tv Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 9, 2013 8:00pm-1:01am EDT
sticking our country's highly radioactive nuclear waste in a hole in the ground for perpetuity is a 0th century solution. instead we must encourage the use of 21st century technology to address this issue. my amendment redirects the $25 million designated for the yucca mountain high-level waste geological repository into the high-energy physics program within the department of energy's office of science for the development of a 21st century solution to this problem. the high-energy physics program is currently researching and developing as we to -- ways to use accelerating technology to reduce the toxicity of nuclear waste, transforming it into a stable, less hazardous form. according to a report released by the department of energy, quote, the united states, which has traditionally led the world in the development and application of accelerator technology, now lags behind other nations and in many cases and the gap is growing, end quote. the report concludes that, quote, to achieve particle acceleraters to address national
challenges will require a sustained focus on developing transformative technological opportunities accompanied by changes in national programs and policy, end quote. other countries have already made significant investments in the research and development of accelerator technology that will help make long-term storage facilities like the facilities supported in this bill obsolete. it is time that the united states begins to make up the ground that is losing to the rest of the world when it comes to accelerator technology and begin focusing on 21st century solutions to deal with nuclear waste. for nevada, the site of yucca mountain, and the state with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, this 21st century solution has the potential to create countless new high-paying r&d jobs, utilizing existing regional, technologicalal capabilities. we cannot allow our nation to continue falling further behind other developed countries and fund fuly funding and implementing these types of projects. 21st century solutions that are critical to maintaining our nation's superiority. .
and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose the gentleman from nevada's amendment. first of all, while i appreciate the concerns that he has raised about the office of science, just for the record, the office of science has funded $32 million above the sequester levels, so they have plenty of money. i rise more importantly on the second issue. this money comes from $25 million that we have set aside o address yucca mount where we as taxpayers -- mountain where we as taxpayers put $15 million
as a repository for nuclear waste. we understand the dynamics of the state and resistance on the part of many there, but we also know if we are ever to recoup that investment in the future, since consumers and taxpayers have been paying -- paid for that facility, we need money to reopen yucca mountain. i strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and i urge others to do that and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. garamendi: the gentleman from nevada is on to a very important issue here. what are we going to do with spent nuclear fuel? our current light water reactors consume 3% of the energy in the nuclear fuel. you can reprocess it once and
get another 3% and so now you've got 93%, 92% or 94% of the energy that you now consider as waste, in this case, to be ersonal nantly stored at yucca mountain. we have a 20th century solution. we spent some $10 billion to $12 billion in the 1970's and 1980's and in 199 we put that solution back. the gentleman's amendment would further us in dealing with this issue of spent nuclear fuel. it is not a waste. it is an extraordinary asset and one we should be utilizing and in doing so, we can dispose of it through multiple recyclings, all of which has been proved by the united states readily
available today. we need to take it out of the closet and put it back on the front burner and use the accelerator technologies in our reactors to adequately dispose of these very dangerous wastes. in doing so, we not only dispose of the total longevity. but take it from a couple of thousand years to couple hundred years of dangerous radioactive emissions. the gentleman's amendment allows us to move on this and solves a problem that the entire world has, spent nuclear fuel is an international problem. the united states government in the 1960's recognized this as a problem, did solve it, with what s known as the integral fast reactor. that's the accelerator reactor, integral in that the process is
a metal process that can only be used once. his can be used multiple times and eliminate many of the problems. i urge an aye vote on this very important amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the entleman from nevada rise? ms. titus: i move to support this bill. and would redirect the funding of the office of high energy science program to support research in reducing nuclear waste. the bill requires d.o.e. to spend $25 million on activities at yucca mountain located less than 100 miles from one of the nation's most popular tourist destinations. the department of energy has wasted $15 billion on this
project with nothing to show for it except for a big hole in the ground. had the department of energy not terminated the yucca project in 2010, we would be throwing another $67 billion with no guarantee that the project would ever be completed or functional. all of this, let me remind you again, despite findings by the g.a.o. that over the past 20 years, the proposed site has suffered from gross mismanagement, faulty science and research and contract violations. even more troubling to the people of nevada and those living along the transportation route, questions about safety and design of the site and its impact on the surrounding environment and populations have never, never been saturday torle addressed. t, while cutting the vital competitiveness, stripping
investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy development, this legislation mandates that millions be squandered in an effort to restart a boondoggle that has been doomed from the start. now why are we throwing good money after bad ideas? we should not be turning back the clock. we should be moving forward. i would say to my colleagues, please support this amendment. it will eliminate economic waste and allow congress to have a proper discussion about how to dispose of the nation's nuclear waste. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to strike the last word. bart bart i want to rise in support of chairman frelinghuysen's opposition to the heck amendment. we've heard quite a bit of
rhetoric on the floor the last 10 minutes about yucca mountain and i understand my colleagues rom colleagues from nevada's opposition to their state that was cited there. i will accept the process by which yucca mountain was initially chosen was a political process and was not done the way the original nuclear waste policy act of 1992 said it should be done. but having said that, we have collected about $30 billion over from st 30-some-odd years rate pairs whose electricity is generated by safe, efficient, clean nuclear power. $30 billion. we have spent upwards of $20 billion drilling a tunnel at yucca mountain, studying the
geology, the environment, my understanding is that the tunnel is completed. in 2010, unilaterally, the obama administration decided to shut the project down and it's debatable whether it was done legally or not. the bill coming out of the appropriations subcommittee, all it does is allocate money that has already been collected to go ahead and finish the site review at yucca mountain to determine whether it is, in fact, a safe place to store high-level nuclear waste. ep in mind, we have over 100 operating nuclear operators around the country today and the waste they generated is stored on site. stored on site. there's good security. most of it is stored in what are
called wet pools. almost everybody agrees that it's not a long-term solution. and i think the congress on a bipartisan basis can agree that we ought to go ahead and finish the review of the yucca mountain site, $25 million does it. it has allocated funding in the bill to help the local government entities out there. let's finally put this thing to rest. so the gentleman's amendment is well intentioned, but we need a centralized high-level repository. and as of now, the most likely place is at yucca mountain. we have spent billions, billions of dollars on that site. let's spend another $25 million and finish the job. so i join chairman frelinghuysen in opposing the heck amendment and i hope the house does that.
i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered bid by by the -- for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. i rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment and while i understand our colleagues' position, our nation has spent upwards of $10 billion to $15 billion on yucca mountain as a repository. when we first voted on yucca mountain many years ago, i opposed it. but now our nation has made this enormous investment and one does question whether we know what we are doing and whether what we are left with is a monument to wasted resources. admittedly, the court case is have not been finalized the
former secretary of energy has stated that the administration would follow any direction that would result in ongoing litigation. the bill provides funds, should that occur. at a minimum, we should learn if the licensing process can work. it was not that many years ago that completing the licensing process was the stated plan of the department. so again, i reluctantly oppose the amendment being offered tonight. america has to reach a decision about what we do with spent nuclear waste. so i think that this amendment takes us in the wrong direction at this time. and we also respect the sensitivities of the people of nevada. they have a right to have their voices heard in this process. but as a country, we have to recognize the amount of money that has been spent by taxpayers from all of the states. and the need that we have at
these power plants and facilities to process this material. so i reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment and hope we can reach an agreement on this important issue and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. anyone else? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nevada. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from nevada. mr. heck: request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nevada will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. lofgren: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. brownley of california. after the dollar amount insert reduced by $ million. after the dollar amount insert ncrease by $5 million.
mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman's point of order is reserved. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. brownley: i rise to support an amendment to department of energy, cleanup account. my amendment is an offset by reducing a small portion of funds for nuclear energy research programs. i believe this offset is appropriate because the contamination that must be cleaned up was directly caused by past department of energy nuclear energy research programs. the past, inadequate safety protocols and lax environmental standards resulted in severe soil and groundwater contamination at sites across the nation. the d.o.e. office of
environmental moogement is responsible for cleaning up 107 sites across the country whose area is equal to the combined area of rhode island and delaware. a few of these sites that d.o.e. is responsible for cleaning up includes the oak ridge national laboratory in tennessee that we have spoken about today, the field laboratory in california that's adjacent to my district and many of my constituents impacted by this facility. the brook haven national laboratory in new york and loss allah moss national laboratory. he budget requested $212 million for environmental remediation and site cleanup. this bill provides $194 million for these environmental cleanup activities. i understand that the energy and water subcommittee was forced to make difficult choices due to an
inadequate budget allocation. however, i believe cleanup of these sites should be a top priority. we should not continue to fund new nuclear energy research while communities across the country are told to wait for cleanup of our past mistakes. for instance, the energy technology engineering center, which is part of the field laboratory, is highly contaminated due to a partial nuclear meltdown of a sodium reactor in 1959. this partial nuclear meltdown, which was covered up until 1989, contaminated the soil and groundwater in the entire area and has resulted in cancer clusters among nearby residence. many of those who worked at the facility or lived nearbuy died after the nuclear fallout after the 1959 meltdown.
cleaning up the soil and groundwater contamation insights across the country is our responsibility to our constituents who suffer from the effects of past mistakes. my amendment simply increases this cleanup account by $5 million for a total of $199 million, which is still below the $212 million requested by the president. i urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment to increase funds for the department of energy, nondefense environmental cleanup account. and i will say as i conclude, i believe it is critically important that congress provide funding to clean up areas contaminated by past department of energy activities and mistakes and i urge members to support my amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman mr. frelinghuysen: i insist on my point of order. the amendment may not be
considered en bloc under clause 2-f of rule 21 because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill. nondefense environmental cleanup outlays at 65%, an increase in outlays of $3,2r50,000, and nuclear energy outlays at 55%, a decrease in outlays of $2,750,000, resulting in a net increase in outlays of $500,000. i ask for a ruling from the chair at this time. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard? the gentlewoman from california. ms. brownley: i -- no. the chair: the chair will -- to be considered en bloc purr suent -- en bloc, an amendment must not propose to increase the
levels of budget authority or outlays in the bill. because the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california proposes a net increase in the level of outlays in the bill as argued by the chairman, it may not avail itself of clause 2-f to address portions of the bill not yet read. the amendment is now -- is not in order. ms. brownley: mr. chair, i appeal the ruling of the chair. the chair: the question is on the decision of the chair is the judgment of the committee. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the yes have it. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 23, line 13, fossil energy research and doubt, $450 million -- development, $450 million.
the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. butterfield of north carolina. page 23 -- mr. butterfield: i ask the amendment be considered as read. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. butterfield: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise in support of this amendment. h.r. 2609 seems to decimate funding for the advanced research projects agency energy programs. mr. chairman, in reading the bill, it appears that the bill cuts arpa-e funding by some $215 million. that's 81%. effectively terminating this program. at the same time the bill provides $98 million in additional funds for nuclear weapons activities.
and it even provides $29 million beyond the president's budget request for fossil fuels energy and research development. my amendment, mr. chairman, would shift that extra funding to fund arpa-e and continue important investments in innovation that keep our nation globally competitive. arpa-e is modeled after the successful defense advanced research project's agency which helped develop the global positioning systems in stealth fighter technologies. since 2009, arpa-e has helped fund 275 innovative energy technology projects and we are beginning to see the positive benefits. arma e projects have doubled -- arpa-e projects have doubled batteries and developed mike robes to use carbon and hydrogen dioxide to make liquid transportation fuel. the many important innovations made possible by arpa-e have resulted in millions of dollars
of economic activity in the private sector. in my district, mr. chairman, in north carolina, the research triangle institute in durham has developed technologies to dramatically reduce the cost of carbon captured to coal-fired power plants. this valuable technology will increase our energy efficiency, reduce climate change and create jobs. r.t.i. has also received funding to enhance economic and energy security by converting biomass resources such as leaves and corn husks, into transportation fuel. they have developed some of the these fuels already and sbent intend to test them at a local -- and intend to test them at a local military facility in the very near future. we can agree that we must remain globally competitive in energy industries, to continue to create the jobs of the future. arpa-e provides critical funding for new technologies which will strengthen our economy and lead us to energy sustainability.
