tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 28, 2016 12:00am-2:01am EDT
[inaudible conversations] >> without objection the amendment is considered as read. and the gentlelady is recognized on her amendment. >> mr. chairman my amendment would strike to present -- provision in the on line bill. last fall the department of the interior announced banks unprecedented proactive partnership the greater -- does not need protection under the endangered species act. rather than supporting this partnership legislation creates uncertainty and undermines the immense progress that is already underway to conserve sagebrush habitats while simultaneously providing predictability for economic development. perhaps most significantly allowing this language to move
forward puts a greater sagebrush needing to be listed under the endangered species act was none of us want to see happen. according to the office of the secretary of defense beer forced the army and the navy, this language is also completely unnecessary to protect military readiness or national defense. the office of the secretary of defense has reviewed the state management plans and concluded that they cloke do not believe these lands will affect military training, operations are readiness to any significant degree on polk adding that quote belief existing statutory authorities sufficiently protect the interests of the department of defense and we do not anticipate the need for additional legislation from congress unquote. the army said quote it does not believe these lands will affect army training operations are readiness to any significant degree unquote and the air force wrote that quote them practices described would not affect air
force training operations are readiness to any significant degree unquote unquote. the navy fully concurs with the response of the department of defense. these responses i'll demonstrate the supervision is not actually about military readiness but instead an attempt to interfere with management of our nation's public lands and undermined the endangered species act. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and reject riders that do not believe -- belong in the ndaa and with that i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back read the gentleman from utah. >> i would like to speak to this. as my hero yogi bear once said this is déjà vu all over again so you can remember last year with a roll call editorial. the stars and tried straight and tried strides in atrias said this this is a problem or the report from the navy has said yeah this
is a problem and a significant one or the air force which said the same thing or the army which has the report and this ear said not only its still a problem they are spending $20 million other per claimant secretary ash put out before the conference where he said all the things he didn't like in the mark and not one word about the stagecraft language and the silence was deafening with that report. seeing a couple of letters that have been sent out to you from the political appointees with them, within the pentagon i want you to read between the lines because even though these are personal letters that are not policy of the pentagon is still very vague. for example the one from the secretary said they believed an existing statutory authorities are okay and they would not anticipate any but they will continue to monitor and the one i really like is because they set one up from the air force but they didn't send out the letter which said however the forecast of no adverse impact could change with the potential
implementation of new management practices which is exactly what will happen this fall. the difference between this year and last year is the sage grouse grouse -- blm is going to institute this fall management plan that would be as if the sage grouse were listed and the air force letter tells you about some asking you to read the fine lines between what the professionals are saying what the political appointees are saying because already the army has lost some of its range in the northwest. already the air force has had to change their policy to do it and this is the problem. foued no like the army told you to last year. >> mr. garamendi. >> mr. chairman i would like to yield two minutes to my colleague from massachusetts. >> thank you for that. i would just like to address the issue of the visual nature of these letters. these letters have been fully released to the public.
there are no way private. i have them here with me. they were written on official letterhead and were signed by the principle deputy assistant. >> with that gentlelady ulta question? >> the deputies as a secretary to the navy for the environment assistant secretary of the army for installation energy and the environment and the deputy assistant secretary of the air force for installation. the branches of our military all agree that language in the chairman's mark is not necessary to protect military readiness. the other underlying issue is this is an unprecedented partnership all designed to keep the greater sage grouse from being listed in the language in and the underlying bill really undermines that progress in that partnership. this is so focused on as i said keeping a listing from taking place and taking place and i thank you and i yield to mr. garamendi. >> i yield back. >> mr. nugent. >> mr. chairman i yield two minutes to the gentleman mr. bishop and not even two
minutes. they have military told me these are private letters. these are not official -- of the pentagon. they were sent on a stationary periods not the policy. the policy is in a report sent out the year before that have not changed by the issue is not listing, it is the blm management plan as if they were listed. that is the problem. get the issue corrected is the potential plans that will go into effect this fall if we do not allow the state plans which is what this amendment does to take consideration. the bird will still be protected by the state simply take into account the encouragement areas around these installations in over the airspace. i yield back. >> ms. speier. >> we need a moment of levity here maybe.
