. this regular review which occurs only four to five times a century ensures that lands are managed in way that can enable the eventual turn to the american people. supporting the navy in its efforts to remain stronger environmental stewards and good neighbors. naval air weapons station china lake recently underwent the regular withdrawal review process. as part of this process the navy evaluated the existing needs. and the important quote, our current footprint meets all our current needs, end quote. the department of defense believes as do i that we should withdraw, quote, only the minimum amount of land necessary to meet security objectives. by adding 7,500 acres of land
maybe the navy doesn't want, this amendment amounts to a land grab. this is not fair to the people of california. it's important to take the longer term view. and remember, it's in the national interest to maintain a periodic land process for land set belonging to the american people. dod does not want to be locked in or outrated withdrawal language. the review process allows such changes to be considered. and for the lands to be returned to the public in no longer needed. i urge my colleagues to oppose this and prevent this land grab. and i yield back. >> the mr. whitman is recognized for five minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to speak in favor of the amendment. it's simply this, dod has a tremendously successful record in managing these types of lands. they do it very isefficiently. they do it in a way that they
understand what the uses are on the contiguous properties and make sure the usings are compatible with what the uses are there at the naval station. if you look at bureau land management an additional layer of bureaucracy which we would all like to avoid. making sure management that is efficient doing it through a direct process, having dod and the navy in charge is the way to do it. there's a cost factor, it's unnecessary. it includes more bureaucracy, something we'd like to get away from. we'd like to make sure that the direct management of those lands and again, their compatible uses is best in the hands of the navy. and, again, the naval air station there, the naval air weapons station directly benefits from this. from the expansion of these southern ranges. so it's necessary, and a positive thing for the navy. it also reduces bureaucracy. it makes it much more simple to manage these lands. and d.o.d. has a superior record of managing these types of
properties. folks, this just makes sense. i urge you to vote in favor of the amendment. >> other members wish to be heard on the amendment? gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, five minutes. >> i yield the balance of my time to mr. bishop from utah. >> mr. chairman, i just want to say one thing as well. this land is contiguous to the air station. the navy does request this particular piece of land. it's not the amount that the gentle lady from new hampshire mentioned. it's about half the amount that she mentioned. there is one private sector, but it's a private sector that's surrounded by outready, and they do have an access route that the navy will continue to maintain that access route. this is one of those things that will help their mission go forward. yield back. >> if there's no further discussion, get is on the amendment offered, those in favor, say aye. those opposed no. >> being the chair, the ayes have it. and the amendment is greed to.
are there other amendments to this section of the bill? >> the gentle lady from new hampshire. >> i'm sorry, my amendment strikes a -- >> excuse me, does the gentle lady wish to offer her amendment? >> i do, i apologize. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment and without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the gentle lady will withhold for a second until we can at least get it partially passed out. >> gentle lady from new hampshire is recognized for five minutes on her amendment. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. my amend strikes a section of title 29 that eliminates a termination date for public land withdrawals under the military
land withdrawals act of 1999. until terminated by the secretary of the military department concerned until such time as the secretary of interior can transfer administrative jurisdiction of the lands to the military. as i pointed not my earlier statement opposing mr. bishop's amendment to make permanent the withdrawal for public land for naval china lake taking away permanently amounts to a land grab. neither, and i'm going to repeat this, neither d.o.i. nor the military has asked for public withdrawal of these lands. in fact, they oppose such a withdrawal, because it removes opportunities to consider the military's changes needs and ignores a broader purpose of public lands management. not to mention the fact it cuts the public out of discussion for this land. at mcgregor range, ft. bliss, new mexico are jointly managed by the blm and the army. the blm is responsible for
national resource management on the land including live stock raising, wildlife fire response and popular big game hunting with permits from the military. this cooperative relationship allows the military to better focus on its missile testing mission at mcgregor range while blm manages deals with the hunters and puts out fires. this is satisfactory. in another example, the nevada wild horse range which currently has 600 horses in 50 to 100 boroughs. the judicial review process for legislative withdrawals it working. it gives the military, d.i.o., and the public an opportunity to consider land use and coordinate resource management with the goal of preserving these resources for the eventual goal of the american people. short-term needs change. and the view process allows for such changes. four to five reviews a century
are not so onerous as to allow us to permanently deprive the people of new mexico, alaska of an important discussion of how the lands are managed. i'd also like to add again, the people have that private property in the area that mr. bishop talked about. the navy said that would be awkward for them. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and prevent this unnecessary land giveaway. and rye yield back. >> is there further debate on the amendment? >> the gentleman from virginia. >> mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. again i want to go back to earlier discussions. this really is about making sure that d.o.d. has that input on these contiguous lands. remember, we have issues of encroachment. we have issues of conflict of use. d.o.o.'s in the best position to do that. they do an extraordinary job of managing these lands. making sure that they are upfront about what operations go on these bases to make sure, again, that there aren't issues that extend out of that.
i think that they're in the best position also to look at where security issues may come up. and we've had a lot of discussion in our subcommittee about security issues that come up on contiguous uses on those lands so i do believe that d.o.d. is in that best position, again, adding another layer of bureaucracy or taking this away is not an option that i believe is one in our best interest -- >> mr. the gentleman yield? >> i'll yield. >> thank you very much. i do agree about everything you said, but the problem here is that the d.o.d. didn't ask for this. if they had asked us for this, it would be different. but they did not ask for this. and they have been comfortable with the process that we've had. >> i know when asked, they said they support any effort that ensures their continued management of contiguous lands there. so they are looking at, as you know, in our subcommittee, we've looked at where those conflicting uses may be. while he do not actively ask for it, they ask for help in
managing not just their base lands, but also contiguous uses and encroachment situations which helps them as part of that management cool. with that, i yield back. >> further debate on the amendment? >> this song gas is recognized. >> thank you, i rise in support of this amendment, and i thank representative shea porter for offering it. as a member of the national resource committee which has previously held issues on this issue, i urge my colleagues to support the amendment us before. while i join mr. bishop in supporting the goal of offering land withdrawals for military purposes, i'm opposed to the land to the department of defense and the elimination of withdrawal reviews. the department of defense has not asked that we make this change. in fact, periodic withdrawals serve a very useful purpose. according to testimony at a subcommittee hearing the department believes, quote, this
periodic review by the two departments as well as the congress and the public is vital to promoting the high-quality stewardship and management of the public lands, unquote. this process allows the d.o.d. and the department of interior to re-evaluate their ongoing land management relationship, including the responsibilities of each department. it also allows the military to take into consideration new ideas raised during the public comment process and make adjustments for any mission changes. in the 20, 40, or even 60 years, d.o.d.'s needs and interest in particular public lands, could change. so i urge my colleagues to support the public review process and support this amendment. thank you, and i yield back. >> the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, is recognized for five minutes. >> you know, mr. chairman, in "fiddler on the roof" when steadited tedyier comes out and addresses
them and talks about the strange habits they have. he basically looks at the audience and says, you may ask why we do this -- tradition. why do we do this? public land is public land. some public land is owned and operated by the department of defense. some land is owned and operated by the interior department which then transfers it to the department of defense if they do periodic reviews of that withdrawal which would be nice. except every time you do one of those reviews so that the military can keep doing what they've been doing, it's a long process, it's considered a major land transfer and it triggers the need for process. which means the military on each and every one of these reviews has to start three or four years in advance just to do the paperwork, they have to hire consultants just to fill out the paperwork. for each and every one of these reviews it costs $2 million to
$7 million per parcel to go through the paperwork. at the end of the day, they keep going on and someone in the interior can pat himself or herself on the back saying we had a review when we keep control of the dirt. one has to ask, why do we go through this? tradition. this is all readiness money. for every one of these parcels, you're taking money from readiness. we talked abdomen sequestration. the two cuts prior to that, after that, how much we need money. why are we wasting it on a needless review. >> do you yield? >> just wait. the people who run defense and interior happens to have the same boss so i can understand why they would come up with similar recommendations. if you try to read between the lines, the defense clearly said while d.o.d. believes the current system of periodic legislative re-withdrawals is not particularly efficient and does not provide for the optimum
land management regime. what they're simply saying is, use your own brains. we don't do things because we've done it. we ask, why are we doing it? why are we spending money we don't have that is doing something that doesn't need to be done? when the military is done with the land, it can transfer back to d.o.i. and everything can be hunky-dory. it's a waste of time, it's a waste of money and military readiness. and we should not do it just because we've always done it. that makes to sense. thank you, i yield back. >> is there any further debate on the amendment? the gentleman from california taking a minute. >> mr. bishop, if you would yield for just a question here.