eliminating the arpa-e program will harm our competitiveness and cost jobs in emerging energy industries. so i urge my colleagues tonight to support this amendment. i thank you for yielding the time and i thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. his amendment would increase funding for arpa-e by $127 million, using offsets from weapons activities and our fossil energy account. as i said earlier this evening, while i support -- maybe i didn't say it, but let me say it here, while i support the arpa-e program, firstly, we simply cannot afford to divert funds from our highest priorities which are the nuclear weapons modernization program. the fossil account has been cut already and i don't think it should sustain any further cuts. so i oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. butterfield: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. -- north carolina will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 24, line 6, naval petroleum and oil shale reserves, $14,909,000. strategic petroleum reserves, $189,400,000. northeast home heating oil reserve, $8 million. energy information administration, $100 million. nondefense environmental cleanup, $194 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will
report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. reid of new york. page 25 -- reed of new york. $18,956,000.ease page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount insert, reduced by $9,478,000. page 3 1, line 1, after the second dollar amount, insert, reduced by $9,478,000. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. reed: thank you, mr. chair. mr. chair, i rise today in support of my amendment involving the nondefense environmental cleanup programs for america. what i seek to do with this amendment is increase this line by $19 million. i recognize the hard work of the subcommittee and the subcommittee chairman in addressing the fiscal needs of our country and reducing the overall spending in this appropriations bill. but in regards to this line in particular, this line is
presently scheduled as proposed to be reduced $42 million. and i recognize the fiscal crisis that we face in america. but this amendment re-establishes $19 million to that line because it is a wise investment. it is a wise investment because of sites such as that in my district, the west valley demonstration facility, that is dealing with the issue of nondefense environmental waste cleanup. and by re-establishing this $19 million, it's been reported to our office that what essentially we will save in the long-term is approximately $262 million over the next five years. that is because of the positive steps that these facilities have made and with a significant reduction in spending as proposed by the subcommittee and under the proposed legislation, that positive progress will cease. and what we will end up doing is making larger investments over a longer period of time to recover
and clean up this nuclear waste that is at these facilities across america. i would like to note, mr. chairman, that we have worked in a bipartisan manner on this bill. my colleague from new york, brian higgins, has helped our office, working hand-in-hand to do this effort, as well as with mr. matheson from utah, as well as bill johnson on our side of the aisle to try to come together and just make a wise, commonsense investment, yet fiscal difficulty that we face across america. i applaud our subcommittee chairman for the work that they have -- chairmen for the work that they have done in regards to this bill and i ask our subcommittee chairmen to support this amendment as well as all fellow members, on both sides of the aisle, to stand with this amendment in a commonsense way, to save taxpayer dollars in the long term and at the same time get rid of a true problem and
this nondefense nuclear program -- and that's this nondefense nuclear waste. i ask my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. higgins: i move to strike the last word. mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of this bipartisan amendment which seeks to adequately fund the nondefense environmental cleanup program. our amendment ensures that nuclear cleanup sites get the funding they need to protect communities, including western new york, from radioactive contamination. the west valley nuclear west reprocessing plant, established in response to a federal call to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, has since ceased operations, 600,000behind more than gallons of high-level radioactive waste. to say this is a public safety and environmental hazard is a massive understatement. we have already seen a leak develop into a plume of radioactive groundwater.
and if this radioactive waste great s way into the lakes, the environmental and economic implications would be devastating. it is the responsibility of the federal government to not let funding shortfalls delay further cleanup. for west valley alone, further delays would add an additional $30 million in maintenance costs per year. like paying a minimum on a credit card, not committing adequate funding only delays progress and adds cost. i am proud to join my friend and colleague, congressman tom reed, on this very important issue, and i urge bipartisan support for this important amendment. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. i want to commend both gentlemen for offering this amendment and congresswoman brownley for being down on the floor on the same
subject of nondefense cleanup. think that the chairman and i -- i can't speak for him -- share a concern for cleaning up these sites. i think one of the problems with the amendment are the offsets from departmental administration and the office of the administrator. i think you are calling attention to a very, very important unaddress issue in this country. we have sites that need to be cleaned up. the problem with this amendment is where the money is being taken from from our standpoint. the departmental administration. there have been other mix to that, diminishing account, as we have gone through the bill today. and i truly have heard the concerns expressed by the gentleman from new york that we are not adequately investing in cleaning up contaminated sites
not just in new york and ohio but in other places around our country. without question, the chairman was given an inadequate allocation and the choices he made on levels of funding were very, very thoughtful. overall this bill is truly inadequate in meeting the needs of the nation and we talked about that today and these accounts are terribly underfunded. we keep picking off the bones of this spine and there aren't sufficient funds to go around. i'm very torn on the gentleman's amendment and quite concerned about cleaning up these sites. i would probably, if we could find other offsets, would be favorably inclined, but i'm concerned about where the members have identified funding to am very constrained support it because of that.
but i want to thank the gentleman for offering the amendment and hopefully we can find a better solution in working together in the weeks ahead. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. -- clerk: the chair: we have not yet read to that point. the clerk: page 25, line 15, uranium enrichment, decommissioning funds $545 million. science, $4,653,000. the chair: for what purpose does
the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia, page 26, line 12 after the dollar amount $158,309,000. by page 60 line 12, insert increase by $158,309,000. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. broun: my amendment would reduce funding by cutting 10% out of the $1.5 billion budget and apply those funds to the spending reduction account. basic energy science is a worthy goal to explore fundamental fen no, ma'amon and keep our technology and ideas on the
global leading edge. however, it is not the federal government's function to act as a venture capitalist for science theory research. i believe that this endeavor is instead best left to our world renowned universities and private institutions. my amendment does not stop this research. it would simply put it on a balance with the reductions that have already been applied in the bill to our present energy resources. in this bill, general science is only cut by 5% while research on fossil fuels and nuclear energy are cut by 17% and 14 pbs respectively. we are in an economic emergency, mr. chairman. our nation is facing an economic meltdown. and federal dollars are very scares. as we face this huge deficit
together, we have to look at every option available to meet the challenges of doing more with less. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. i rise to oppose the amendment of the the gentleman from georgia. his amendment would cut $15 million. i should say for the record, we cut $220 million from last year's number and so we have substantially reduced this account. let me just say, too, the basic science program within the department conducts research with a staggering potential for benefits for our nation. cutting the program further, which is what he seeks, threatens our long-term energy security, first american scientists and industry and blemishes our credibility as a
world-wide leader in basic science programs. i oppose his amendment and urge others to do likewise. i yield back. ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. i will say he has been very consistent today. but if he get off the subject of this bill just for a second and think about every single chamber of commerce that talks to us and every organization tell us, they say we need to increst in stem because america is falling behind. in fact in the immigration debate, what are they asking? they are asking us for more visas to bring in people from other countries who have all the skills that we don't have. where we can't provide enough scientists, engineers for the companies that want to surge
ahead. so for the gentleman to be suggesting that we reduce our science accounts even more flies in the face of reality. the science account is $223 million below this year's level and $500 million below the budget request. innovation is an area where we as a nation should be leading. and reducing investment in basic science risks world leadership. we are already at the edge. investment from publicly funded 67% ch yields a 20% to return. with that kind of return, we should be investing more in science so that we produce the requisite talent that we need to meet the needs of again, the
future, not the past. we can't sort of ride on past laurels. we have to be producing the new knowledge and new innovation that can produce answers for us certainly in the fields of inrgy where america is truly deep deficit and having to import so many of the resources that propel this economy forward. so i can't imagine why the gentleman is proposing this, but in the areas of science and engineering, math and technology, we have to measure up and if you look at a nation like china, with billions of people, producing all those engineers, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that we better open our eyes what we need to do here at home. look at our negative energy accounts to understand that we are falling behind. and these investments in science are for the sake of the nation
and the future. the quote up there on the wall, daniel webster's quote tells us to develop the resources of our land and calls us forth to do something great, to not invest in science and the future really takes america backwards. i strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and i urge my colleagues to do so and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. hastings: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will
report. he clerk: amendment offered by mr. hastings of florida, page 26, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $223 million. page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $223 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: thank you very much. my anxiousness is perpetrated by the six hours that i have sat here waiting to offer this amendment. that said, over the fourth of july holiday when persons working with me sent me the summary of the rules committee and i read that we were taking $233 million out of science, i most immediately contacted people working with me and asked if they would prepare an amendment that may very well
cause some of the membership to feel a remedy. let me say most immediately, mr. chairman, the chairman frelinghuysen and ranking member aptur, i have newfound precipitation not just for them, but for all appropriators in working within the framework that they have been given and certainly my amendment does not address either of them or their respective staffs who are deserving of extraordinary commend dations on both sides of having done the best you can what you have. i appreciate that. i offer a modest amendment that akes a profound amendment. federally-supported basic research at the department of energy has helped to lead the development of lithium ion
batteries, digital recording technology, communication satellites and water purchase other nikes among advances. some of this work may not come from the private sector. it may come as a surprise to know that some of the research that led to google came out of the national science foundation. many of my republicans colleagues' insistence on cutting everything except defense spending ignore the modern realities of our world. china, south korea are increasing their percentage of g.d.p. that is spent on research. if we continue to cut, cut, cut, pretty soon we are going to cut ourselves out of the equation in innovation and technology. yet, this bill provides
million, 5% less than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and $500 million, 10% less than the administration's request for basic scientific research. the amendment that i'm offering restores basic science research to the enacted level. and offsets this change with funds from the $7.7 billion appropriated for nuclear weapons, which is an increase of $98 million or 1% over the enacted level. the congressional budget office says this amendment has zero impact on budget authority and reduces 2014 outlays by $22 million. bonds will not end our dependence on foreign fossil fuel. bonds don't stop trains and underground pipelines from exploding around this country. bombs don't prevent oils from
washing up on our beaches. mr. chairman, our country has real needs. adequately funding basic research is one of them. basic research will help to ensure that our country continues to be a world leader in research and development, keeping jobs where they belong here in america. we can no longer to afford spending money on weapons programs that were conceived in the cold war. we don't need more bombs but help fund programs that will spur economic growth and congress and should do better. i want to cite one specific in particular. program life extension is a perfect example of misplaced republican priorities. the b-61 is the only bomb in our nuclear arsenal. almost as olds me.
the committee recommended $561 million, 23.7 million above the budget recess for the b-61 program. the senate version assumes a cheaper adjustment than in this bill that still extends the program for 10 years. that assumption would save $191 million and almost restore research funding to the enacted levels by itself. mr. chairman, i'm reluctant to yield my time because i waited so long, but i will yield the balance of my time. . . mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. but let me absolute the gentleman from florida for his -- salute the gentleman from florida for his patience. i know he's been in the chamber at least five or six hours, waiting for his mark in this bill so he could get up and also for the kind words, but most
especially those directed toward our staff. which have been dealing with an open rule, which is part of our process here. juggling quite a few amendments that continue to have to come over the transome all night. want to thank you for that recognition. i do oppose the amendment because it would increase funding for the office of science, not because i don't support the office of science, but it would hit our national nuclear security administration's weapons activities account. i do support the programs, the basic science programs, championed by our colleague. we worked hard in our committee to prioritize basic science and as i said earlier, this bill actually increases the office of science budget by $32 million above the current postsequester level. but, we still make national
defense the first priority in our bill and so i oppose this amendment and urge others to do likewise and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: yes, mr. chairman. first of all, i want to thank congressman hastings for working with us and obviously participating in these debates for the entire day today. he's such an able and well-intentioned member. his brilliance continues to inspire all of us on many ssues, including this one. and i wanted to just say that i agree with the gentleman's intent in offering this amendment. and as i've said many times today, the allocation we were given as a subcommittee is simply insufficient to meet all of the needs that the nation has, certainly in this field of science. and the gentleman is correct in that there's a $223 million -- which is not insignificant -- reduction from 2013 levels.