i fear that the greater sage grouse must have threatened our national security or i suppose committed crimes. otherwise why would my colleague still be complaining, okay grousing about this harmless bird? debate on this provision once again resembles the famous dance of the sage grouse. the male sage grouse pop up there just displayed tailfeathers and bop their heads. it's really worth watching it on a video. the female sage grouse apparently find this appealing but the american people do not pay the greater sage grouse is protected under a mass -- massive effort with both the blm state forestry private landowners and other partners. because of this hard work the fish and wildlife service is says the bird does not need protection under the endangered species act even at the sage grouse was listed under the endangered species act military has said is perfectly capable of
maintaining readiness while also protecting the endangered species that occur on its lands. members this is not about the sage grouse, this is not about installations, it's about oil. i yield back and i urge all my colleagues to vote for congresswoman tsongas. >> it's about what? >> oil. >> the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. >> the no's have it read the gentlelady from massachusetts request a roll call vote which will be postponed. the gentleman from minnesota mr. walz. >> mr. chairman i have in on the desk. >> staff will please strip the amendment.
[inaudible conversations] >> thank you. without objection the amendment is considered as read in the gentleman from minnesota's recognize. >> i rise today to offer a commitment to strike section 311 of the underlying bill. i'd like to thank mr. petersen mr. ashford and a few hours ago the majority of this committee for standing up for american grown energy and the smart all of the above energy policy. this amendment amendment is the way the provision would prevent dod from taking advantage of american growing energy rate on every single day in this country we spend half a billion dollars getting imported oil from countries that hate us. they will do it for free. reducing a dependency on foreign oil is not just an economic
issue but a vital national security issue. the department of defense recognizes that and that is why some of the most groundbreaking work on renewable energies happening within dod. hamstring in our ability to use all of our resources to make ourselves energy independent makes no sense. section 311 goes against the department of defense cost competitive efforts to diversify fuel sources reduce reliance on foreign sources of energy. i commend dod in usda for public-private ventures and join american farm bureau and the national farmers union and making this a critical issue of american independence. a brief background on the in 2011 the memorandum of understanding between the navy, usda in the department of energy initiative that a cooperative effort to drop-in replacement biofuels. the navy and usda announced their farm fleet initiative in december .13 per usda gives per usda uses commodity and credit authorization authority to provide assistance to the property may be to purchase advanced drop-in biofuels.
2015 dod betas first ball purchase of a 10% biofuel blend with the board of usda the cost of the fuel was less than the cost of the least expensive conventional fuel purpose -- but the separate is one piece of a broader strategy the department of defense should not be hamstrung by interest on one energy source when we have the ability to use them all. encourage my colleagues to do what you just did a few hours ago and restate that we want to have all of the above american energy. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas mr. conaway. >> i have an amendment that the dust. >> the staff will please distribute a subsegment -- subsequent amendment. >> you look good.
without objection the amendment is considered red in the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> i think the gentleman. current ndaa has a provision in it that requires the department of defense did not spend money on operational maintenance funds to biofuels better and excess of the cost of conventional fuels. what they have done is gone to usda and run around this committee which i think voters of ndaa almost unanimously to have that in the provision. all the conversations earlier we had today about holland them in the readiness issue and all those kinds of things, usda and department of defense has colluded with usda to avoid complying with the rules under existing ndaa we are understood this rule simply says the subject is covered in the
section that mr. walz wanted us to strike and not only the 17 funds but goes after any funds to be spent on this deal. it's a place in the ndaa tool made by fuels that are cost competitive. they would not be cost competitive without the usda bite down the u.s. extra cost per gallon on these fuels biggest taxpayer dollars at the end of the tapings tapings been in a wasteful manner. we have had numerous institutions where we decorated this issue and operational issues that are not being met and yet we continue to spend money that we don't have four things that are important on things that are better left to the department of energy. this amendment simply says they can't can go around the current ndaa and by fuels by using other taxpayer dollars not in their control. i urge my colleagues to encourage the department offense to obey the law and adopt my substitute him at that i yield
back. >> mr. petersen. >> i post this as a member that would prevent the department of defense from big-ten is collaborative work for the department of agriculture to provide i/o fuels for the military united states department of defense is's largest institutional consumer of energy in the world and as we have seen in recent years our global markets are volatile. despite massive domestic production increases which has been mentioned before. last year and net imports of petroleum or nearly five lion barrels per day and top flies -- five supplies being canada venezuela columbia and mexico. just because the price of oil is low today does not mean it once but tomorrow and force military leaders to divert resources away from mission priorities. in some cases it means turning ships around the cutting their voice is short because the budgeting issues around fuel. at a time when we face dynamic threats from nonstate actors like isis and aggression from china and russia this inhibits the ability to provide for robust national defense are
presented with this challenge the military is chosen to enter into partnership with usda. our military needs the flexibility to diversify its fuel supply however sees fit to enhance readiness and reduce costs prayed i would support her of my friend mr. walz appointed to strike section 31 of the bill to allow the department of defense to continue working with the department of agriculture to improve energy security and make our military stronger and more effective fighting force. now i urge my colleagues to oppose this substitute amendment made thank you mr. chairman and i yield that. >> further discussion on this substitute? if not the question is -- i'm sorry. ms. russell. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would just remind all of our colleagues that you can't run a ship on biofuel and you also cannot fly airplanes on biofuel.