does this amendment deal with the permanent transfer of the land to the military? or just with the annual review? >> it eliminates the annual review when there's a permanent transfer until they're done with the property. at which time i will then come back and sing "sunrise sunset." >> you have a great voice, i'm sure it would be well worth listening to that song. however, i think you're correct about the annual review, it doesn't seem to be necessary. but the permanent transfer is a potential problem, if in fact the language in the text of the bill does a permanent transfer. having spent four years dealing with the last brack and the reversion of military land back to the department of interior,
it turned out to be a very good process in which the department of interior was able to manage that reversal. and i don't have problems with the annual review. and i think that may not be necessary. but the permanent transfer to the military without reservation back to the department of interior i think would be a problem. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i yield to the author of the amendment. >> thank you. it's not an annual review. it's about four times a century review. so for an annual review, i think, you know, you might have a point there. but it is not an annual review. and, again, we are talking about public land. land that belongs to the public. and they deserve to have a say-so, three or four times a century about the land. we all understand that the military needs are foremost here. but they didn't ask for this. so to change this and cut out
the public comment three or four times a century i think would be wrong. thank you, i yield back. >> i yield back my time. >> is there further debate on the amendment? if not, questions on adoption of the amendment by miss shea-porter. so many in favor will say aye. those opposed no. >> i request a recorded vote. >> i got the nos have it. and you request a -- >> i request a recorded vote. >> okay. we'll do this at the end of the subcommittee mark. mr. chairman. >> are there any amendments to the subcommittee's. >> no. >> i have an amendment to offer. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment?
without objection, reading of the memo will be dispensed with. and the chair now recognizes the gentleman for purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will withdraw this. this is something i'm going to offer on the floor. i apologize for the sizes of it. yes, it's the brac amendment, so it has more substance to it in at least terms of paper. than some of the previous ones. i'll speak briefly to this. we've had a conversation in committee, i know there are concerns about doing another brack-ground. i've got it. i think we're duplicating here -- sorry, let me start over. the military, the size of the military is shrinking. certainly, you know, the army and marine corps, in particular,
as we've come down from our peaks of a couple years ago. and the army estimates that they have 18% excess capacity in terms of basing. i forget what the air force big is, but it's pretty high as well. and d.o.d. has repeatedly requested the flexibility to close some of those bases, in order to better consolidate their forces. this is going to need to be done in terms of saving money. otherwise, we're going to be wasting a lot of department of defense money on facilities that we do not need. and the cost of this, we've talked about, both sides are in agreement, that the cuts coming from sequestration, the consults that 52 already come, frankly, have made it very, very difficult on the military to meet its needs and the needs of national security requirements. we're simply not in a position to have the department of defense spending money on facilities they do not need. so this brack amendment would lay out a process and authorize the department of defense to do that.
i only want to address one other issue thin i'll let this go until we get to the floor. and that ises, people have expressed concerns about the 2005 brac. which wound up costing more than was estimated and has taken longer to recoup. it's worth noting that even the 2005 brac will at some point wind up saving money. but it was different from the brief bracs and different from this one. 2005 was more about alignment than base closing. at that point, we were growing the military but they felt they needed to do realignment decisions to have it in place. the estimates given by d.o.d. were this would cost -- this round of brac would take $6 billion to comblment and save $2 billion a year. the return would be quick and substantial. i know this is not popular. i have a lot of bases in my state. you throw this process open, you don't know what's going to
happen. but, again, the first obligation of this committee, i think, is to make sure our troops are trained and equipped to meet the national security objectives that we give them. and forcing the military to maintain excess facilities undermines that. so i will withdraw the amendment because it requires a sequential referral. but we will have this debate on the floor that i believe this committee eventually is going to have to confront. i just think sooner would be better than later. i yield back and withdraw the amendment. >> the gentleman withdraws the amendment. i commend him for his courage. and we can have that debate a couple weeks on the floor. now, if there are no other amendments to the committee's report, we're now going to proceed to the vote on those amendments where a roll call vote was ordered. the committee postponed further proceedings on the amendment offered by miss shea-porter,
number 064. that lost by a voice vote. we will ask the clerk to call the roll. >> mr. mckeon. >> no. >> mr. mckeon votes no. >> mr. smith? mr. smith votes aye. >> mr. thornberry votes no. miss sanchez votes aye. mr. jones. mr. mcintyre. aye. mr. forbes, mr. forbes votes no. mr. brady? mr. brady votes aye. mr. miller? mr. miller votes no. mrs. davis? mrs. davis votes aye. mr. wilson? mr. wilson notes month. mr. langvin votes aye.
mr. rubio votes aye. mr. larson. mr. larson. mr. bishop. mr. bishop votes no. mr. cooper. mr. cooper votes aye. mr. turner. mr. turner votes no. burd dia. mr. kleiny mr. klein votes no. mr. courtney votes aye. mr. rodgers. >> mr. rodgers votes aye. mr. lopsack votes aye. mr. franks. mr. franks votes no. miss tsongas. aye. mr. garamendi votes aye.