and so as we look to the future, there is less emphasis on science. i agree with the gentleman's intent. i wish we could restore all those dollars this evening. i would also say there is a constraint on us because we know that the president very much wants to engage in nuclear weapons reduction talks with other nations around the world. and i think it's important that he be able to negotiate from a position of strength. and that is one of the reasons that the chairman and i are working so very hard to allow him to achieve the ultimate objective of nuclear arms reduction. so to take dollars from those accounts at this level really does create a bit of a pressure for us that would cause me to oppose the gentleman's amendment at this time. but i do so very reluctantly and with full understanding of what he's trying to achieve and i want to thank him very much for waiting the entire day to offer this very, very important amendment that i hope someday to be able to support.
i urge my colleagues to consider however they may wish to vote on this and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes -- mr. hastings: mr. chairman. i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. foster of illinois. page 26, line 12, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $500 million. page 29, line 2 1, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $500 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. foster: mr. chairman, i rise today to present an amendment that addresses an imbalance in our efforts to promote the
longterm economic and national security -- long-term economic and national security interests of the united states. this reverses deep and harmful cuts to the energy of science and balances this by a corresponding reduction amounting to 6% in the nuclear weapons production and life extension accounts. the greatest long-term threat that our country faces on both the military and economic fronts is the threat of losing our role as world leaders in innovation in science and technology. nothing is more crucial to preserving that role than the fundamental and applied scientific research at both universities and national laboratories supported by the d.o.e. office of science. this appropriations bill would cut funding for the office of science by $500 million below the president's request for the next fiscal year. as a physicist who worked at a lab for over 20 years, and collaborated with universities and other national labs all over
the united states, i understand the productivity and the potential of the department of energy's national lab system. and the wide range of basic scientific research that they support. the office of science is responsible for supporting university-based research, but it also supports basic research facilities that are too big for any single company or university to develop. the chicago area that i represent is home to a number of cientific centers, including university-based centers. the economic impact of the labs in illinois alone is estimated to be more than $1.3 billion annually. and there are thousands of good-paying jobs that are supported by those investments. our national labs are a critical research tool to academics and to industry alike. for example, eli lily conducts nearly half of its drug discovery research in conjunction with the advanced photon source at argon. the office of science is also home to one of the department's
newest ventures, the innovation hubs which seek to discover and develop the next generation of energy delivery. programs like the joint center for energy storage research headquartered at argon, and the fuels from sunlight hub, headquartered at the california institute of technology bring together multiple teams of researchers who are working to develop energy advancements that have the potential to transform our energy systems. the office of science also invests in fusion, a safe, clean and sustainable energy source that has the scientific potential to provide the united states with energy independence and a nearly limitless zero-energies -- zero emissions supply of energy. currently the princeton plasma physics lab is building the world's most power fusion facility of its type in the world. through the office of programs, we have become world leaders in biofuels research. this research is laying the foundation for a revolution in biofuel production that will help to lessen our dependence on
foreign oil. study after study has shown that there are few investments that government can make that provides as high a return on investment as scientific research and development. the cuts proposed by republicans in this underlying bill will have a wide ranging impact, both to the local economy in illinois and to our national economy. and with wages as a percentage of our economy at a record low, it is not time to retreat and to stop investing in american innovation. we need to maintain a competitive advantage now more than ever. mr. speaker, i rise today because we must continue to invest in american innovation and to fully fund the research and development conducted through the d.o.e. office of science. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose the amendment but i do salute the gentleman for his work at the -- at one of the finest labs of the nation.
obviously we appreciate his knowledge and i would salute his contributions to science during his career before he came here. nevertheless, mr. chairman, i oppose his amendment. a cut of this magnitude to the weapons activities would seriously endanger our ability to carry out the modernization work that i've talked about earlier. and so i oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield my time to the gentleman from illinois, mr. foster. the chair: the gentleman yields his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. foster: thank you. i'd actually like to respond a little bit about the offset for this bill. this amendment is offset by reducing the $7.7 billion budget for the nnsa nuclear weapons account by $500 million. this is a $6 -- this is a 6.5%
reduction. i want to make it clear that the intent of this amendment is not to reduce the large amount of high-quality research that goes on in nnsa-supported programs. but a large fraction of the funding in this account goes to production and future production facilities for weapons systems that serve no clear -- clearly defined strategic purpose in today's geopolitics. or they go to programs which -- for which the cost estimates, the project management or both have come under repeated criticism when they come under external independent review. to take two examples, the underlying bill funds the b-61 life extension program at over $23 million more than requested. this program has ballooned in cost from $4 billion two years ago to over $10 billion. and a recent independent cost estimate commissioned by the pentagon called even this estimate into question. another example is -- example is the overall size of the nuclear weapons stockpile. we have today more than 5,000 nuclear weapons. even if the united states and
russia were to cut our arsenals by a factor of 10, our other -- other countries -- our countries would still have significantly more nuclear weapons than our nearest competitors. the reason that you spend money on nuclear depermits -- deterrence is to deter rational actors and to reassure our allies, to those who oppose this 6% cut, i would ask, is there any example of a rational actor who would not be adequately deterred by a stockpile of, for example, 1,000 deployble nuclear weapons? is there any one of our allies who would not consider our ability to release, say, 10% of that arsenal in retaliation to an attack on them, to be an insufficient ability to respond? and yet we are redesigning production facilities and spemming money on them when the strategic -- spending money on them when the strategic quantities required to be produced have not been established. earlier this year the g.a.o. added that nnsa was, quote, again included in g.a.o.'s list
in recognition for potential of vulnerables to fraud, weasts, abuse and miss management in management of major projects. and the cost for -- remains uncertain. from the text of this very energy and water committee report accompanying this bill, quote, the committee notes that the full extent of the consequences of the nnsa's project management problems, especially at the largest of the nnsa's construction projects, is still coming to light. the administration gains -- as the administration gains a more complete understanding of cost increases and construction delays, it must take the lead to determine whether a new long-term budget plan is needed to meet the nation's strategic objectives. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. mr. quigley: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman. i rise to support the
gentleman's amendment, mr. forester from illinois, and i rise -- foster from illinois, and i rise belatedly to support the gentleman from florida as well. let me speak from the lehman's perspective, although i served for a number of years on the science committee. and presently serve on homeland security, which many of us know that when we deal with the issues of national security, we're dealing with technology, we're dealing with science. in essence, we secure this nation by being victors of science. let me use lehman terms, let me use what children are studying in their classrooms, maybe alexander bell, maybe they're studying albert einstein. but maybe they are studying and admire the nation's astronauts. for a number of years i served, as i said, on the science committee and the subcommittee on space and aeronautics. and i could see how science permeated not only what we do here on earth, but obviously space science. and it seems to me that,
although i appreciate the heavy lifting of the chairman and the ranking member of this subcommittee, on making determinations and going forward , what is america if we cannot invest in science? science was the job creator of the 21st century and the centuries beyond. science provides jobs by creating new technology, new discoveries and i frankly believe that it is suffering that we have to subject america to the drastic cuts in science. the drastic cuts that will result in less research in labs, less private research, less teaching on science and less growth and expansion on scientific inventions and obviously productivity.
so i would hope that as the gentleman explained it's a minute aspect of the funding source and we could balance our weaponry needs with the advances of science. that's what i see these amendments as doing, both mr. hastings' and mr. fosters', not allowing the united states to take a back seat in research and science. it is clear that our best days are in front of us and america has grown and advanced because we have athroid genius of science to be able to promote not only our democracy but our creativity and the cures of diseases and also the finding of technology and the creation of invention that have made the quality of life better. that's what science is, it is human. it is humanity. i would ask my colleagues to consider the amendment. i rise to support science. i think it is valuable, i think it is important and i think this is a difficult challenge for our for the committee, nor
committee, i think as we proceed, we need to find a way to increase funding for science, for us to be able to go forward in the greatness of this nation in many, many ways, but science has been a way that america has proven her greatness because we allowed those with talent and opportunity to share that talent in advancing the quality of life not only for american bus human kind. i ask my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. poastp -- those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the gentleman from illinois. >> i request -- mr. foster: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment from the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. the clerk will read.
the clerk: page 26, line 15, advanced research project agency energy, $50 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the clerk will report. offered by mendment mr. garamendi of california, page 26, line 18, after the dollar amount, insess -- insert page e by $329 million, 29, lidge 13 after the dollar amount insert reduced by $329 million. mr. gare member dee: i offer this amendment together with mr. polis. we hear this discussion repeatedly about the value of science. if we back up a few moments, we need to understand our values as representatives of this nation. it's been an interesting subset of debates here over the last several hours and on the one hand it's the issue of we must
maintain our nuclear weapons spear -- nuclear weapon superiority and the committee has take ven up that value, that goal, and has put a lot of money into that area while moving money out of the sciences. we unfortunately the question couldn't take a larger view of the overall budget and the appropriations and deal with perhaps the fact that we're spending $82 billion in afghanistan this year and maybe move some of that money over into these accounts but that wasn't possible. but if you stand back an take a look at what has happened throughout the course of this day, you'll see that there have been repeated efforts on the part of the democrats to rebuild the science, the research budget of the united states. this appropriations bill simply decimates that budget. that critical investment in today and tomorrow. and in the economy of the future. our ability to deal with climate
change, our ability to deal with energy, are just stripped, gutted, and actually set aside as a result of the appropriation bill. the office of efficiency and renewable energy, a $2 billion reduction, 73%, arpa-e, the subject of this amendment, a $229 million reduction, an 87% redub the office of science 25,000 researchers across this nation are likely to be laid off. thousands of reserge prompts will simply not be funded, they will simply die on the vine. the office of electricity delivery energy reliability, an $ 0 million reduck. it goes on and on. his is so backward, this is so backward, what this nation needs to do is build its research capabilities, build its science. we do not need to build more bombs. but yet that's what we're doing
here. this amendment replaces the $329 billion -- $329 million cut to the arpa-e program, a program that's actually created many new opportunities which my colleagues will be discussing here in the next few moments. but a program based upon the defense department's car pa e -- car pa program that has -- darpa program, that has as we have heard developed ex-trordnary technology that's found its way into the world's economy, for example, the internet. we really must restore this money and we must restore the science budget and research budget for the office for energy for the department of energy. we can't fail. if it's a choice between building more nuclear weapons and replacing our nuclear weapons or creating tomorrow's economy, it's a simple choice.
but this bill doesn't do that. it deals with yesterday. yes, we're going to need nuclear weapons but not 5,500 of them. we dent need to rebuild all of twhesm don't need to spend $.7 billion on that enterprise while gutting the research and science future of this nation. i yield my remaining -- i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. polis: thank you,ing mr. the funding prior thousands of bill are upside down this bill prioritizes nuclear weapons funding over research for innovative technologies that will lead to energy independence and launch a future for sustainable energy and job growth in our country. this bill before us underfunds programs that will not only grow our clean energy source but
promote jobs and emerging technologies and maintain critical infrastructure. at the same time it makes the cuts in the after pa ee -- ar rah e program, it -- ar -- arpa-e program, it reduces other programs by -- above the 2013 enacted levels. this past february i had the privilege of meeting with an arpa-e team in my district, a joint project between the university of colorado and department of energy. the team leaders were excited about the challenges in clean energy and there's examples of projects like this which arpa-e has helped fund and would not even exist without arpa-e across our country. that are leading and will lead to countless benefits for consumers and for our national energy security. but despite the success of
arpa-e, which was acknowledged by the subcommittee chair and ranking committee member before the rules committee yesterday, the underlying bill disproportionately cuts from clean energy programs 81% cuts while bolstering wasteful spending for weapons. we need to restore arpa-e funding to the president's levels. that's why we're offering this amendment to provide $329 million in funding to arpa-e. it's justify set by a corresponding cut to the nnsa weapons account this provides the amount of support arpa-e needs to ensure our country keeps moving toward energy independence, can sustain job growth. i strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the garamendi-polis amendment and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. free i think hughesen: this
fund nacceptably strike big $325 million in order to increase arpa-e at the department of energy. i am in support of arpa-e. but a reduction of this magnitude in the national nuclear security administration's weapons activities account would seriously affect their ability to ensure the continued reliability of our weapons. these weapons have to be certified by the secretary of energy to the president, our commander in chief, their ability, the secretary's ability to do that would be hurt by cuts of this magnitude. for this and other reasons i oppose the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker. i request a rec vote.