you can certainly not do it in a cost-effective manner. in the last decade we have seen approximately 13 weeks of fuel provided for 10 years worth of effort when it comes to some of these provisions. it is not cost-effective. natural gas on the other hand in petroleum we have -- are vital to national defense regardless of whether domestic use may or may not be. you cannot operate heavy military equipment and many of the other things. if we are going to use examples about the high-performance military equipment that we use then we need to have truth in lending and what that i yield back mr. chair. >> other debate? mr. lamborn. >> i yield my time to my
colleague in texas. >> this is no different than you and i driving up and down the street making sure we get the best gasoline price. we don't drive up at the station and pay 20 cents more when the lace across the street is -- this is buying fuel to run the ships and planes day in and day out and it's a matter of the department of defense to give the best bargain you can get. it's not about researcher certification it's about operating day in and day out in the most cost efficient manner. the other issue is about the ships running out of fuel because you can't buy it. it ignores the fact that for the last four years the american oil producer on private property has committed to expanding its productions to the point where in able to export their production so with shell oil and shall guess we have immense resources to use them at the time we are not properly funding
men and women we have men and women aren't flying the number of hours they need to fly to be proficient and cutting-edge when they go into combat. out to be considered criminal for us to do that by spending extra dollars that the department offense doesn't have to assuage the president's green energy initiatives is just wrong and with all due respect to mr. wallace it's inappropriate to spend money like that which he wouldn't do out of your own pocket if you are spending it in i yield back. >> mr. takei. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yield my time to my good friend for minnesota mr. walz. >> first of all i do use aoki is is -- biofuels and second of all we do power military vehicles with them. certainly not the summary for the others we are using it on. the person is the least cost-effective is imported oil from saudi arabia putting us at risk. i would not offer an amendment to ask us not to do research into fossil fuels to make them more efficient.
we should use all of them. this is clearly trying to cut out one issue where we are making progress in growing it at home, using it in our vehicles and making us more secure and creating jobs at home. all those things we want to do the. of maybe a geographic issue but for full disclosure i do -- but i'm glad there's oil in other places and we are using that too. why would be cut off this use than the cost is disingenuous. the thing i would ask all of you is if you have are devoted on this once earlier tonight. it's nothing different because they might wish coming back to be about opportunity to say we should create energy at home american security and allow the navy and the department offense to greet these unique art and ships that we are seeing things move forward in and we are using it right now and it makes sense. if you voted on it once i ask you to voted again.
to continue the research into this. this stops anything we have been doing that the camo forward and we are making breakthroughs almost yearly as it comes to advanced biofuels. i yield back. >> the question is -- i'm sorry with ms. period. >> thank you mr. chairman. i just want to read to you from wikipedia a reference to solar which is a company might district fuel from algae and has a contract with the u.s. navy. november 7, 2011 united airlines flew the world's first commercial aviation flight out of mike rowe -- algae derived renewable jet fuel. and i did send a letter of intent to purchase up to 20 million gallons per year of renewable jet fuel starting in 2014 for the product is a mix of 40% lj based at 60% petroleum-based.