mr. khannaway votes no. mr. johnson. mr. johnson votes aye. mr. lamborn. mr. lamborn votes no. miss hanabusa votes aye. mr. whittman votes no. miss spear. miss spear votes aye. mr. hunter. mr. hunter votes no. mr. barber. mr. barber votes aye. dr. fleming. dr. fleming votes no. mr. carson. mr. carson votes aye. mr. kaufman. mr. coffman votes no. miss shea-porter. miss shea-porter votes aye. mr. vigil votes no. mr. mcfay. mr. mcfay votes aye.
mr. gibson. mr. gibson votes aye. mr. kilmer. mr. kilmer votes aye. mrs. hartler votes aye. mr. castro quotes aye. dr. heck. dr. heck votes no. miss duckworth. miss duckworth votes aye. mr. runyan votes aye. mr. peters. mr. peters votes aye. mr. caught. scott. mr. scott votes aye. mr. enard votes aye. mr. palaza vote no, sir. mr. diego votes aye. mr. brooks, no. mr. deesy. aye.
mr. nugent. mr. nugent. this gabbert. miss gabbert votes áaye. mrs. nome, mrs. nome votes no. mr. cook votes no. mr. brydenstein votes no. dr. rensick votes no. miss veloursky votes no. mr. byrne. mr. byrne votes no. mr. jones. mr. larson. mr. larson votes aye. miss burdio. ms. burdio. ms. burdio votes aye. mr. schuster. mr. schuster votes aye. mr. nugent.
>> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman there were 37 aye votes, 24 no votes. >> so the amendment passed. the amendment is agreed to. the next amendment is number -- committee -- the next one is 197-r-1, amendment offered by mr. johnson that we postponed. we'll call it. this adds direct solar to the department's list of qualified renewable energy sources.
the question now occurs on the amendment offered by mr. johnson. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. mckeon. >> no. >> mr. mckeon votes no. >> mr. smith. mr. smith votes no. mr. thornberry. mr. thornberry votes no. miss sanchez. miss sanchez votes aye. mr. jones. mr. mcintyre. mr. mcintyre votes aye. mr. forbes. mr. forbes votes no. mr. brady. mr. brady votes aye. mr. miller. mr. miller votes no. mrs. davis. mrs. davis votes no. mr. wilson. >> no. >> mr. wilson votes no. >> mr. langevin. mr. langevin votes no.
mr. lubeno votes no. mr. larson votes no. mr. bishop votes no. mr. cooper votes no. mr. turner. mr. turner votes no. >> ms. burdio? >> no. >> ms. burdio votes no. mr. klein. mr. klein votes no. mr. courtney votes no. mr. rodgers votes no. mr. lopsack vote no, sir. mr. franks. mr. franks vote no, sir. miss tsongas votes no. mr. schuster. mr. schuster votes no. mr. garamendi votes aye. mr. khannaway votes no. mr. johnson. mr. johnson votes aye. mr. lamborn.
mr. lam born votes no. miss hanabusa. miss hanabusa votes aye. mr. whitman, mr. whitman votes no. miss spear. miss spear votes aye. mr. hunter? mr. hunter vote no, sir. mr. barber. mr. barber votes aye. dr. fleming. dr. fleming vote no, sir. mr. carson. mr. carson votes aye. mr. coffman. mr. coffman votes no. miss shea porter? miss shea porter votes aye. mr. vigil. mr. vigil votes no. mr. mafay. mr. mafay vote no, sir. mr. gibson vote no, sir. mr. gilmer votes no. mrs. hartzler. mrs. hartzler vote no, sir. mr. castro.
mr. castro votes no. dr. heck. dr. heck vote no, sir. ms. duckworth. ms. duckworth votes no. mr. runyan. mr. runyan votes no. mr. peters? mr. peters votes no. mr. scott. mr. scott vote no, sir. mr. enard votes no. mr. palazzo. mr. palazzo vote no, sir. mr. gallego vote no, sir. mr. brooks. mr. brooks votes no. mr. veasey votes no. mr. nugent. mr. nugent votes no. ms. gabbert. ms. gabbert votes aye. mr. nome. mr. nome vote no, sir. mr. cook vote no, sir. mr. brydenstein vote no, sir.
aye votes, 50 no votes. >> the amendment is not agreed to. the committee will postpone further proceedings on the amendment offered by mr. conaway number 207 and shall now resume those proceedings. the question continues on the amendment offered by mr. conaway. the clerk will call the roll. >> olympic kian. >> yes. >> mr. mckeon votes aye. mr. smith? >> no. >> mr. smith votes no. >> mr. thornberry. mr. thornberry votes aye. miss sanchez. >> no. >> miss sanchez votes no. >> mr. jones? >> mr. mcintyre. >> no. >> mr. mcintyre votes no. mr. forbes? mr. forbes votes aye. mr. brady? >> no. >> mr. brady votes no. >> mr. miller? >> yes. >> mr. miller votes aye.
>> mrs. davis? mrs. davis votes no. mr. wilson. >> yes. >> mr. wilson votes aye. mr. langevin votes no. mr. lubiando votes aye. mr. larson? mr. larson? mr. larson votes no. mr. bishop? mr. bishop votes aye. mr. cooper? >> no. >> mr. cooper votes no. >> mr. turner. >> aye. >> mr. turner votes aye. >> miss burdio? miss burdio vote no, sir. mr. klein? >> aye. >> mr. klein votes aye. >> mr. courtney. mr. courtney vote no, sir. >> mr. rodgers. mr. rodgers votes aye. >> mr. lobbysack vote no, sir. mr. franks? mr. franks votes aye. miss tsongas.
miss tsongas votes no. mr. schuster. mr. schuster votes aye. mr. garamendi. >> no. >> mr. garamendi vote no, sir. >> mr. conway. mr. conway votes aye. mr. johnson votes no. mr. lamborn votes aye. miss hanabusa. miss hanabusa votes no. mr. whitman? >> no. >> miss spear vote no, sir. mr. hunter? mr. hunter votes no. mr. barber? mr. barber? mr. barber votes no. dr. fleming? >> aye. >> dr. fleming votes aye. >> mr. carson? >> mr. carson votes no. >> mr. coffman. mr. coffman votes aye. >> miss shea-porter? miss shea-porter vote no, sir.