the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. schiff of california, after the dollar amount insert increase by $28 million. page 28 line 10 insert reduce by $28 million. mr. schiff: i offer this amendment along with my colleague, representative woodall of georgia, and my colleague, representative polis of colorado. it would increase funding for the advanced research project for energy, arpa-e. the bill provides only $50 million of arpa-e, a reduction of 81% from fiscal year 2013. moreover the bill would reduce arpa-e by 87% compared to the 2014 budget requests. this amendment would increase
the fund big $20 million, would increase offset by a reduction in the department of administration account. this is a very modest investment for an agency whose work has the potential to remake our economy. while the amendment would leave us a long way short of with the funding should be as well as where it is in the senate bill and the president's budget, passing it would send a strong signal that there's bipartisan support for this kind of research. in 2011, i offered a similar amendment to restore funding to arpa-e which was adopted by a bipartisan majority in the house. starting in 2009, arpa-e is a revolutionary program that advances high potential, high impact energy technologies that are too early for private sector investment. this is an innovative agency modeled on darpa which has spearheaded incredible breakthroughs in technology with ivilian and military
applications. to do the sameed with energy, its philosophy much like a tech startup is to hire the best technical staff and then hire the managers and leadership that can get the most out of them. they work on developing energy technologies whose development and commercialization are too risky to attract private sector investment but are capable of significantly changing the energy sector to inaddress our critical economic and energy security challenges. that's a great deprescription of arpa-e and i'd ask the house to consider whether it sounds like something we should be cut big 81%. there are cuts i can support in this bill but cuts to investments in new generations of energy technology is shortsighted in the extreme. as we cut spending to return the budget to balance, we must not cut the programs vital oour --
vital to our economic future. arpa-e is just such an agency etch if we can't make the investment the president called for in his budget, let's at least not destroy an agency pointing the way toward a more energy secure future. gutting programs like arpa-e so severely is akin to shutting them down completely no agency can absorb an 81% cut to its budget in a year, even less so an agency that relies on atracting elite scientists. energy is a national security issue, an economic imperative a health issue and environmental issue. to invest in the kind of cutting edge research that's going on at arpa-e is exactly the direction we need to go. we want to lead the energy revolution, not see that leadership go to china, india or another nation. but if we're serious about it, we need to invest in cutting edge research and that means arpa-e. our competitiveness in the
global economy where we have to compete with labor that costs a fraction of what american needs a big go i urge support of this amendment. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. polis: i know my colleague from georgia will be speaking on this, i appreciate him and congressman schiff. i will be brief to express my support for congressman woodall and congressman schiff in their efforts to restore cuts to arpa-e. the underlying bill cuts arpa-e by 81%. we we have sequestration, we know it's time for cuts, 81% is clearly singling it out. what this does is restores $20 million to paar e, even $20 million gos a long way when
we're talking about arpa-e, we're talking about early stage investments, could be $500,000, $2 million, very high levranl, very high return, $20 million is not enough, $70 million is not enough to fund the program but yes, it will make great strides forward even at this funding level. because investment in early stage companies is all about risk taking and that's why the government has a critical role in promoting innovation and making sure we do the basic research to get ready for transfer, for venture capital, to get ready for the private sector to commercialize it. in order for arpa-e to be successful, they need to see that government is willing to invest in risky but high reward projects that can alter the course of energy independence for our country. i strongly salute representatives woodall and schiff, i encourage my colleagues to adopt this as a
step forward. i appreciate everybody on both sides of the aisle who said great things about the arpa-e project and how it can help lead to nrnl independence. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. woodall: i thank the gentleman from colorado for the enthusiasm about this important project and the amendment that my colleague from california is bringing forward is modest in scope. but we're talking about and i'll say to my colleagues who want to see spending reduced, talking about a difference between the 81% cut to a 74% cut. if we add this $20 million back in. it's a modest number, but it's an important number because the committee can only do what the committee can do. i thank the gentleman from new jersey, the chairman. i know he is committed to this research. i hate to hear folks describe the commitment to advancement,
the commitment to next-generation technology as a republican or a democrat commitment. i think it's an american commitment and it's a house commitment and one that the chairman and ranking member tried their best within their allocations to satisfy. what are you going to take the money away from, mr. speaker. you look at what we are dealing with in this appropriations bill. we are talking about nuclear security, talking about environmental cleanup, we are talking about uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning. the choices we have here are tough choices and the amendment we have before us now, knowing we are going to put the money, let's take the money out of administration. that's not to say that there doesn't have to be administration. that's not to say that phones don't have to be answered and electricity doesn't have to be turned on, but when you have to make tough choices, the one that
the gentleman from california is asking us to make today, are we going to invest in the bureaucracy or invest in that opportunity to make tomorrow so much more different than today. if my colleagues haven't had a chance to look at those project teams like my friend from colorado mentioned and what they are researching, for me, i come from coal-burning country and the work that arpa-e is doing could change the debate on american energy independence forever. arpa-e isn't working on what is going to happen tomorrow but what is going to happen in the next generation, what is you it going to be to change the debate forever. those are the kinds of ideas that $20 million will support. the commitment to fundamental research, the commitment to
game-changing ideas is a bipartisan commitment, it's one that goes from coast to coast, from north to south and on both sides of the i'll. i'm grateful to the gentlelady from ohio and chairman from new jersey for all they have done to try and support these accounts and it's migrate hope that my colleagues in the house will support the gentleman from california's amendment and get this $20 million plus-up. and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does gentleman rise? >> i rise in support of the schiff amendment which makes sure we invest in quality research programs that will benefit the united states. energy innovation research and development are essential for our country, especially if we truly want to move forward with reducing our energy dependence on fossil fuels. one important component of this goal is the advanced research project energy.
arpa-e has funded 275 potentially transformative energy projects. many of the research projects are occurring in my state of california. they are working on items that will greatly benefit the energy security of our country. some projects include the distributetive flow control using smart wires, low cost talyst to enable efficient co-2 capture and energy reduction through sensors, highly dispatchable and distributed demand response for the integration of distributed generation and carbon nano tubes for energy-initiate carbon sequestration. we face significant energy challenges in the years ahead. and the effects of climate
change, climate change affects storms, sea overrises and extremely poor air quality that continually plagues california's central valley. we must become more energy efficient and release carbon dioxide and other harmful gases and improve our electric grid and the ability to meet peak demand. arpa-e projects aimed to solve these projects at the same time will reduce energy blackouts, reduce energy costs and improve environmental and public health. arpa-e initiatives help facilitate future-private investments by helping companies reach their potential in the early stages. and in fact, the american energy innovation council, which consists of america's largest companies like lockheed martin and microsoft has called for arpa-e to be funded at 10 times.
the bill today provides $50 million for arpa-e which is $215 million less than what was enacted in the last fiscal year and $329 million less than the president's request. arpa-e's successes have attracted more than $450 million in private investment. it's this return on investment that must be continued, not cut back. the schiff amendment aims to correct this error in the underlying bill. i ask the other side, the only reason i can think of to reduce arpa-e funding to help prop up fossil fuel industry. and that's going to give us more global warming and cause us more problems. we need to reduce global warming. global warming is a threat to our national security. we need to fight it. arpa-e is going to give us the tools. i encourage our colleagues to support this amendment and i
yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 26, line 20, line 17, innovative guaranteed programs, amounts received board pursuant to the energy policy act of 2005. advanced technology vehicles manufacturing loan program. $6 million -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun, page 28 after the dollar amount insert reduced by zero dollars.
insert increase by $6 million. mr. broun: my amendment eliminates the remain funding for the manufacturing vehicles program transferring money to the spending reduction account. since 2008, the u.s. government has been in the business of lending money to brilled cars that no one wants to buy. for instance, $50 million went to the vehicle production group, he national -- the natural gas minivans. that company failed. meanwhile, $190 million went to a company to make electric cars that catch on fire. which rid luxury sedan
costs $100,000 a piece was recalled to fix a hose connection to allow cool ant leaks into the battery chamber causing an electrical short. fortunately no one was hurt. but unfortunately, taxpayers got back only a fraction of the payout. mr. chairman, i'm 100% supportive of the automobile industry producing more fuel-efficient automobiles. however, there is simply no good reason that the federal government should be subsidizing billion dollar companies at a time when our nation is broke. it is time that we begin to reverse this disturbing trend of energy loan programs for companies and let the automobile industry succeed or fail in the marketplace on its own merits. we have to stop these kind of subsidies, particularly in these
hard times when our nation is in an economic emergency. i support -- i urge support of this commonsense amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: move to strike the last word. i rise to oppose the amendment. while i appreciate the gentleman's position on the advanced technology vehicle manufacturing program and certainly some of his knowledge of the program is entirely accurate, the elimination of this funding would hurt oversight of the more than $8 billion in loans already given. as our committee report states, there are no new applications for this program and the department of energy doesn't expect any. the committee recommendation includes $6 million as a reasonable amount to provide oversight and direction to the existing loan portfolio and no more.
so i must oppose the gentleman's amendment to ensure proper oversight of taxpayers' funding that's already out there in the form of loans. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? the clerk will read. the clerk: page 28 line 3, departmental administration, $187,862,to remain available until 2013. ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise
or new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i ask the clerk continue to read the amendment. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. -- clerk: ms. jackson lee: the amendment, mr. chairman, starts on page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount insert increased $1 million and age 29 line 21 and reduce by $1.2 million. xml. 243 the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: page 28 line 10, after the dollar amount amount insert increased by $1 million. page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $1 million 200,000
ms. jackson lee: i add my appreciation to the committee's work. it's tough work. it's important work, because this is how we serve the american people. and i ask my colleagues to discuss with me or follow my discussion on the importance of the amendment that i offer, because it is an amendment that source s funding from a of funding that has been discussed previously. and that is the atomic energy defense activities, national nuclear administration, but does take these monies and uses it in a very constructive manner. it is monies to maintain for environmental justice that go to historically black colleges and universities, minority-serving institutions, tribal colleges and other organizations. this is imperative in sustaining growth.