officials say it sold the fuel at the same cost as regular jet fuel. i yield back and i support the amendment. >> now the question is on the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from texas mr. mr. kyle way. those in favor of the substitute amendment say aye. opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and mr. walz request a roll call vote which we have to take right now. so the question is on the substitute amendment offered by the turmont from texas mr. conaway number 221r2. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]
[inaudible conversations] >> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman there are 31 ayes and 31 nose. the substitute is not agreed to. the question is now on the underlying walz amendment. the question is on the underlying walz amendment. those in favor of the walz amenable say aye. those opposed say no. the opinion of the chairs the no's have it. the gentleman from minnesota as for our row call both and that we will postpone.
we can postpone that boat to the other votes at the end of the chairman's mark. as you all understand we had to go ahead and deal with the substitute before we knew what we were dealing with so we can now roll the underlined walz amendment. ms. gabbard. >> thank you mr. chairman to die of an amendment at the desk. >> the staff will please distribute the amendment. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] without objection the amendment is considered as read raid the jumbled lady from hawaii's
recognize. >> i will iowa for withdrawing this amendment due to cross referral but is such an important issue effect is a couple of brief were thomas. we all know clean drinking water is the most critical resource that the community has and we destroy that drinking water you destroy the community. .. >>
>> will not meet that standard because it is not naturally occurring. some might call that the definition of a contaminant. but my colleague is the representative of flint michigan knows first he and the difficulties and hardships of a community can experience without access to clean drinking water. from the former air force base have seen petro floret -- corrugated items in their water that the air force used in the past with the bases still open these chemicals are not regulated but that doesn't mean that they don't potentially flow posed harm to the health. with the older for space there is evidence they could
pose a significant health risk to humans including low birth weight or delayed puberty or elevated cholesterol and reduce the response to vaccine. michigan department of health and human services issued a joint health advisory stating 100 homeowners affected should seek an alternate water supply for drinking and preparation of food. but today they yet have provided clean water to this community reauthorize the department to have alternate sources that those may have chemicals listed under the third of unregulated chemicals to enter though bader. i yield back senate bid gentlelady withdraws her amendment.
>> okay we are making some progress and without objection the amendment is considered as read and the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman chairman i will go back to the charge that they showed earlier that this is the president's budget on the amount of money we will be spending from this redlined foreword for the different pieces of the triad so this amendment is what was put in the chairman's mark $370 million more than the price that is $317 more than
the president's budget so if i take that three and its $70 million to put it directly to three unfunded requirements $76.6 million and $160 million for two additional aircraft for the marine corps all of these unfunded requirements are of the armed forces for combat. they are a far better use of funds than the unrequested cop to the nuclear weapons account that this amendment scales back to the president's budget request.
while the committee met other unfunded requirements they did not address the requirements i just spoke of those missiles for the army for the fet aircraft into additional aircraft for the marine corps and i would ask my colleagues to put that money is in readiness for our forces. >> i strongly oppose this amendment. to secretaries of defense has said the nuclear deterrent is the most important mission the department has more nuclear deterrent plays a critical role to ensure the highest priority mission nine is
more important''. secretary carter it is the bedrock of our security in the background from the world stage and is the foundation of everything we do. we need to be aware $150 million increase the massive 3.$7 billion backlog to remind everyone to take care of our nation's number-one priority don't defer any of that money so i urge a no vote and yield back. >> the president's budget was a reflection of the current budget that we agreed to one year ago. their appropriated the money
that maximized that made it necessary of what occurred in the chairman's mark went over and above what the military needed for the nuclear enterprise. the amendment -- amendment that we have before us brings back to the president's budget level the appropriation authorization for the 10 different programs it doesn't reduce below the president's budget but it transfers of money over and above the president's budget into badly needed programs for the ongoing military operation of marine corps and air force these are very important programs money coming from unnecessary
expenditures at this time. authority talking about the future it will go forward this is not needed the six year with a nuclear weapons activities and i strongly suggest the c-130 for the marine corps can be used better than not to maintain the nuclear enterprise. >> further discussion on the amendment offered by mrs. sanchez? the amendment is not agreed to. the next amendment that i show the gentleman who wishes to offer that
amendment? >> i think it was just defeated was one of the programs in mrs. sanchez so we don't need to go there but i could make the argument once again in 17 seconds but i will yield back. >>. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> if the staff would please distribute. >> you do not want to offer to 99?