>> mr. ridgell votes aye. mr. mafay? mr. mafay votes no. mr. gibson? >> no. >> mr. gibson votes no. >> mr. kilmer? >> no.eel >> mr. kilmer votes no. >> mrs. hartzler? aye. mr. castro? mr. castro votes no. dr. heck? >> aye. >> dr. heck votes aye. >> ms. duckworth? >> runnion votes aye. mr. peters. mr. peters votes no. mr. scott. mr. scott votes aye. mr. enyart. mr. enyart votes no. mr. pallazo. mr. pallazo votes aye.
mr. gall ego. mr. nugent. mr. nugent votes aye. miss gabbard. miss gabbard votes no. mrs. gnome. mrs. gnome votes aye. mr. cook. mr. cook votes aye. mr. bridenstein. mr. bridenstein votes aye. dr. wentrip. dr. wentrip votes aye. mrs. with a loresky. mrs. with a loresky votes aye. mr. burn. mr. burn votes aye. mr. jones. >> has everyone voted? >> mr. chairman. i'd change my vote to an aye. >> mr. hunter needs to change his vote to an aye. >> mr. hunter votes aye.
the next postponed vote is on the amendment offered by mr. connelly. question now occurs on the amendment offered by mr. conoway. >> mr. mckeen. >> aye. >> mr. mckeen votes aye. mr. smith. mr. smith votes no. mr. thornberry. mr. thorn billion berry votes aye. miss sanchez. miss sanchez votes no. mr. jones. mr. mcintyre. >> no. >> mr. mcintyre votes no. mr. forbes. mr. forbes votes aye. mr. brady. mr. brady votes no. mr. miller. mr. miller votes aye. mrs. davis. mrs. davis votes no. mr. wilson.
mr. wilson votes aye. mr. longevon. no. mr. lobiando. aye. mr. larson. mr. larson votes no. mr. bishop. mr. bishop votes aye. mr. cooper. mr. cooper votes no. mr. turner. mr. turner votes aye. miss bordiao. no. mr. klein. mr. klein votes aye. mr. courtney. mr. courtney votes no. mr. rogers. mr. rogers votes aye. mr. lopezak. no. mr. franks. mr. franks votes aye. miss songus. miss songus votes no. mr. schuster. mr. schuster votes aye. mr. garramendi.
no. mr. conoway. eye. mr. johnson. mr. johnson votes no. mr. lamborn. mr. lambborn votes aye. miss hanabusa. no. mr. whitman. mr. whitman votes aye. miss spear. miss spear votes no. in hunter. mr. hunter votes aye. mr. barber. mr. barber votes no. dr. fleming. dr. fleming votes aye. mr. carson. mr. carson votes no. mr. kaufman. mr. kaufman votes aye. miss shay-porter. miss shay-porter votes no. mr. ridgel. mr. ridgel votes aye. mr. maffay. no. mr. gibson. mr. gibson votes no. mr. kilmer.
mr. kilmer votes no. mrs. hartsler. aye. mr. castro. mr. castro votes no. dr. heck. dr. heck votes aye. ms. duckworth. miss duckworth votes no. mr. runnion. mr. runnion votes aye. mr. peters. mr. peters votes no. mr. scott. mr. scott votes aye. mr. enyard. no. mr. pallazo. mr. pallazo votes aye. mr. gallego. mr. gallego votes no. mr. brooks. mr. brooks votes aye. mr. veesey. no. mr. nugent. mr. nugent votes aye. ms. gabbard. no. mrs. gnome.
mrs. gnome votes aye. mr. cook. mr. cook votes aye. mr. bridenstein. mr. bridenstein votes aye. dr. wentrip. aye. mrs. with a loresky. mrs. will loresky votes aye. mr. burn. mr. burn votes aye. mr. jones. >> are there any other members who wish to record their vote or change their vote? clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, there were 32 aye votes, 29 no votes.
>> the amendment is therefore agreed to. question now resumes on the amendment offered by miss shay-porter number 66. clerk will call the roll. >> chairman mckeean. mr. smith. mr. smith. mr. smith votes aye. mr. thornberry. >> no. >> mr. thornberry votes no. miss sanchez. miss sanchez votes aye. mr. jones. mr. mcintyre. mr. macintyre votes aye. mr. forbes. mr. forbes votes no. mr. brady. mr. brady votes aye. mr. miller. mr. miller votes no. mrs. davis. mrs. davis votes aye. mr. wilson. mr. wilson votes no.
mr. longevon. aye. mr. lobianda. no. mr. larson. mr. larson votes aye. mr. bishop. mr. bishop votes no. mr. cooper. mr. cooper votes aye. mr. turner. mr. turner votes no. miss bordao. aye. mr. klein. mr. klein votes no. mr. courtney. mr. courtney votes aye. mr. rogers. mr. rogers votes no. mr. lopezak. mr. lopezak votes aye. mr. franks. mr. franks votes no. miss tsongas. eye. mr. schuster. mr. schuster votes no. mr. garramendi. aye. mr. conoway votes no.
mr. johnson votes aye. mr. lamborn. mr. lamborn votes no. miss ha ncht a bchnabasu. aye. mr. whitman. no. miss spear. miss spear votes aye. mr. hunter. mr. hunter. mr. barber. mr. barber votes aye. dr. fleming. dr. fleming votes no. mr. carson. mr. carson votes aye. mr. kaufman. mr. kaufman votes no. miss shay-porter. police shay-porter votes eye. mr. ridgel. mr. ridgel votes no. mr. maffay. aye. mr. gibson. mr. gibson votes no. mr. kilmer. mr. kilmer votes aye. mrs. hartzler.
no. mr. castro. mr. castro votes aye. dr. heck. dr. heck votes no. miss duckworth. miss duckworth votes aye. mr. runnion. mr. runnion votes no. mr. peters. mr. peters. mr. peters votes aye. mr. scott. mr. scott votes no. mr. enyard. mr. enyard votes aye. mr. pallazo. mr. pallazo votes no. mr. gallego. mr. gall emplt go votes aye. mr. brooks. mr. brooks votes no. mr. vesey. aye. mr. nugent. mr. nugent votes no. miss gab billibard.
aye. mr. mrs. gnome. mrs. gnome votes no. mr. cook. mr. cook votes no. mr. bridenstein. mr. bridenstein votes no. dr. wentrip. dr. wentrip votes no. mrs. wilorski. no. mr. burn. mr. burn votes no. mr. jones. mr. hunter. mr. hunter votes no. chairm chairman. >> are there any other members who wish to record or change a vote?
clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, there were 28 aye votes, 32 no votes. >> the amendment is not agreed to. if there are no further amemt , amendmen amendments, the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia mr. whitman for the pups of offering a motion. the question is on the motion of the gentleman from virginia. members in favor say aye. those opposed say no. a quorum being present, the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. committee will now receive the report of the subcommittee on strategic forces pursuant to committee rule 17 and in consultation with the ranking member will postpone all of the recorded votes on the amendments in this particular subcommittee mark until the end of the subcommittee mark. chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, for any comments he'd like to make.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to highlight just a few parts of our mark. in missile defense we will support the israeli cooperative and iron dome programs and ensure the requested increase is fully justified while also continuing to make progress on u.s.-based co-production and strengthen our ally, israel. for ground based missile defense, we support fully funding the redesign kill vehicle and the new long-range discriminating sensor and we will take steps to ensure the system gets overdue support for reliability and maintenance. finally we also increased investment for directed energy and other next-generation technologies. for missile defense these future capabilities are the long-term solution and we need to accelerate progress towards their development. for nuclear weapons activities at the national nuclear security administration or nnsa, the mark will strengthen nnsa's focus on finding efficiencies it simply must fine to redirect money and
deliver on its commitments to the military. the mark will also ensure robust oversight of the major nuclear weapons modernization programs and arrest the chronic slips to the schedules for life extension programs an nuclear weapons infrastructure projects. regarding space programs, the mark initiates the development of a competitively sourced next generation liquid rocket engine to tan significance from the use of the non-allied space launch engines to a domestic alternative. the mark also states that fully developed multi-faceted space security and defense program is needed to deter and defeat any adversary's acts of space aggression and it requires a review of the ability and options to deter and defeat space aggression. we continue our oversight of the vitally evolved, expendable launch vehicle or eelv, programmed to maintain the required mission assurance, reduce cost and provide opportunities for xoe
competition to certified providers. finally, i'm pleased that the chairman's mark will contain an important new reform regarding how this nation procures commercial satellite communication services. i want to thank all of the members for their engagement in this year's process. i look forward to another successful ndaa. with that i yield whack. >> chairman yields back. chairman now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, chairman from tennessee, mr. cooper. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's been a pleasure to work with my friend and colleague, mr. rogers of alabama. i am proud to report that our subcommittee has achieved remarkable consensus on these very tough issues involving the nuclear stockpile and our space assets. our colleagues will be pleased. there will be remarkably few amendments that will be debated and voted on. most of them have been worked out on block and i would like to pay tribute to our able staffer, leona tumero who's work miracles
in this regard. it is easy in a mark like this to lose the forest for the trees. i am worried in a subcommittee that we're some $700 million over the president's request. there is no obvious way to find that money other than through, for example, the readiness accounts which is a ranking member smith pointed out at the beginning of the market are already $1,500,000 before the president's request. use the subcommittee process it is very difficult to reconcile these amounts in a coherent fashion. it is simply no one's fault but we need do it nonetheless. i will be offering later a couple of amendments to try to alleviate that shortfall. it is also very important for my colleagues to realize that just maintaining our nuclear capability alone will be costing us some $355 billion over the next ten years or so. that's going to be a large obligation for this country, but one that we must sustain.
so appropriate planning is required and i hope that this committee is up to it. i'm a little worried because the preview of today's mark-up is contained in yesterday's hill newspaper it not encouraging. it says that the house 2015 defense budget rejects pentagon cost cutting. that would be fine if we came up with cost cutting of our own. but this mark-up is likely to yield a budget that is -- military budget that's substantially unpaid for. i don't need to remind my colleagues that the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff warned us the greatest threat we face is not any external threat, it is our own internal budgeting failures. so i'm hopeful that this committee, the largest committee in congress, will be able to step up and take care of this essential national defense budgeting problem. money doesn't grow on trees. we've got to be more disciplined in our approach and i'm hopeful that working together on a
bipartisan fashion we will be able to do that. i have no more comments, mr. chairman. yield back the balance of my time. >> chairman yields back. before entertaining amendments is there any further discussion on the subcommittee he's report. gentleman from coll is recognize for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. very briefly, i want to commend the whole subcommittee, the ranking member, the chairman, for successfully plussing up some funding, vital funding, are for cooperative missile defense projects with israel, our democratic ally in the middle east. this will help our country, it will help them, it will lead to create more peace in the middle east through better missile defense. so i'm just really excited and appreciative of what this subcommittee has done. thank you, mr. chairman. and i yield back. >> any further discussion? >> mr. chairman. gentleman from arizona. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
i would like to concur with my colleague's remarks about the subcommittee's work on defense system for israel. i was there last year and i saw firsthand the importance of the iron dome defense system. you may recall that just a year before that, 1,500 rockets came out of gaza and they would have landed on the community immediately across the line from gaza. 85% of those missiles or those rockets were taken out by the iron dome sis tell. the other 50% fell harmlessly in the desert. this is a very effective system that works. i'm proud that the subcommittee has plussed this up and that we can go forward with our continued robust support of israel. this weapons system works an we should continue well into the future how we support it. i'm also pleased to report that we're very close to an agreement between the company in israel, rafael, and company in this
country to have co-production of the missile system -- iron dome missile system in our country. this provides back-up to rafael should anything happen to that missile production facility, and it certainly brings jobs to our country as well. so again, common daendations to subcommittee for their work on this. i yield back. >> any further discussion? if not, are there any amendments to this section -- to the subcommittee's report? the gentleman from alabama. gentleman from alabama wish to offer an amendment? the clerk will pass out the amendment. i ask unanimous consent to call
up a package of amendments that have been worked and approved by the minority side. >> without objection, so ordered. >> without objection, the reading of the amendments will be dispensed with and the chair now recognizes the distinguished subcommittee chair for the purpose of explaining his amendment. >> i call package one comprised of the following. amendment 25 by miss wilorski to amend section 215 concerning the weather satellite follow-on system. amendment number 51, revision 1, by mr. bridenstein concerning russian global navigation satellite system ground monitoring stations.
amendment number 60, revision number one, by mr. brooks of alabama concerning conventional prompt strike systems. amendment number 70 revision one by miss sanchez concerning briefing on b-61 gravity bombs. amendment 72 by miss sanchez concerning the retirement of icbm silos. amendment number 77, revision one, by mr. turner concerning a study on center of excellent on deterrence for nato. amendment number 82, the concern of missile defenses to ensure our nato allies. amendment number 93 by mr. larson concerning a briefing on the nuclear weapons budget. amendment number 141 by mr. forbes and miss hanabusa concerning missile defense cooperation with our allies in asia. amendment 145 by mr. cook to section 215 concerning commercial satellite weather and data. amendment 141 revision one by mr. lamborn concerning an update
to the joint staff assessment on the military impact of a code of conduct for space activities. >> i said 144, i meant 149. revision by mr. lamborn concerning an update on the military impact of code of conduct for other space activities. >> is there any further debate on the block amendments? if not, the question comes on the amendment offered by the gentleman from mr. alabama, mr. rogers. those in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
are there further amendments to this section of the bill? gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the clerk will pass out the amendment. >> without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with and the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's been more are than 20 years since there's been a serious
study of the necessity for having the triad. that's the submarines air delivered nuclear weapons, submarine-delivered nuclear weapons and the land-based ballistic missiles. a lot of things have transpired over those 20 years, including the current situation in the ukraine. the question -- this issue really needs our attention as the ranking member said in his opening presentation, this nuclear arsenal is extraordinarily expensive, to say nothing of dangerous. we've seen incidents, both naval as well as land-based missiles of questions of propriety by the operators of those systems. those questions are hopefully being answered. but the underlying question of whether this nation needs the triad, which really goes back more than 50 years.