that is the simple intent that long side of the important work of this appropriations of energy and water, there is the constant need to be assured that our communities are protected. let me cite just a few examples as we proceed. ny understand the recent tragedy that occurred, not in this country but in canada, where areas were wiped out. this is an important highlight for what environmental justice is all about. many of us have heard of the buffalo creek disaster. this is what environmental justice does. it is to fund programs that are vital to ensure ha minority groups are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to the environment and preservation of their home. but it goes further. it is as much important to preserve areas in appalachia, the delta, in places where poor
communities cannot if you will, represent thems, through education about the importance of virbletal sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of science and our citizens can improve their surroundings. what better group that historically plaque colleges, minority-serving institutions, including hispanic-serving institution, and tribal colleges. why are they the best to move in that direction? primarily because they communicate with those underserved communities. funds that would be award thod important cause would increase youth involvement in stem fields and promote clean energy weatherization cleanup and asset rescythelyization. these improvements would provide protection to our most vulnerable groups. many believe environmental justice has to do with lawsuits, with outreach and information. this is a small program that allows the department of energy to focus on this constituency and ensure the coverage and the protection this program provides better access to technology for
underserved communities, together, the department of nfrpbl and department of agriculture distributed access to information which generates a recognition of protecting the environment. community leaders are able as well to participate in environmental justice. in our communities and urban areas, there's a need for environmental justice. again, what better institutions than those institutions that draw their population from the communities, that draw their population if the reservations or from the entities that our native americans, communs that our native americans are engaged in? so i ask my colleagues to look at this program, look at the, if i will, fiscal responsibility that i've utilized and drawing from the program to invest in environmental justice. it's a fair way to give resources to these vital
institutions that to be frank with you, mr. chairman, they don't have the resources but they do good work. texas southern university had an environmental wrussties clinic located in houston in the 18th congressional district. let me be clear, this is not an earmark, these resources can be used by the department of energy that will respond to this broad depth of universities, historically black colleges, tribal institutions, minority-serving, which include, of course, the hispanic serving institutions. let me quickly say that since 2002, the tribal energy program has also funded 175 energy projects but again this is limited to environmental justice and i believe this is an effective utilization of these funds and when asked by -- and i would ask my colleagues to ensure that we have the funds to ensure the good work of these particular entities. if i might reserve my time. then let me conclude by asking my colleagues to support the education of our young people in
the environmental protection area that enhances the communities which they're from, making america better. i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike he last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i must oppose the gentlelady's amendment. this is, though, an important programism support it, our committee supports it. this program is primarily funded within the office of legacy anagement. that office received substantive funding in this bill under the account for other defense activities. funding for the legacy management increases $3.4 million over fiscal year 2013. the office of legacy management is the correct office to provide stewardship for the legacy sites. they are the experts, and i'm happy to help ensure that this
very important program received support with available funding for legacy management. i look forward to working with ms. jackson lee and working to support this program as we move on through the appropriations process. but i oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman -- the gentlewoman from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i would like to yield the gentlelady from texas some time. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentlelady and i thank my good friend from new jersey but i do want to cite that nearly 10 years ago, president clinton introduced an executive order highlighting the importance 12898 -- highlighting the importance of giving greater attention to underserved communities and how to help our
citizens by educating them on the areas in which i live. let me be very appreciative of my good friend the chairman of this subcommittee and the ranking member. i am very appreciative how difficult it is under sequester but what i would say is that these entities, historically black colleges, minority serving and tribal colleges, in the course of what we're trying to do, these resources added to what the gentleman has already indicated, the $3.2 million, $3.4 million is meeg for the what they could do with this, protecteding communities, educating communities, that's environmental justice. it is expanding the reach so that communities are far more protective than those we have seen and i yield back to the gentlelady and thank her for yielding. ms. kaptur: i want to thank the gentlelady for bringing this issue before us during this debate. you know, when i look at the
executives that come and appear before our subcommittee from the department, i would have to say that the gentlelady brings a very important concern to our subcommittee. i would not say that if i look at those who have come they are completely representative of our country system of i'm not sure that the consciousness exists at the highest level for assuring that all communities in america are engaged in the activities of the department. i don't know -- i heard the chairman and there was concern about which accounts have been included in the gentlelady's amendment. i would hope that as this legislation moves forward, we could find a way to accomplish the gentlelady's objectives in a way that would not raise concerns on the other side. so i think that she has really brought an important proposal
before us here and i would hate to see that it would not be considered simply because the wrong account has been identified, for example. so i would just like to remain open to the gentlelady's proposal and a manner in which it could be considered and ultimately approved. ms. jackson lee: let me sort of clarify because the chairman has made a point about a certain area where it is referencing historically black colleges. they are referenced in several areas. i am speaking specifically to environmental justice in the departmental account. i'm focusing on the important work these colleges can do as it relates to educating poor and impoverished communs, communities they have a direct ability to communicate with. i will tell you bringing forth environmental experts out of these jurisdictions, tribal colleges, minority-serving and
historically black is a great astote improving the quality of life of all americans. i yield back to the gentlelady and i ask my colleagues to support the amendment but i would yield back to the gentlelady. so mine is one of the references, there are many references where historically black colleges are. but this is particularly, specifically dealing with environmental justice. ms. kaptur: i would also say to the gentlelady that in many communities contaminated around the country and have problems, oftentimes they're in neighborhoods an places where people who are minority of, who e tribal, people who are not necessarily represented broadly within the department live. so i think we have to be conscious in all parts of the department that there should be an inclusivity and so thing the gentlelady has done a service as always by raising our consciousness to all of the
active thousands of department, that they be sensitive to all parts of america including environmental justice. i would hope we could find a way to support the gentlelady's concern. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman. i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentlelady asks for a recorded vote? ms. jackson lee: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the swrelt from georgia rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will reread. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia, page 59, line 12, insert decreasedly
$9,500,000. ge 10, line 12, insert increased by $9,500,000. mr. broun: this would reduce funding and place the savings in e spending reduction account this would -- this with the underlying bill would be a 25% cut. this may be seen as somewhat drastic. however, i have spoken again and again today about the fiscal emergency facing our country. there are legitimate constitutional functions of the federal government which must be funded, particularly those that relate to our national defense. yet even those functions are facing cuts, deep cuts, this means that prioritization is necessary so that we may determine our wants versus our
needs. we need to open up access to new sources of energy. we need to stop being dependent on foreign oil. the department of energy has done very little to further either of these goals. in fact, according to its riginal purpose of being set up, it has been a dismal failure. certainly there are advances to be made in current technology. but in the here and now, we know that we are sitting on vast resources that are so tied up in red tape, it could be decades before they can come to fruition. the house has passed several bills which will -- and will continue to pass bills, to lighten the federal burden and bring true energy freedom to this country. but the senate and administration disagree with us.
they'd rather throw millions upon millions toward new sources of clean energy, some of which have turned into highly publicized waste of taxpayer dollars. mr. chairman, we need to prioritize dwhoping resources that we have now. unfortunately, the department of energy has proven time and again it is out of touch with the needs of our country. the bureaucrats responsible for putting the solyndras of the world above traditional sources of energy pull in more than $100,000 a year on average. all the while doing little to lighten costs for american families. in fact, despite a supposed hiring freeze, the department of energy's website right now, today, is currently advertising 31 job openings paying over $105,000 per year.
this is ridiculous, mr. chairman. and it must stop. my amendment would force the department of energy to re-evaluate its priorities, to put our current needs first, rather than hoping that new, clean sources of energy will pan out eventually. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: our bill has many competing priorities with competing allocation. i appreciate my colleague's commitment to find manager savings in the bill. he's ever persistent and i salute his willingness to challenge us each year on the floor when we do this energy and water bill and we're not the only bill where he makes these challenges. the recommendation was already
suffering a $49 million cut from last year's level. earlier amendments that we did this afternoon and this evening have taken another $60 million, not a lot of money left to run the department. and while some may want to close down the department, the department has some pretty incredible responsibilities in terms of nuclear safety and national defense and things that relate to cleanup and things of this nature and if they had to respond, if you pardon the expression to some of the emergencies we might have as a nation and we know our deficit is in an emergency situation, might not be able to respond on our behalf. therefore, i oppose his amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: move to strike the last word. i move to oppose the gentleman's amendment. i think back to the movie
"titanic" and the captain comes out on the deck when the titanic is going to hit the iceberg and i remember his blank look and he is remembering what he was doing before this happened. we saw the tragedy. if you don't have captains in the pilot house, you could run aground and have trouble. already, the majority this evening has cut, i think we are down to $146 million in administration in the department of energy, a vast department. that kind of level of cut is going to cause big mistakes. there will be accounting mistakes, there will be contracts that won't be overseen. in a way you are feeding a very bad future for the management of the funds that we do vote for here tonight. i think the gentleman perhaps isn't really familiar with everything the department does and you can come down here and be proposing amendments, but in
the end, we can't absorb these cuts at the department because you are going to have problems that are caused by no captain at the helm. and i think that is really a big mistake because this department has to manage over $30 billion of tax dollars on the energy and waterfront. these are big contracts. there are major contracts that are undertaken and to act otherwise is to perform naively and i think the gentleman has an objective but i think he is going to cause great harm to the republic by this amendment and obviously i oppose it and i urge my colleagues to oppose it and yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.
the clerk will read. 29, line 3, ge office of the inspector general, $42 million to remain available until september 30, 2015. atomic energy defense activities, national nuclear administration -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. i ask unanimous consent that -- to dispense with the reading of the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. quigley of illinois. mr. quigley: i rise to offer an amendment with mr. polis. our amendment is straightforward and cuts the $23.7 million from the b-61 nuclear bomb not requested by the department of energy. the nuclear security
administration requested a 45% increase for a gold-plated upgrade plan for the b-61 nuclear bomb. the committee provided the 45% increase for the most expensive upgrade plan then they provided an additional $23.7 million. our amendment simply cuts these additional funds provided beyond what the agency requested. let me back up for a minute and explain what the $560 million in this bill is going to pay for. at a time when we are slashing funds for research at the n.i.h., failing to fix our crumbling exrarbg. -- infrastructure, we are failing to keep nuclear bombs in operation that we will never use. the cold war is over. mr. speaker, i thought today at i was back in a "twilight
zone" ep zone. it's 1963, the cold war is still raging. despite the fact that political experts including conservatives, henry kissinger and george schultz have called to deep cuts. general cartwright, former vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said the quote, military utility of the b-61 is quote, practically nill. as u.s. and russia shifts funds to meet today's threats, the b-61 in europe will be the first weapons cut. this month in berlin, the president said he wants to seek reductions the b-61 in europe. my friends on the other side of the aisle claim they want to reduce the deficit. i agree. but if you are going to reduce spending, everything has to be on the table including defense.
this amendment is a tiny, thoughtful cut to an outside nuclear budget for weapons that do little to keep us safe. i hope my colleagues would join me in cutting funds not requested by the department of energy for nuclear upgrades not needed. mr. speaker, i yield the balance of my time to mr. polis. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: i thank mr. quigley for bringing forward this important amendment. there has been growing concerns raised by the air force since the 2008 blue ribbon review of the effectiveness and vulnerability of the b-61. it was placed in europe during the cold war for cold war-era threats. according to the former vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the utility of the b-61 is practically nill. the military utility of the b-61 is practically nill. despite the lack of utility, the
price tag continues to rise. as it rises, germany has called for the b-61 to be removed. no reason we should spend more and more taxpayer dollars on programs that aren't wanted or wanted by our nato allies. these missiles are a saving opportunity that we need to take advantage of. we need to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted on programs that don't protect our national security. this amendment is simple. it cuts the b-61 program back to the agency's own request level, saving $23.7 million. to me, this is about as much of a no-brainer of a cut that we can find. let's do it. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the quigley-polis amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois. mr. quigley: yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i move to
strike the last word. i rise in opposition to the amendment. our bill provides $560 million for the b-61 life extension program, $23.7 million above the request. i understand there are concerns about the cost of the refew bishment of the b-61 and the committee shares those concerns. this bill contains a provision that requires that n.s.a. provide a full analysis of the alternatives that were considered. but failing to move forward without the full support of the b-61 refurbishment will put that program further behind what is already a tight schedule. the government accountability office conducted a study of the b-61 life extension program in 2011 and reported there was no room left in the refurbishment schedule. if the life extension program slips further behind, it -- there will be gaps in the united
states' commitment to our nato allies. in fiscal year 2012. n.s.a. performed a full cost estimate for the b-61 refurbishment in the department of defense office of cost assessment and program evaluation validated those costs. this was the most comprehensive and accurate performed by the n.s.a. on a life extension to date. the administration was behind the most come presence ive i have and accurate report on the program to date and the costs by everybody's admission, were admittedly staggering. but those costs were ultimately verified and provided to the committee in a cost report. the amount of funding in this bill is consistent with that cost report and provides $23.7 million above the amount requested, which fell slightly short of the validated figures.