>> without objection in the amendment is considered as read in the gentleman from california is recognized. >> we have discussions several times tonight about the nuclear enterprises in the various elements. one of the new weapons in the process of being developed is a long-range standoff weapon. it is a new cruise missile of conventional and nuclear this specific amendment we year dealing with here is one part of that system there is the of plus up of $21 million of what is
necessary to continue the development of the new modified nuclear bomb we don't need this now infected of the greedy the cruise missile or the weapon itself it is redundant it is said to be extremely dangerous that if it creates uncertainty if it is a conventional weapon or nuclear weapon because it could be either one of the two. so therefore it is extraordinarily destabilizing. the replacement of a cruise missile to have a nuclear weapon associated with it so i am removing the
$21 million to collect that money for the more immediate need which is the modification of aircraft these are the blades that have that tendency to rapid the road because of sand and chemicals so we would direct the of money to that is very important so the airplane can continue to operate it is moving money from an unnecessary expenditure to put it into something of readiness. and with that i yield back. >> the gentleman from alabama. >> strongly oppose this amendment they say the nuclear deterrent is the nation's highest priority
this is an attempt to undercut our deterrent i urge my colleagues not to take the bay. secretaries of defense have said that the most important mission in the department that it is the shared responsibility with dod and nsa they must deliver on time to the military progress from we encourage my colleagues to recognize the irresponsible amendment. i yield back. >> is there a discussion? if not what it is offered. those in favor? opposed? the no's have it the amendment is not agreed to. next.
as the confederate flag symbol taken down from the state capital. not that long ago but unfortunately is still flies over the federal building in the south carolina legislature after the removal of the flag passed alatas said it is that you cannot take it down unless we pass a law to allow you to take it down. even though those want to remove the confederate flag, they cannot propose that prohibits the secretary of the military department to establish support of an educational institution including a senior military college the other than in the museum exhibits tough like. >> i don't read it is in a book or a classroom pitcher but the university itself displayed is the flag on a flagpole like they are at
the citadel. it is meant as a forcing mechanism to cut off federal funds to impact them in a variety of ways to does not apply to those who are currently at the citadel it is not retroactive but this is meant to remove the confederate flag. the governor made the right decision it should be universal to not display this is certainly not at a military institution when our military is diversified of still what is a symbol of slavery and the confederacy it is meant to put the citadel in a position to take down the confederate flag. i yield back. >> i recognize myself for the purpose of offering a substitute amendment to mr. smith if the staff of
circumstances and mr. smith said it exactly right. deadline amendment is aimed at one institution which is the citadel. might amendment of men's that to exclude education and institutions whose leadership has already voted to take of the confederate flag so here is a deal the board of ministers to vote on june 24, 2015 by a vote of nine / three to remove the confederate flag from the chapel. but in south carolina there is a state law that requires a two-thirds vote of the state legislature to remove a confederate flag from many states institution so there is legislation that is moving to allow this flag to be removed but in the meantime what happens if this amendment is agreed to
is that every single cadet is punished because every member is a part of r.o.t.c. is a member prospectively they're punished because that support is removed. bottom-line net of think it is fair to punish those who are trying to do the right thing but with the state legislature that preventing them from doing that. so i went vote yes on the substitute with one last point. there are endless number of college river sees we could get into with this bill if we wanted to the underlying purpose is to provide support to the men and women who were in nonmilitary with the missions that they call out. i hope we can keep the focus
on the primary mission and not putting to a variety of others and i have exceeded by three seconds. >> i appreciate bats period. >> the problem is is simply is what has already done it has not removed the flag. what we want to do is force south carolina to make the decision to make that vote to actually remove it. they have time until the next class to laughter repaid the loan dash after we pass the bill to say he should not allow this to ticket down from the state space should be from the citadel is gives them time to do that.