do we need that in the modern world in which we live with all of the issues that we have before us, geopolitical issues and risks. this amendment would require a study, a serious gao study which was last done more than 20 years ago. there's been some updates but it's not been intensively analyzed. and we need that information to how we're going to spend the taxpayers's money. that's what this amendment does. i think it is extremely important for the committee, for congress and for the american public to have the information about how we're going to deal with nuclear deterrents. do we need them. do we need all three. can we get by with one, for example, submarines only. this is going to play into the question of how we deal with a long-range standoff missiles, how we deal with the new
long-range penetrating bomber. again, very, very expensive systems that we are going to have to find some way to pay for. it may be that we don't need them an that's why this amendment is here. with that i would yield back my. time. i don't know if anybody wants to discuss it, i've got 2:38 left. i yield to my colleague from coll. >> thank you. very briefly, mr. chairman, i oppose this amendment and i ask for its defeat. it implies that our nuclear forces are too large because it is only a one-way study. it can only talk about reducing our forces, not enlarging them. under new start, we are reducing our nuclear forces and russia is allowed to increase their nuclear forces. that is a mistake there as well. so this is not a good amendment and i would urge its defeat. i would yield the balance of my
time to the chairman of the subcommittee, if he has any comments he wishes to make. >> in fact, it is not your time, it is mine. >> okay. i yield back -- >> i was hoping that we could engage in a bit of a debate and i thank you for making that possible. in the 1:40 i have left, this does not say reduction or elimination of any of the three legs of the triad. in fact, it says let's study this entire issue. let's have the gao do an in-depth study which they last did in the early 1990s. it would give us the data and information we need, not only what to do with the existing system, much of which needs to be replaced or modified and modernized -- and we're certainly seeing that with some of the nuclear warheads -- but also to have an understanding of other systems that we may or may not want to put in place of the triad. i would just add in my closing time, in october 17th, 2011,
stratcon commander said as you look into the strategic future, the answer about whether or not we will need a triad i think it depends. it depends on the strategic situation we find ourselves in. it would depend on whether or not or not we have structured our force in such a way we can get benefits from other. i want to be clear. that we still do not get the same benefits from those attributes or we still do not need the same benefits of those attributes. of course there is a bugged tear dimension to this. as we look into the modernization in particular, can we in fact spend the resources to modernize the entire triad. that question is open. we ought to make an informed decision, have as much knowledge as we possibly can as we deal with these issues. we're dealing with them today. we'll be dealing with them in the future.
i see my time has expired. >> the chair had understood the gentleman was going to withdraw this amendment. that's not the gentleman's intention? >> i do intend to withdraw -- >> no. i just understood you were going to withdraw so i was going to let you tell us about your amendment and withdraw it. >> i was hoping you would debate the issue with me. >> there's nothing to debate if you're going to withdraw it. i can tell you why i don't like it, if you want me to. >> please do. >> it's a moot point if you're going to withdraw it. >> does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> no, sir.
>> without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. are there further amendments to this section of the bill? does the gentleman from california wish to offer his next amendment? clerk will pass out the amendment. without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with and the gentleman from california is recognized on his amendment. >> this amendment goes to part of the issue i raised a few moments ago with the triad.
we are currently deploying in europe the b-61 nuclear bomb for the purposes of providing extended nuclear coverage for euro europe. there is question about whether that is necessary, whether or not that coverage could be provided outside of europe. there's an ongoing debate in europe about the appropriateness of the b-61 bomb being there anyway and there may be -- and in fact some would argue there are other ways of providing that extended nuclear umbrella to europe. i will simply point out this is an extremely expensive remodernization of the b-61 bomb. it is in the range of $12 billion to $13 billion over the next decade. that's money that we may need
elsewhere and the question of whether this will ever be deployed in europe is an open question today. this amendment tries to go and gather information from the secretary of defense about whether we ought to pursue the deployment of the b-61 bomb in europe or other options to provide the nuclear umbrella. i understand that in negotiating this amendment that i will withdraw it, but it is something that this committee ought to spend some time thinking about. we're in the process of refurbishing many of our nuclear bombs. the question of how they fit into our nuclear strategy is an open question. at least in my mind. there are those who think it is closed an that's simply by having more and more and bigger an more as the answer. well, you better find a lot of money if that's your solution to
how we deploy and determine the level and the extent of our nuclear weapons. i would urge this committee going forward to seek knowledge. seek knowledge from our allies in europe about their view. b-61 bomb being rebuilt an deployed in europe, to seek knowledge about alternative ways we can provide a nuclear umbrella for europe. in fact, those ways are already available. with that, unless somebody would like to pick up this issue and spend some time discussing whether we ought to spend another $12 billion to $13 billion, i'll withdraw the amendment. >> the amendment is withdrawn. are there further amendments? the gentleman from california wish to offer number 116?
second. continuing the discussion about how we deploy our nuclear weapons, how many, where and how they might be delivered, if they are delivered in a triad, which would be the ballistic missiles, land-based or submarine-based ballistic missiles, or land-based -- or air-delivered. we are in the process of developing a new air-delivered system called the long-range standoff weapon. which is a cruise missile that has obviously long range and does what most cruise missiles do. they don't fly in the high atmosphere but rather closer to earth. this is a significant development. a very, very significant development in how we would deploy our nuclear weapons or
should we ever need to do so. we need to understand the implications that there's not only the cost of this been but what warhead would be deployed on this weapon or on this delivery platform. we don't know that answer yet. presumably it is being developed. but this is going to be a very, very expensive addition to the triad. we are also in the process of developing a new long-range bomber, stealth bomber, that is even more expensive. both of them are designed to penetrate in to enemy territory and overcome whatever defenses there might be there. do we need both? can we afford both? can one or the other replace the other? these are questions that come before this committee because
these are questions that deal not only with the weapons and the delivery and the triad itself, but also with our ability to pay for it and there are implications with regard to treaties that we have engaged in, and also implicationed for future treaties to reduce the number of nuclear weapons that are in the world today. so we ought to proceed with knowledge. and therefore, this is designed to give us the knowledge to make a more informed decision. with that i yield back my remaining time. >> mr. rogers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the gentleman from california offering this amendment and being so cooperative with us on his series of amendments and i have agreed to accept this amendment, urge my colleagues to vote yes. with that i yield back.