the national nuclear security administration explained the shortfall away by stating it would find unspecified quote, efficiencies in the program, hence the additional money. while i do support a concerted effort that will lower the costs of this program to the taxpayer, we never received any plan on w the nnsa, a.k.a. the administration, proposes to find savings. this is not the first time this has happened. the administration has also has as a stated goal to reduce the overall costs of the w-76 life extension program, but the department of energy's inspector general reported there was no credible plan to make savings that the lower funding levels being requested would simply lead to delays in the refurbishment. we cannot allow the b-61 life extension program to be further
delayed given the important role it serves in providing a nuclear umbrellas to our allies. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lamborn: i agree with the chairman of the subcommittee and i rise in opposition to this amendment. as a member of the armed services committee, we debated similar concepts recently and we rejected them. this would be harmful to our national security. the reason besides what the chairman from new jersey has already said, these weapons are forward deployed in europe to support europe and supported by u.s. strategic forces in the continental united states. if we do not extend the life of the b-61, here's what the department of dens has said.
failure to fully fund the b-61 life extension program will be viewed by nato as a weakening in the overall u.s. extended deterrence commitment, potentially prompting certain allies to pursue their own nuclear program. unless you want other countries in the world to start their own nuclear programs from scratch to develop their own weapons systems, increasing proliferation, then you want to reject this amendment, because that will potentially be the result, if the u.s. deterrence is weakened, and that's what this amendment does. it's important that we do the life extension program also because under new start, which this country entered into recently with russia, it was determined that we would be upgrading the remaining weapons. we are making dramatic reductions in the amount of
nuclear weapons in our stockpile. so those that remain have to be made reliable or we made a bad deal. to make sure that those remaining weapons are reliable we do the life extension programs. the b-61 weapons we are talking about are 30 years or more old. they are degrading. they are using sometimes old parts. and they are not as secure as they could be. we need to do the life extension for that program as well. for all these reasons, i would ask that we strongly oppose and reject this amendment. mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. kaptur: i yield some time to my colleague from illinois. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. quigley: mr. speaker, i
respect and have enjoyed this thoughtful debate we just had in the last few minutes about this issue, particularly because it raises critical issues about our relationships with our nato allies, but let's look at the big picture here, the 2010 start treaty with russia which passed the senate in 2009 requires that russia and the united states reduce their stockpiles to a maximum of 1,550 weapons by 2018. let's look at what people are talking about now. people respect. we mentioned general cartwright report, retired vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, former chief nuke arclarms egotiator, chuck hagel, thomas pickering and general john jay sheehan, former senior nato official, all issued a report saying the nuclear deterrence
could be guaranteed with 900 nuclear weapons. general cartwright, the world has changed but we carry the baggage. what is we are trying to deter? our current arsenal does not address the threat to the 21st century. let's talk about our nato allies. steve anderson, the director of defense policy and arms control on the national security council recently argued, quote, wouldn't it be more reassuring and wiser burdenen sharing to spend it on weapons that are more relevant to the threats that nato actually faces today? indeed, why would allies be reassured by the investment that provides no real military capability and no modicum of deterrence that is provided by u.s., britain and france each of which has nuclear weapons capable of obliterating any
adversary, end quote. there are threats from somalia and syria. the b-61 can do nothing to address those threats. i close by reminding us that four great statesmen, george schultz, william perry, henry kissinger and sam nunn argued for the end of these weapons in their landmark 2007 op ed. ms. kaptur: i would like to reclaim my time and lend support to the amendment offered by my colleague from illinois. his amendment would cut funding from the weapons account in the amount that was added to the president's budget request for the b-61. in these tight fiscal times, all programs must find efficiencies
and the $23.7 million was the amount that the administration estimated could be achieved for this activity. so i want to thank the gentleman for much for his efforts, for waiting all day. we have to proceed in order, i know it's excruciatingly difficult for an at like like yourself with that pent up energy and drive to have to wait until this late in the evening but we thank you for the contribution you have made in many ways, including in offering this amendment tonight and i yield back my remaining time and ask my colleagues to support his efforts. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes visit. the gentleman from illinois. mr. quigley: i ask for a recorded vote. chip pure sunt to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed.
the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, vets will now resume on unfished business in the floling order, amendment by mr. mcclipping to be of california, mr. -- amendment by mr. peters of california, amendment by mr. connolly of virginia, amendment by mr. takano of california, another amendment by mr. takano of eavel, amendment by mr. heck of nevada, amendment by mr. butterfield of north carolina, the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by
mr. cohen of tennessee. the chair: the recorded vote having been requested, those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]
on the unfished business is on the amendment offered by mr. broun on which the noes ve pre-vailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is order. lech lecked. this is a two-minute vote -- members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]
yeas are 158, the nays are 256, the amendment is not agreed. to the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. swalwell, on which further proceed wrgs postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote chesm clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. swalwell of california. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 201, the nays are 13, the amendment is not agreed. is he unfinished business the recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock on which further proceedings were postpone the clerk will redesignate the amendment. cloim -- the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted.
a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 115, the nays are 300, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. peters, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. peters of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. . a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on 24 vote, the yeas are 191, the nays are 233, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado on which further proceedings were postponed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. perlmutter of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 177, the nays are 238. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia on which further proceedings were postponed and nays were prevailed. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly
the chair: the yeas are 174, the nays are 242. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, on which further proceedings were postponed and noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. takano of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted.
a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 164. the nays are 252. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. takano, on which further proceedings were postponed and the nays prevailed. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. takano of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested, those in support of a recorded vote will rise.
a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]
prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. heck of nevada. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. by electronic device, this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 81, the nays are 335, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. butterfield of north carolina. the chair: those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. . members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 150, the nays are 266. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the , the an from illinois clerk will redez it nate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. foster of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be downed. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly
for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. heck of nevada, page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert increase by $13 million. page 30, line six, after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $16,546,000. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. heck: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the sharme of the subcommittee and the ronking member for the work they've done on this bill. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the committee -- the house is not in order. the committee is not in order. please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman will resume. mr. heck: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank the subcommittee chairman and ranking member for the work they've done on this bill but i specifically want to thank the committee staff for helping me fine tune this amendment at the
last minute. it transfers money from the international protection and remufle activities to a program to help secure our nuclear materials here at home this year's budget request included funding for a prompt to construct a security perimeter around the nevada site. ditionally funding was approved. however the bill under consideration fills to provide funding for this project. we must work with other nations to ensure nuclear material does not fall into the wrong hand. we should not neglect priorities to secure nuclear material on our own soil while providing $20 million in excess of what was requested to help foreign countries secure their nuclear materials. i'm simply requesting we transfer a relatively small tum, $16 million out of a total $2.1
billion, from a portion that have the bill that provides funding to other countries to secure their nuclear materials, and use that money to secure our own nuclear materials this will be used for the project that will provide a state of the art intrusion detection and assessment system at the nevada national security site's device assembly facility. as i mentioned this is a priority for the nevada national security site, it was included in the president's budget request and authorized by the house last month. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment which will prioritize national security concerns here at home while still providing adequate funding to ensure nuclear material in other countries doesn't fall into the hands of those who wish to do us harm and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is ecognized for five minnesotas. mr. frelinghuysen: i salute the gentleman's desire to protect
our nuclear sites. i share the gentleman's concern for the security of our nuclear weapons infrastructure. the security incursion in july of 2012 in oak ridge reveals disturbing problems with federal oversight that directly impacted the effectiveness of the protected forces. in particular, botched security upgrade project caused an excessive number of false alarm which is distracted security forces. poor maintenance practices meant security cameras where the protesters entered the high security area were not working. there is also was a second security upgrade project at los alamos that was installed incorrectly. the national nuclear security administration is still working on getting that project back on track. we need to be able to upgrade our security systems but i have concerns that taking on a third project in 2014 will lead to
more problems. a report has directed that nnfa has directed nffa to wait a career before starting the project at nevada. given the problems, i feel this is the most prudent path forward and will give the administration some time to implement the reforms so urgently needed in security oversight and project management. so i must reluctantly oppose the amendment at this time. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for phi minutes. ms. kaptur: i cannot support further cuts in this program. $16 dget already has cut million from the global threat
reduction initiative, and that means nuclear material that exists globally in places that we know we need to remove it. and so even though the gentleman's amendment is well intended, i think that we can't predict the consequences of this in terms of what we face globally to remove this material. i think it's very important to recognize that there are some unfriendly actors on the face of this earth and we want to remove material as best as possible, working with others around the world to, as the program indicates, to reduce global threats that might result from those who shouldn't have this material in the first place. i don't think that this is moving us in the right direction globally. i don't think it's necessary, and i thank the gentleman for bringing it to the attention of the body, but i think that
nonproliferation in general is $600 million for last year's activities when you compare it to two past accounts. i think that this is not in the best interest of the country and not in the best interest of national security. i oppose the gentleman's amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nevada, those in those in favor say aye. say aye. those opposed, no. mr. heck: request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment of the the gentleman from nevada will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $13,072,000. page 60 line 12 after the dollar 13ount ininsert increased by $
,072,000. mr. polis: i'm offering to reduce back down to what the agency requested. e w-76 is a 1970's era submarine-launched ballistic missile and first introduced in the stockpile by the navy in 1978. this bill actually increases funding by 13 -- $13 million to increase funding levels above those required by the new start treaty. if the new start treaty levels are in effect, it requires us to have 1,550 nuclear weapons, plenty to deter a nuclear threat and obliterate any enemy and end life on earth as we know it. and even if we were to reduce our stockpile to 1,000 nuclear weapons, the arms control
association stated that it would save over $39 billion. now this amendment doesn't even come close to going that far but that puts this in perspective. if we reduced our nuclear weapons from 1,550 to 1,000 to obliterate any enemy and end life, it would save $39 billion. this amendment simply reduces $13 million back to what the agency requested and doesn't detract from nuclear preparedness at all. these missiles are a continuing realic of cold-war policies that spends billions of taxpayer dollars and great opportunity for congress to save taxpayer money while maintaining our national security. the current bill actually spends millions more than than the military needs and passage of my amendment will encouraged lean
military policy. a total of $1.8 billion is expected to be spent on w-76 by 2016. that is a lot of money to support a very dated set of preparedness and my amendment makes a small dent in that by reducing the funding back to what the agency itself has requested. when we have these kinds of opportunities to maintain our national security and create savings for our country and reduce our budget deficit, we need to take it. hans christensen of the american federation of scientists has argued while the w-76 is important for national security we could quote probably reduce the refurbishment reduction by alf and maintain enough w-76 warheads on submarines for retall tower capability. and this returns funding to the levels that the agency itself
has asked for and reduces funding by $13 million. the g.a.o. has been critical of the cost, schedule and risks involved with the w-76 program. it is an area that is ripe for a minor cut like this that will help reduce our budget deficit. my amendment would create $13 million in savings for taxpayers while maintaining our national security. i strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. the primary goals of the extension program extends the life of the original warheads from 20 to 60 years and addresses the aging issues and refurnish bishes the system in a managed fashion. however, all these goals are accomplished under the funding levels that have been requested by the agency and yet here in congress, we are second guessing the agency's own funding
requirements and saying take a few million more, few million more while we cut arpa e and science programs and short cut our own nation's renewable energy future and here's 13 million more than an agency is even requesting to maintain nuclear deterrence at the level of 1,550 and maintaining these w-76 warheads from the 1970's deployed by submarines that we don't even need the $13 million to accomplish. this is some commonsense savings and i encourage my colleagues to support this smart cut and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from colorado yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. the w-76 life extension program is a critical ongoing program to
extend the life of that warhead. this warhead supports the mission of our navy's ballistic missile submarines, the most survival leg of our nuclear deterrent. our nuclear deterrent posture relies heavily on this mission, but the president's budget request proposed to cut production of the w-76 by nearly 20%. i'm very concerned that these reductions to the w-76 were proposed without fully explaining the force structure implications or the impacts to national security. therefore, this bill restores full funding for the w-76 to levels previously provided to the mmittee last year in nnsa's last acquisition report. even the department of energy's inspector general provided a eport that stated that the
national nuclear security administration's plans to reduce costs of the ongoing w-76 program would not be achieved. that a.i.g. concluded that nnsa would need additional funds above the request to stay on track with their production requirements. this bill resolves those funding problems by increasing $13 million above the request. i strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from cole will be postponed. the clerk: page 29, line 22, defense nuclear nonproliferation
-- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from text the as rice? mr. burgess: i have an an amendment at the desk. the chair: could you specify the amendment. mr. burgess: 037. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. burgess of texas, page 30, line 6, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $48 million dollars. page 60, line 12, increase by $48 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. burgess: mr. chairman, time that the federal government is having to make tough painful choices on how to prioritize taxpayer dollars, this congress has yet to learn the lessons of the past as where we waste the most money. in fact, yet again this year, as in so many years past, the bill before us insists on throwing good money after bad and time to put an end to that wasteful
habit. this would strike $48 million which is an earmark for a bailout to a failing uranium enrichment company. this $48 million would be put towards deficit reduction. look, opponents of the amendment are go to go claim this money is necessary for national security, but in fact that could not be further from the truth. in fact the question of the whether or not the united states enrichment corporation is truly vital is being reviewed by the general accountability office which is expected to release a report on both the national security question as well as the economics of sending further taxpayer dollars to the united states enrichment corporation. because the report is pending, t is in the best interest of hard-earned taxpayer dollars we suspend aid until we have more information as to what the company is doing with the money
it is receiving. the united states enrichment corporation is so poorly run, last may the new york stock exchange threatened to delist them due to its financial health. articles over the years have documented its financial woes and the near monthly collapse of its stock prices. during the june share holders' meeting, 80% of the share holders voted to approve a reverse stock split due to its rock-bottom share prices. it's shocking to most observers that the company has avoided bankruptcy thus far and only done so because of the continued bailout by congress year after year in the energy and water appropriations bill. as if its financial troubles were not enough, just last month, the company filed a federal lawsuit against the united states for more than $38 million. this house is contemplating giving $48 to them.