but the flags still flies south carolina has no pressure and that embarrassment's still continues to fly over the citadel. where presumably there are african-american people attending and i think we need something to force their -- south carolina to do the right thing but the substitute is right where we are with the confederate flag flying over the citadel so i urge opposition to the second amendment and support for the underlying amendment. i yield back. >>. >> will you yield to a question? >> absolutely. >> i hope i heard you correctly on the first page were is says educational institution displays. have a concern what that means i the complied you did not intend this to read
books or libraries or things you would do in a classroom anything on the campus. would you be willing to work with us as we go forward to modify the language so and then i would ask one other concern on the second page is why the secretary of defense has the responsibility and that will become a onerous task. >> this is really a place that we know this is the case i want them language to be clear what is exactly intended. >> i have a question because
in our community. and then returned to active lately dash beverage to be a historical monument cannot be moved by state riotous and it is on those curve judy's but those values also require the college to follow though lot. i yield back my time. >> the status? >> i wanted to follow-up with the letter. does anybody have the
penalties are. obviously and he says they hash if a new and again they tried to take it down but will the gentlelady you deal -- yield back? >> thank you. and the substitute amendment for the ranking members but of those compelling universities that will last but the very tragic -- tried to cut but this could be a
>> do you never there at period a man -- do they have an effort to be changed right now? >> minder standing is they certainly have talked i know about definitions of lobbying understate with south carolina lot. but i do know that they're trying to do changes to have vast for it to be changed rand and just of those trying as hard as we can then very large alumni.
>> without objection and the amendments are considered read. number 40 to provide day briefing on the participation. amendment number 42 to provide us a briefing on the feasibility to allow the ports in the pacific for taiwanese vessels for a certain exercise. to resume debt -- three designates the army and marine corps. the one that's allows the commissioner to a polygraph retirement for vat veteran retiring pilot. amendment number 79 requires of briefing of the security standards. number 142 by weinstein you
>> to direct the secretary of defense to provide everything to implement the no-fly zone in syria. is there a? so with those presidential candidates the military leaders like the former chairman as low as the current chairman done furred with the no-fly zone or the safe zone speaking recently how this so-called safe some will work for a variety of reasons including the fact it would cost billions of dollars every have to commit
thousands of ground troops to takeover bid yet nobody offers details and eve been deeply concerning is the fact going directly into confect -- conflict with russia to set of that no-fly zone ahead and to abide by the no-fly zone you ruin american and credibility are you shoot down the russian plane into direct conflicts it is important to get some answers on this to baryta a briefing on the costing consequence of the no-fly zone was syria would be i
yield back. >> they give for including my amendment in the package. and every other time consolidation increases the effectiveness and risk in addition maltol combat commanders with the global influence with the disengagement and unreliability. in with those expertise requirements and responsibilities each has of vital role in peace anwr. with that uniqueness to protect from the threats from terrorism specifically commanders have said the missions are totally different and cannot be
reversed without risk and expense i yield back. >> the committee will come to order. >> i will be very brief thank you for your amendment working with us and homeland's security to a fast track of veterans the key for the work on the issue so we could back to mind -- maximize and i yield back. >> further discussion on the package those in favor say aye.
can exacerbate this set they call the joy comprehensive plan of action to pay iran billions of dollars to purchase heavy water to produce more heavy water witches the component to develop nuclear weapons we just recently watched to violate security council resolutions the president's own state department is at odds with international law but on april fool's day obama criticize those iranian leaders even has day stick to the fact they can conduct ballistic missile test and to the president's steel then what further betrayal are they willing to
embrace for nuclear weapons? he intends to finalizes heavy water purchase and the democrats have promised to kill the entire defense bill so to protect what is left of national security i will withdraw the amendment. >>. >> i will not offer because it is similar i will speak in favor and finish up. >> said gentleman from colorado is recognized i am disappointed the
administration is so hellbent to qualify rand that they are overproducing in she reward them for violating the agreement doesn't make sense and also to give parted dollars when they're in violation of u.n. protocol to be under sanctions so in so many ways it is wrong what the district is doing we should do everything we can to stop this purchase of heavy water but apparently the administration will do that before it becomes law and i am deeply disappointed i agree with representative franks but that is winning one ground but there will be
[inaudible conversations] >> without objection is considered a and read the gentleman from colorado is recognized. >> my amendment would amend the national defense authorization act to increase the number of rocket engines of those expendable launch vehicle programs as everybody is aware and as the result has
to use space launch vehicles capable of breaking into orbit betted is essential to have our assured access to space however the members of the committee are aware of the need of any reliance ending their reliance and then national security interest of the united states but not the of the assured access for national security missions. they have received repeated testimony to continue the use for national security space missions the commander and director of national intelligence as well as the
secretary of defense battle with that harm national security but to raise serious concerns over responsibility asking for safe transition that is what my amendment does. i you back. >> further discussion on the amendment offered? >> today with the defense subcommittee ashton carter spoke and i will read from the transcript.