>> any further debate on the amendment? if not, the amendment offered by mr. garamendi. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. i don't believe that. congratulations. the amendment is agreed to. are there any further amendments to the subcommittee mark? mr. rogers. >> yes, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to call f1 ok unanimous consent to call been worked and approved by the minority side. >> without objection, so ordered. will the clerk please pass out the amendments to be offered in block. and without objection reading
the amendments will be dispensed with. gentleman is recognized for five minutes for the pups of offering an explanation of his amendments. >> i call up package two, comprised of amendment 164 by mr. rogers to amend section 1223 of the fy 14 ndaa. amendment 165 concerning a fence on space modernization funds for the space-based infrared system. amendment 156 concerning the mark. amendment 167 by mr. rogers concerning a fence on space modernization program funds for the advanced high-frequency program -- extremely high-frequency program. amendment number 168 by mr. rogers to strikejáa>ction 3141 f the mark. amendment number 169 revision one by mr. rogers concerning the
ballots between science and the stockpile mod zeshization program. amendment number 170 revision one concerning nuclear weapons program modernization. a pran for use of public/private patters in ships by. amendment 172 about dod reporting on arms control compliance concerns. amendment 175 for a report on the aegis site in hawaii. amendment 192 revision one by mr. johnson expressing a sense of the congress on the capacity enhancement to kill vehicle. amendment 198 revision one concerning the report on russia's violation of the imf treaty and amendment number 227 revision one by mr. cooper concerning the report on russia's violation of the inf treaty.
further debate? if not, the amendment offered by mr. rogers. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed flo. the a no. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.no. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. >> are therer in amendments to the subcommittee report? gentle lady has the amendment at the desk. clerk will ple. >> mr. chairman, this would be amendment 69. it really rolls up into this whole issue of some of what mr. garamendi was bringing up today. this is the whole issue of our nuclear deterrent that sits in
europe. i do believe that we need to have an in-depth discussion and debate within our own committee members to really forge the future of what that nuclear deterrent looks like with respect to europe, what sits in europe, and what it really costs us to do all of that, whether it's needed or not. and i think it is a very timely thing especially when we take a look at what is happening in ukraine and other countries. we've seen aggression in to georgia before, for example, with respect to russia so i think it is an important issue to talk about a strong nato and also the arms that sit within that nato arena. this particular amendment that i am bringing forward, just to put a place marker so that i hope we'll have a discussion on this. but i will be withdrawing it.
is to talk about what it costs for us to have that nuclear deterrent within the boundaries of nato and the fact that the united states bears almost 100% of that cost. it is an incredibly expensive thing to do especially with we look at the b-61 life extension program. we are talking about a $10 billion to $12 billion life extension program over the next few years. and nato does not contribute to those costs. this is fully born by the united states. so i think it is incredibly important for us to realize that and to go back to the drawing board and think about what we need there, what other things we have in our arsenal, if you will, and to have a good plan and be able to have a good discussion with our nato allies. mr. turner has work very hard as
the head of the interparliamentary group from our congress to work with nato. i applaud those efforts. he has asked me to work on those issues also. they're very in-depth. they're very important. i am all for the nato alliance. i think we need to have a strong alliance as ever before, if more, just in seeing some of the issues that we see on the front pages and in the newspaper. but we really need to talk about what that alliance looks like, what arsenal we have, and what costs -- at what cost and where do we place that. and so i will be pulling back my amendment -- >> will the gentle lady yield for a moment? >> yes, mr. turner, i will yield some time. >> thank you so much for your commitment and recognition of the importance of nato. certainly i think the whole issue of nato's participation -- the nato allies, european
allies, contributing overall to our defense is important. obviously the b-61 is our weapon, but -- so that's certainly cast in the light of being something that is of our responsibility. the one issue about the b-61, we should not all lose focus of the fact that general breedlove was just here and the supreme allied commander for our european forces stated that the b-61 was absolutely necessary, that forward basing nuclear weapons was absolutely necessary and we did not have in our strategic footprint and tactical footprint the capability that that weapon forward based provides. so i know many people are questioning is it needed. and it is absolutely needed. but i do appreciate your dedication -- >> if i might reclaim my time, mr. turner. as much as i enjoy general breedlove and think that he is
very capable, there are many minds on this subject and again, that is one of the reasons why i join with mr. garamendi saying we really need to have a discussion on this and bring in the experts and find out what this really looks like for the future so we can in fact approach our nato allies and figure out what we all are going to do together to keep this alliance strong. so with that, i pull back the amendment and i thank both the chairman of the air and tactical and mr. mckeyan. thank sglup ayou. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at desk. >> will the clefk pleark please out the amendment? the chair recognizes the gentle lady for the purpose of offering and explaining her amendment. mr. chairman, this is amendment 232. first of all, i would like to thank our chairman our subcommittee of strategic forces, mr. rogers, for working
with me and allowing several of my amendments. i appreciate that. this is an amendment i think is also worthy of some debate so i will be introducing it not pulling it back. would really like a vote on this because i think it is a very important issue. this is about the nuclear weapons that we are dismantling. the ones that are sitting there that need to be dismantled. in this mark, we have cut 47% of the moneys that we had over the last year to work on dismantling some of the weapons that we had that we will not be using. so what i would like to do is to restore some of that money by taking some of that money out of the office of the administrator
and increasing the weapon's dismantlement and disposition o and m by $20 million. i had a discussion with several of my colleagues and they said, well, we just need to be building -- we're more worried about building newer weapons or increasing the strength of the weapons we have or making sure that those weapons work when we need them. i guess my answer to that is, listen. we need to worry about the weapons that we're also supposed to be dismantling. because we're not doing a good job of that. and i refer back to a report -- a nuclear weapons report by our gao that was done, just finished, in april of this year where it says, and i want to quote, "the uncertainties surrounding when weapons and managed retirement. retired weapons that have been approved by the -- that have not been approved but have been
approved for dismantlement may be released and there are challenges for nnsa in scheduling future dismantlement work load and makes it unlikely that the nnsa will achieve the goal of dismantling these weapons retired prior to fiscal year 2009 and by the end of year 2022. so these are weapons that we are speesed to be dismantling, we're supposed to have it done by 2022. it is not about new start or any of those weapons. this is something that we agreed to and that we've been trying to dismantle and we've been]:t systematically over the years taking money out of this account. and this amendment would simply restore some of that monies to ensure that we dismantle these weapons that are just sitting there and are, you know, supposed to be dismantled and
they're dangerous the longer we just let them sit there and do nothing with them. so i would ask my colleagues to move monies out of the office of the administrator in order for us to continue to try to meet he those goals that we have set to dismantle these weapons. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> is there further debate on the amendment? mr. rogers, recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm trying to understand where my good friend and colleague is coming from on this amendment. it is difficult to say. nnsa says in its budget request that it has the money it needs to meet its disarmament goals. we should be focusing funding on priorities that directly support the military, like life extension programs and not on dismantling old, retired weapons. there is no rush to dismantle these retired weapons. they are safe and secure and can be dismantled as funding allows. the only reason to suspend -- to
speed up nuclear weapons dismantlement is to please the nuclear disarmament crowd. these people live in a fantasy land and this committee should always be living in reality. we have higher priorities in a nuclear weapons program. not dismantlement of the military. i oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same. with that i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have concerns about this amendment, too. as the gentle lady from california knows, the office of the administrator of nsa has been in disarray for some time and i'm somewhat sympathetic about anything that takes note of that. but while this amendment would purport to move money around to put greater emphasis on dismantlement, the truth is, it is the same people, it is the same facilities that take them
apart as open them up to look and see for surveillance missions to see if things have changed. it is the same people that do the safety upgrades and the other things. all of this is done at the pantex plant in my district. that's where they are all. we're happy to dismantle them and move them on down the line at the appropriate pace. but as the subcommittee chairman mentioned, it is a matter of priorities. my position is the first priority ought to be taking care of the stockpile we have upon which our nation's security depends and making sure that the people who operate around these weapons, whether it's in nnsa or in the air force or navy or whatever, had safe weapons to be around. and to put in those safety upgrades. that's got to be the highest priority. then as we can, as the facilities and the people allow, we should dismantle. absolutely. but i think that the
administration's request on dismantlement makes sense. rearranging those priorities inevitably means taking away from that active stockpile. that ought to be first and for that reason i would oppose the amendment. >> thank you. any other further discussion on the amendment? if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by miss sanchez. so many as are in favor will say aye. those opposed no. the nos have it. the amendment is not agreed to. >> i'll take a vote on that, mr. chairman. thank you. >> a roll call vote has been requested. we're done, right? with this one? we will -- a roll call vote is ordered. we'll call this vote at the end of the subcommittee mark. are there any amendments to the
subcommittee's report? mr. rogers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i use unanimous consent to call up package of amendments that have been worked and approved by the minority side. >> without objection, so ordered. will the clerk please pass out the amendments to be offered in block without objection reading the amendments will be dispensed with. gentleman is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. package three xrooms comprised of the following. amendment 237 and revision 1 concerning the new start treaty for structure and amendment number 251 revision one by mr. johnson concerning a study by the nnsa on using certain existing nuclear facilities instead of replacing them, and number 238r2 concerning naval reactors and amendment number 247r1 by miss sanchez concerning the national ignition facility.