they have a lawsuit for $38 million. two decades ago, this congress created by charter the united states enrichment corporation believing that they could better facilities chment than the government itself but by now it should be obvious to the casual observer that congress was wrong. since its inception, it has squandered billions of dollars, running its operations to near insolvency. yearly they come to the congress and executive branch hat in hand begging for millions of dollars in bailouts to continue operations that are technologically out of date. it is time that the federal government stop the endless bailouts to a failing enterprise. it has been a bad faith actor negotiator in the mining industries to get raw materials
to enrich these facilities. what motivation do they have to negotiate in good faith when it knows it doesn't get everything they want from the miners, they can go to the department of energy, receive a handout either in the form of a direct cash payment or in the form of spent uranium tails. the department of energy has had an understanding not to dump 10% in handouts to them at any given time yet it is becoming increasingly clear that the department of energy is willing to ignore that agreement and provide any bailout that they request or desires. this betrayal threatens thousands of jobs. states like texas, nevada, new mexico, illinois and wyoming, to name a few. arguments that they are the only facility that can supply materials to the department of defense ignores the washington treaty and u.s.-indian nuclear
agreement. the department of energy has in its possession enough highly uranium to last for 15 years, costing hundreds of millions of dollars less than the continued bailouts that they are relving from the country. t is time the u.s. stopped propping up one company at the expense of an entire industry. let's give the hard-working taxpayer a break. it's time we did the right thing. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: this is the inal year mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the capability for enriching
uranium is needed to ensure adequate supplies of enriched uranium for our defense needs. it is needed to provide for the nuclear weapons stog pile and will eventually be needed for the nuclear on board our submarines. even though we've found a way to provide for the next few year, there's no plan on how to fill our defense requirement that was limited amount of fuel has been expended. in every future scenario, we'll ultimately need a make an investment to ensure that unencumbered and enriched uranium is available. there's no reason to cut off funding for a project that's showing progress. the total cost of the project was estimated to cost $300 million but the project is proceeding extremely well, remapes on budget and is on schedule for completion this september. -- this december. because of these and other
expected cost savings from uranium transfers the overall cost to the taxpayer has been reduced and could be reduced further. the bill provides the department with special reprogramming authority to fund the final $48 million installment instead of direct funding providing the department with flexibility on how to fulfill its portion and the cost sharing agreement could reduce the overall cost of the program if the same progress continues in the full fund -- and the full funding amount is not ultimately needed. s that a responsibility approach that meets our defense needs while potentially saving taxpayers' dollars. i urge my colleagues to vote no. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman rise? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognize.
ms. kaptur: first of all, the american centrifuge project is the only source of domestic enriched uranium. the only source. i think that's important for us to understand, america's fighting for its manufacturing future on many fronts, including this one. and one needs enriched uranium in order to make tri dimbings um. tridium is essential for the nuclear weapons complex and enriched uranium is necessary for commercial operations. so this single facility is really important because our country is running out of what we would call u.s. flag material, a material that can be used for these distinct purposes. as chairman frelinghuysen has said, this program is currently on schedule and within budget. that is in stark contrast to some of the other programs we have been trying to get control of in our subcommittee and while foreign-owned facilities exist
and there are some in this chamber who represent those facilities there is a true need for a domestic supplier. the program in question was proposed by the department of energy to meet crucial national security and nonproliferation needs and d.o.e. has certified completion of two of the five program technical milestones. there are remaining three and they are, as -- and they, as the chairman said, are scheduled for completion in december and are completely on track. this is an important program. i would say a essential program, to our country and i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i yield back my remaining time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> today i rise in strong
opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend from texas. first and foremost my opposition to this amendment is about national security. since the 1940's, the united states has had a u.s.-owned and operated uranium enrichment in place that allows them to control the stockpile and make sure we do not rely solely on foreign-owned companies for our uranium needs. mr. johnson: this would put the streck of nearly 70 years in jeopardy if it were to pass and leave the u.s. without any domestic producer of enriched uranium. some will say we can rely on a foreign-owned company in new mexico to supply our uranium needs. first the national nuclear security administration and the department of state have made it clear that we will never be able to rely on a foreign-owned company for our nuclear weapon
triggers to fuel our nuclear military fleet or for any other national security purpose, period. end of story. even if we could rely on a foreign-owned company for these purposes, i have serious concerns about this company. this company in question is the former employer of a.q. chan, the man responsible for -- ample q. khan, the man responsible for giving away secrets to iran and pakistan. the company didn't have controls in place to safeguard their secrets. as we now know, pandora's box was opened buzz of khan and the lack of oversight in this company. can we contemplate making them our only source of of
uranium. if this passes wit will cost the united states billions more in the long run. we have a public secor company will s invested and invest. if they go belly up we have to start over from scratch and spend hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to start enrichment um program. we can spend millions now or be here a year from now appropriating billions of dollars more. i'll take $40 million now over billions of dollars tomorrow any day. in addition, the taxpayers is protected from failure of this research program. the department of energy is both the owner of the intellectual property of the centrifuge machines and even of the
machines themselves. d.o.e. will be able to recoup y taxpayer money that goes into it. if this project is stopped, billions spend getting it up to scale rather than billions coming from the private sector. this project utilizes over 160 american supplier companies in at least 28 states. all of that would go away if this amendment were to pass. i'dles like to remind my colleagues that a similar amendment was offered last year on the energy and water appropriations bill with my friend from texas and the new senator from massachusetts, ed markey. and it was easily defeated because of all the very same
reasons. nothing is changed in the last year. and i urge all of my colleagues to again defeat this amendment and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise with the gentleman to oppose this amendment. this amendment would seriously undermine national security. specifically, this amendment would strike a provision providing the department of energy with the authority to use existing funds for domestic uranium enrichment technology development. let me emphasize there's no direct funding in the bill for the project. it provides the authority to transfer existing funds from other department of energy programs. mr. turner: in the last congress, as was previously spoken, the congress beat two amendments that were offered that were similar, both with strong opposition to these amendments.
according to the national nuclear security administration in the near future the united states will need a fully domestic source of unrestricted enrichude rain yum based on domestically developed technology to support its programs. the united states is prohibited from seeking this material internationally. regard throfse agreement the united states must never rely on foreign companies for such a critical component of our nuclear deterrent. simply stated, we need u.s.-owned domestic spry of enriched uranium and the use of foreign-supplied material would violate these long stappeding policies and agreements. this has been defeated twice before. this is simple. it's been defeated because this is a critical component of our nuclear deterrent. do we want to depend on foreign or have a domestic source? now congress has twice said it would be crazy to jeopardize our nuclear deterrent and rely on foreign sources. congress should again for the third time defeat this amendment
because we need to rely on domestic in protecting the united states nuclear deterrence. i urge my colleagues to once again oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i move strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. the rd&d program located mt. american centrifuge plant in ohio stherk cornerstone for a domestic source of enriched uranium. the american centrifuge is necessary to support our national defense program needs including supporting tridium production requirements for the u.s. nuclear stockpile. usec has receive nod bailouts. it's inaccurate and misleading to use this term in connection with an important national energy security technology. i strongly believe the american
centrifuge is too important to our nation's national and energy security to abandon now. mr. wenstrup: it's vital that the united states maintain and provide for demest expumps. with the cle sure of the 1950's-era paducah plant, the american sentry funal is the only technology to meet the nation's future national security needs for enriched uranium. thankfully we don't have to rely on foreign sources. the rd&d program is within budget and on schedule for pletion by december 2013. this funding is not an ears can mark as it was included in the budget request and there's no direct funding for the project. it simply provides thrt to transfer other funds for the project. dr. burgess' amendment would shut down operations and essentially waisting -- wasting
the $200 million already spent. i urge you to support domestic uranium enrichment technology and oppose this amendment. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the sque on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes visit. the amendment -- the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman request a recorded vote? mr. burgess: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: designate the amendment. mr. burgess: amendment number 0 p 8. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. burgess of texas, page 30, line 6, strike the colon and all that follows through activities on line 11. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
mr. burgess: mr. chairman, this is a continuation of the revious amendment. i was advised by the parliamentarian it had to be split into two parts, so not to belabor the issue because of the late thovepbs hour, the first amendment will remove the fund this removes the language from the bill. the words provided that the secretary of energy may make available from funds provided not more than $48 million for the purposes of craring out domestic uranium enrichment research, development activities. it is necessary to remove that language as a separate amendment, it could not be included in a sippingle amendment. s that continuation of the discussion we just had recognizing the lateness of the hour, i yealed back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i move -- mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. following the doctor's lead, for the reasons i opposed his amendment last time, i oppose this one. i yield back.