we aff worked before with you how important is it to go down the road how important is it that a number of them do this for national security? to which secretary of defense replied it does propose we buy them for a time but down the road we have launch service providers that is where we would like to get to we have to launch the national-security payloads and there's two ways to do that. or the alternative is to fly
a payload on delta and that is the choice. that it necessitates purchases so will cost american taxpayers more with the already high borrowing cost and telecast that this committee support the amendment. >> there is one mild correction we're not without an option we are trying to ensure is competition as space sex has built a launch vehicle and its engine the purpose is not to make sure we have something to launch
but to beecher ironically space x doesn't wind up without competition and those that our competitive as certain number have already been granted on a noncompetitive basis but the purpose to buy these engines is that there is the alternative to speesix. but the number 18 is pulled out of thin air and what we needed one we talked about was to say as long as it is necessary to have competition did you can buy it if it is not necessary you cannot. we have a lot of companies and space sex itself that is
developing new engines. so we are not that far away to have engines that would totally three yes from any dependency on the russian injun of the number is too big is that a disincentive? i am not thrilled of that number but i do believe competition and ironically that they had a monopoly in said behalf to have a monopoly because it can be done and it is too expensive. and they were proven wrong. imagine that. the you have companies out there doing as well. so the competition is coming
in the meantime we do need a bridge although not perfect guy will support that but that has to be worked on in conference. i apologize. >> mr. rogers? >> we have not spent more time on this than this and all the time of congress for voice support your amendment for this reason i want people to understand that we are in that process now for the american made engine to replace the russian-made one by a 2019 initiative been done 30 years ago but it is our fault to kick the can down the road.
but we all agree we will have an american made rocket that is proven but it will take another three years to be certified. we have to except that fact we now have 4 inches weekend news to get us through the national security launch next year between then and 2020 to be the 12th and 40 that is the comfortable number. to get the national security payload into space when it is printed and certified. i hope the members will recognize that.
>> you heard a few moments ago how america will be purchasing heavy water from the country any sense of the is trying to get nuclear weapons is a that ironic we will now give hundreds of millions to a country u.s. nuclear weapons to do us harm? >> fate q. mr. chairman i speak in support and back off for the rest of my time the said gentleman it makes
>> you can see we have an amendment coming up because they would not give the of waiver. you will be your next year or the year after that they can say we need the next couple of years we don't need to line platoon's pockets to allow us to stockpile led we don't need we could get away with nine or 10 if you bring that down to what is realistic we don't want to jump ahead in direct payments is what we are contributing to. if we vote yes you are concerti directly to russian military modernization.
they got the award to shoot dead interspace and it cost $82 million. that same launch cost to a wooded million so then not only do you save money you modernize that russian military to outfit our military. >> we want to get out of this situation as soon as the key and. --. >> this comes from the department of defense they didn't say 80 they to set up
to vote this tonight? why don't we work on this to get it to the floor with that amount of what you spoke of? there is no reason to rush to spend this money just because that is the only way for we have at this point. >> will you yield. >>. >>. >> the issue is set at 18 but for planning purposes. >> reclaiming my time i'm
sorry. i yield back. >> i will yield to mr. bishop. >> i wish to urge adoption we made several mistakes we could go back to change the process again it is not apples to apples we have for but we need for a teen that is why the number is there. there is the reason for the hot that it gives us us a chance to bridge the gap
that is why we need to have this guarantee we need to move forward and i urge adoption. >> just to make sure the total of 18 does it require the purchase with the department of defense in the best interest of the taxpayer. >> it is up at 18 but it doesn't have to me. >> so it could use the discretion to get the best deal. >> adult ticket is the
department of defense choice this authorizes them to have the option am i incorrect? >> working with the partners with a new launch system they are given a window to do this through those images that are specified. >> if you will yield maya understanding is this of the rise is up through 18 to be purchased so that depends on the appropriations of how much money there is because
this is not private funds the government that by the engines. >> i know they have bought those number of engines for commercial launches and they need to be authorized for a government launched so then i thought who was purchasing them? >> is there a factual answer you can provide? >> the original language is section 60 '08 that states the secretary of defense may not award a contract for space launch activities in
such contract carries out activities using rocket engines in the rush confederation. >> so day have to contract? >> so if that amendment is not passed today is it safe to assume we will see this on the floor? >> we will see this again that will depend on the rules committee what is considered on the floor. >> receives 2:00 in the morning is a big issue and we're likely to see this again. that is all. >> a think we will continue to work on this issue.