>> is there further debate on the on-block amendments? >> mr. chairman? i have a comment and a -- >> gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is in reference to amendment 238r2. this amendment basically reduces the total amount authorized that would be appropriated to the bill as follows. in seconds 4701, division d relating to the atomic energy defense activities decreased federal salaries and expenses program direction by $10 million and in section 4701, division d, related to the atomic energy defense activity increases naval reactors, operations infrastructure by $10 million. the reason for this, mr. chairman, fiscal year 2014
consolidated appropriations act resulted in a serious shortfall to naval reactors, dod appropriations. with great ramifications to nuclear operator training and the critically important ohio replacement missile submarine replacement program. to avoid immediate impacts to both the operational plea from the fy 14 reduction, securing at least $35 million is of the highest priority. in fact, chairman rogers, chairman udall, ranking member cooper and ranking member sessions wrote a letter just last week expressing profound concern about the impacts of these cuts and their willingness to work with the department of energy and the navy. i so greatly appreciate their efforts. so on this particular point, $24 million is needed for training, including the maintenance for operations reactors in new york.
if this shortfall is not addressed, the impact to the fleet and fy 15 alone will be 450 fewer qualified nuclear operators. that was troubling. $11 million is needed for high-performance computers necessary to complete the reactor design for the ohio replacement. if not restored, the core design is expected to be delayed up to six months. the ohio replacement is obviously a top strategic priority and we simply cannot afford a six-month delay without impacts to the triad and our nuclear deterrent. now the administration is about to submit a reprogramming to fill part of this funding hole. the navy will reprogram $16 million to transfer the funds to naval reactors for one of the training reactors and nnsa will submit a reprogramming for $6.5
million. so my amendment redirects $10 million in authorization. that is above the president he's budget and ahead of need in order to fill the rest of the needed funds. i certainly appreciate the majority working with me to accept this as an on-block amendment an to accommodate this need and i look forward to continue to work with chairman rogers and ranking member cooper to hold the administration's feet to the fire on these reprogramming requests. with that i request a unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with chairman drivers. >> any further debate on the en bloc amendment? >> can i engage in colloquy with gentleman rogers? >> with mr. rogers? do you want to yield him time? >> i will. i yield to tim rogers. >> do you want to start the
colloquy? >> yes. >> go ahead, start it. >> mr. rogers, i understand that you and mr. cooper have been engaged with the department of energy on naval reactors' critical need to fund a shortfall for fy '14, and the dod and navy are getting reprograms that will fill immediate and critical shortfalls in the fy '14 funding. is that correct? >> i think that's correct. we understand the d.o.e., the navy are working on this reprogramming. mr. cooper and i together with our colleagues on the senate -- in the senate, sent a letter to secretary moniz urging the reprogramming action. i would like to enter this letter into the record without objection. i believe this current amendment does not contradict this expected reprogramming action. and believe the d.o.e. and the navy should not interpret adoption of this amendment as an
indication that it should halt the proposed reprogramming. do you agree? >> i do agree that this amendment is complementary to the potential reprogramming and does not replace them. naval reactors need both the amendment and the reprogramming. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. any further discussion on the amendment? >> mr. chairman, i just wanted to thank chairman rogers for working with me in putting in our lawrence livermore amendment into the en bloc. thank you. >> any further discussion on the amendment? if not, the amendment offered by mr. rogers, everyone in favor, say aye. those opposed say no. the amendment is agreed to. we're nothing gu to proceed to vote on those amendments where a roll call vote was ordered. the amendment offered by ms.
sanchez, and shall now resume those proceedings. the question now occurs on the amendment offered by ms. sanchez. the clerk will call the roll. >> chairman mccann? >> no. >> mr. smith? >> mr. thornberry? no. ms. sanchez? ms. sanchez, aye. mr. jones, no. mr. mcintyre? mr. mcintyre? mr. forbes? mr. forbes, no. mr. brady? mr. brady aye. mr. miller? mr. miller no. ms. davis? ms. davis aye. mr. wilson? mr. wilson no. mr. langevin aye. mr. laby as deniedo no. mr. larson aye. mr. bishop?
mr. bishop no. mr. cooper? mr. cooper, aye. mr. turner? mr. turner, no. ms. boardi aye. mr. kline, no. mr. courtney, aye. mr. rogers? mr. rogers? mr. rogers no. mr. franks? mr. franks no. ms. sangas? ms. sangas aye. mr. schuster? mr. schuster? mr. garamendi? mr. garamendi, aye. mr. calloway no. mr. johnson? mr. johnson? mr. lambourn no. mr. whitman no. ms. spear? ms. spear, aye. mr. hunter? mr. hunter no.
mr. barber? mr. barber, aye. dr. fleming? dr. fleming, no. mr. carson? mr. carson? mr. kaufman? mr. kaufman, no. ms. porter. ms. porter, aye. mr. ridgeel no. mr. mcfay aye. mr. gibson, no. mr. kilmer, aye. mrs. hartsler no. mr. castro? mr. castro, aye. dr. hecht? dr. hecht no. ms. duckworth? mr. runnion, no. mr. peters, aye. mr. scott? mr. scott, no. mr. enyart aye. mr. plazo, no. mr.