there has been negotiations all day long to resolve this that is why we have pushed back on the and it has been working on all day. it is not a digital but there have then negotiations so this is the amendment that has received to the waiver. >> i've understand those applications. >> cater stand. >> bruited invades he says the jets i dunno why we're
us national security we're not talking about commercial launches but if he wanted to hurt does he could cut this off. so russia doesn't get anything at of this? if those companies get employment. >> 382 do it and go to russia. >> unless somebody really wants to talk, the question is on the amendment offered 197.
i am sorry let's finish that and pass that out i apologize for the confusion. and without objection number 196 is considered as read and a distinguished member is recognized to make it is complicated but i will keep it short. parts of the funding comes from the government the majority comes from the private sector with the partnerships the purpose is to allow some of that monday
to also be used to develop a new launch vehicle it is the beautiful thing but it doesn't help. this allows for some portion of that bloody i could say more bed to i won't. thank you to chairman rogers and we agree to include this language. >> i am curious coming on the other administrative amenities does this lead us to believe that amount could have been cut earlier? why would they access $23 million? we are doing this of light. >> the answer is when you are developing something you
sometimes get ahead of yourself. >> where else have we inflated the budget like this pending future stuff? >> you don't have a duty to do this morning? [laughter] happens. it's not great but every once in awhile we appropriate enormity did the department of defense can spend in that fiscal year. >> i am relating lifetime -- reclaiming my time. there is nothing specific about that but it is a slush fund? that makes me feel better. >> eight you. that helps. [laughter] >> if i could just finish. it will take me 30 seconds. >> to appropriate money for
the fiscal year then they cannot spend it because testing doesn't go as they expect so then they determine they cannot spend it also with the greatest team it is minuscule. >> we have a lot of operational me -- needs that have not been met this is not a lot of money they will spend it with the launch vehicle that is the bottom line. but the numbers that i see our $100 million.
that is of lot of money at a now how anybody could reference where it goes. >> i could answer the question. >> it is already in our bill $294 million to go towards the development of a new engine to get an alternative. that has been in the bill for a long time. in the bill as it is written is so beloved with the development of the indigent it doesn't have any money to anything coming data that 284 million of those in
developing the engine or the launch vehicle to go with it. the money that was already in the bill. it is directly connected to the gin. >>. >> it is appropriate to ask questions. >> reedy the engine development i take exception that we need a new launch vehicle that they have to have billions of dollars of infrastructure for the launching of the of rockets
but further the stock and nine system is very immature. but i take exception to ultimately be billions of dollars of expenditures the basics of aerodynamics have not change safe five. >> dyad the privilege of my home state to have lengthy conversations who is a national hero and we have had lengthy discussions and i trust his judgment we do not need their new launch vehicle but it will not deliver the bank for the book to keep the marines and
army soldiers its uniform. >>. >> we do desperately need a new launch vehicle. is the chairman could help me of that would be wonderful. [laughter] but the delta and atlas are unbelievable expensive that they will tell you that they are building a new launch vehicle precisely because they cannot compete with the new vehicle because these are unbelievably expensive launch vehicles a year getting aid to launch
vehicle because they are expensive. >> and i do want to concur with the reeking member the fact is well building a new engine that is my primary focus of a better which engine is successful there will have to be some modifications made to the system. they may see a dramatic modification there is one in particular so it is inevitable we will spend some money but i see'' we are doing with this modification is responsible and i urge our members.