the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment from the gentleman from texas will be postponeled. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california. after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $1 million, increase by $1 million. the chair: the gentleman is mr. garamendi: the committee has done a tremendous amount of work on the expenses in the nuclear arena. in the current language, report language, the committee deals with the problem that this mox
facility has. overbudget and isn't going anywhere and will produce a product that nobody wants. what i'm trying to do with this amendment is take this thing one step further to try to find a solution to this very expensive problem. if i might just quote the committee's report here. despite the influx of additional funding the nnsa has been unable to recover its schedule and now facing $2.8 billion in additional costs. instead of fulfilling its responsibilities to address these rising costs reforming its management of the project and conducting an assessment, the nnsa wrote t.b.d., which i suspect means to be determined and removed all project funding from its five-year plan while it carries out strategic costs. this program is in deep trouble
and a hole into which the u.s. taxpayers continue to pour money. i'm pleased that the committee is taking steps, but i would like the committee -- i would like the bill to take an additional step and that's what this amendment does. let me explain what this is all about. technically the bill takes $1 million from the defense nuclear nonproliferation and ensures the same amount in that account and is done in order to raise a point of order in order to avoid a point of order. the legislative intent of the amendment is therefore to remove the $1 million from the mox facility and then direct the nnsa and use these funds for, one, an independent report to analyze the potential cost effective alternatives for plutonium disposition, including a detailed assessment of technologically feasible costs
and b, a study examining whether there are other potential uses for the facilities already built and for the savannah river site more generally. while not legally binding, the agency should comply with this legislative intent if this amendment is adopted. the amendment is consistent with an amendment that i offered earlier in the ndaa and the language would be similar. i would urge the adoption of this. we really need to try to figure out the best way to deal with this sink hole of taxpayer money. with that, i will yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in .pposition to the amendment the national nuclear security
administration has stated it is conducting other alternatives to the mox plant in what are very large cost increases but hasn't provided any new information what alternatives are available which have not been exhaustively considered. while there are concerns about the project's management and cost growth, the united states must fulfill its end of the plutonium disposition agreement and more delays will only raise costs. it's time for the department of energy to fix these issues and get back on track with meeting its commitments. there is no value in prolonging this study into fiscal year 2014. i urge members to oppose and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. let me just say before yielding some time to the gentleman from
california, i normally agree with him on many issues. on this particular one, we will part company, but i certainly appreciate his commitment and in the report, we state that we provide no additional funding to continuing studying the alternatives to the mox plant d the nnsa has not described any alternatives which are likely to resolve in any substantial cost savings particularly with no nermpent nuclear waste repository available after the department's determination to terminate yucca mountain. we have made enormous investments in it and thousands of jobs are at stake and i yield the remaining time to the gentleman and i'm very sorry that we have to part company but i have the highest respect for you and your work.
mr. garamendi: i appreciate the respect. my amendment doesn't do anything that you are not already trying to do. it gives more specific direction to the department. pecifically, to seek outside analysis of the alternatives that might be available. clearly the department has not been successful in running this project and they are not in the process of seeking outside help. they are going to try and do it inside. i think that would be a mistake. there are companies and there are researchers outside that can provide that outside view of what's going on. secondly, there are other ways of dealing with this problem. this is an -- a process that is being used there and isn't working. there are other ways of disposing of the plutonium and highly enriched uranium that are
proven to work. i discussed this earlier this day and we need to study whether that can be used at this facility. we aren't talking about jobs but making this facility work possibly using different technology. but we need to have someone from outside take a look at this whole thing. both you and the ranking member and the chair have adequately explained why my language should be adopted. i yield back. and i thank you for your time and i thank you for the committee looking at this thing in a very hard structured way, that has to be dealt with. ms. kaptur: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. , thee opinion of the chair noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
the gentleman from california. clerk will read. the clerk: page 30, line 12, -- reactors $1,9,000 the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i ask that the remainder of the bill through page 46, line 15, be considered as read printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: without objection, so ordered. are there any amendments to that section of the bill? mr. frelinghuysen: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. we haven't reached that point in the reading. the clerk: page 46, line 16, secretary of energy shall submit a report -- the chair: the gentleman from
new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: page 46 beginning on-line 16. mr. frelinghuysen: i ask unanimous consent that it be considered as read. this is a noncontroversial amendment worked out jointly with the minority and authorizing committees that would amend the existing section 311 to require only the report on analysis or alternatives for major weapons programs to be submitted to both the authorizers and appropriators. this is a change requested by the authorizers and i'm happy to be able to include it. i ask that this amendment be supported and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: we have no objection. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read.
the clerk: title 4, independent agencies, ap latchian regional commission. defense nuclear facility safety board, salaries and expenses, $ 29 million to remain available until september 30, 2015. delta regional authority, salaries and expenses, $11 million. denali commission, northern order regional commission, $1,355,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i ask the remainder of the bill through page 59, line 9 be considered as read, printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: without objection, so ordered. ny amendments to this section? for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada rise?
ms. titus: tight i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: we have not reached that point in the reading. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 59 line 10, section 509, nonof the funds may be used to conduct closure for adjudicatory function or support activities associated with the yucca mountain geologic -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada rise? ms. titus: i have an at the amendment at the desk. the clerk: page 59 strike section -- the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. titus: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise tonight to ask my colleagues to join me in protecting the fiduciary interest of the american taxpayer and preserving the interests of my constituents and all of those who live along the
proposed mountain of yucca mountain waste. remove ment would language that injects politics into a debate surrounding the nuclear waste disposal. this amendment would strike the language including in the bill that tries to restart the failed yucca mountain project by prohibiting the d.o.e. from moving forward with plans to close yucca mountain and develop proposals for its alternative use. when the department of energy made the correct decision to put an end to the misguided project, they did so after decades of debate with nothing to show for it except for $15 billion wasted and big hole in the ground. according to the government accountability office, had the project been completed, it would have cost more than $80 billion. those figures don't take into account the cost of transporting
75,000 metric tons of nuclear waste thousands of miles across the country through nearly every state in the union. this waste wouldn't just magicically appear in nevada. it would travel through many of your congressional districts, through back yards all across the country, near schools, homes, parks and businesses. nor does this enormous cost figure account for the significant security expenditures required to protect the contents of yucca mountain from those seeking to cause our nation harm. if a nun with a pair of bolt cutters was able to break into one of the most secure nuclear facilities in the world, how can we expect to protect all of the nation's waste in just one location? and let's not forget that yucca mountain is less than 100 miles from one of the nation's largest cities that hosts 40 million visitors a year. in 2012, the department of
energy blue ribbon commission led by former congressman and 9/11 vice chairman lee hamilton and former national security adviser lieutenant general brent scowcroft stated in the final report the need for a new strategy is urgent. the key concept here is new. but instead this bill tries to turn back the clock, back to an old flawed strategy. it's groundhog day here in the united states congress. congress hamilton stated nuclear waste storage at yucca mountain is not an option. general scowcroft said the commission should look forward not back. that message didn't make its way up the steps of the capitol and some members of congress haven't gotten the message that yucca is dead. we cannot continue to throw good
money after bad ideas and go down the same failed path that congress put us on when applicants targeted the people of nevada in the development of the yucca mountain project decades ago. although i don't agree with everything that's included in the bill, i applaud the bipartisan group of senators who have introduced legislation to enact recommendations of the commission and have an actual debate that doesn't target communities like nevada. so i urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment. it's time to have a serious debate over the safe disposal of the nation's nuclear waste and develop an alternative plan that doesn't throw away billions of taxpayer dollars, endanger citizens' safety or threaten economic development projects in southern nevada. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: move to strike the last word and i oppose the gentleman's amendment.
the house has repeatedly had overwhelming votes in support of continuing the yucca mountain repository. the language that this amendment would strike, we have been carrying for years as a way to keep the will of the house alive and the american people support what we're doing. i urge a no vote on this mendment and yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from nevada. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. titus: i request a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on this amendment are postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: a report compiled in conjunction with the government accountability office. section 511, it is the sense of the congress that congress
should not pass any spending cuts that would increase poverty. spend regular ducks account section 512. the amount by which the applicable allocation of new budget authority made by the mmittee on appropriations is zero dollars. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise. mr. frelinghuysen: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under a consideration h.r. 2609 directs me to report it has come to no
resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2609 and has come to no esolution thereon. the chair lays before the house a personal request from the speaker. the clerk: leaves of abseps requested for mr. horseford of nevada for today and mrs. kirkpatrick of arizona for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the request is granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i move that
it is less than what barack obama has requested. it is taking money out of clean energy funding and highlighting the difference between democrats and the president on that issue. it covers the army corps of engineers, the energy department, their loan guarantees. it also covers the nuclear regulatory commission, which the big take away in this bill, the amount of money given to that agency that underscores the
difference between the president and house republicans on what to do with the nations nuclear fuel. >> you mentioned the president a few times. to veto it if it gets to his desk. that is an unlikely house ability at this point because of the divergence between this bill and what the senate is working on as well. it is more aligned with the president's proposal. i do not see how the two are going to meet. what can you tell us about the amendment process on the house bill? process.a freewheeling it is an appropriations bill. the republicans have certainly come out in favor of fossil fuel energy.
, they want, coal more funding for that type of research. and less for clean energy. look for amendments to that effect. bill,is an open amendment right? what does that mean? >> anything that is germane to energy or water issues can be filed as an amendment to this bill. we will have to see what those might be. >> you mentioned the levels from past years compared to this bill. what is the difference? >> the spending level is about $2.8 billion less than what was enact did last year. about 4.1 billion less than what the president has proposed in this year's budget. the differences come down to toan energy and overall cuts
get under sequestration levels. the house has increased the spending in the defense bill. they are looking for cuts and other energy -- in other areas. they have cut about $900 million from clean energy programs. that is something democrats don't like. ifwill be a sticking point these appropriations bills are to be adopted. >> what can we expect to see on the house floor or debate? >> the issue of clean funding will be -- clean energy funding will be the hot topic. restrictions the house bill calls for on the ability to issue loan guarantees. that could also come up, that is a response to the solyndra scandal of 2011 whereby doe was
asking for money from investors to keep the company afloat. if you invest, we will make sure before repaid first taxpayers. the house bill would make sure that cannot happen. it would be an issue of contention, but overall, clean energy funding, there is a big difference between the cracks and republicans. democrats-- between and republicans. another one will be yucca mountain. more so between republicans and the president. republicans have given $25 million to the nuclear regulatory commission to complete reviews of using the nevada site. president obama wants to keep that off-limits. he wants to start with a different sort of plan. appreciate your time.
>> thank you for having me. >> the special inspector general for iraq reconstruction outlines his final report to members of congress. the confirmation hearing for comey to be the new fbi director. a couple of live events to tell you about. the house ways and means subcommittee on health holds a hearing on the obama administration's recent decision to delay penalties for the employer mandate portion and the healthcare law. last week, the treasury department announced the reporting requirements and tax in 2015s would apply instead of 2014. the senate agriculture committee
. the committee will examine how the government reviews foreign acquisitions of u.s. companies. >> he testified before a house foreign affairs subcommittee for a little bit more than 1.5 hours. >> the subcommittee will come to order. after recognizing myself and the for five minutes each for opening statements, i will recognize members seeking recognition for one minute. we will then fear -- we will then hear from our witnesses.
your written statements will be made as part of the record and members may have five days to insert statements and questions for the record subject to the implementation in the rules. our parties are having their conferences right now and they are getting out. i am sure people will be filtering in. the chair recognizes herself for five minutes. the stabilization and reconstruction operations in iraq were the largest such project of its kind. and therewidespread
was an unnecessary amount of wasted taxpayer dollars, u.s. taxpayer dollars. it became clear that our gave way to the realities on the ground. our mission would quickly have to shift from a short-term operation to a long-term protracted rebuilding effort that would require large amounts of human and financial capital that we had neither the planning nor the capability to conduct. the special inspector general and has excellent teams spent nine years, countless hours, analyzing our efforts in iraq to identify the challenges that we faced, what we did wrong, where we succeeded, and what happened to the $60 billion in taxpayer fund thed to
rebuilding of iraq. what was concluded painting a very -- painted a grim picture of our ability to oversee large- scale stability and reconstruction operations. wasted as $3 billion reconstruction fund alone due to poor accountability and as much as a mill -- $8 billion overall. many projects in iraq ran over budget and behind schedule because of a lack of oversight and lack of accountability. according to the inspector general general's report, this hospital was supposed to cost $50 million, but ran over to over $165 million and fell more than a year behind schedule. another mismanaged project was the wastewater treatment system. the initial $30 million project
tripled in cost to nearly $100 million and only reached one third of the homes originally planned. these are a few examples, the game you -- they may prove valuable for the need of improved oversight. the lessons learnt and the recommendations put forth in the , serves as an important tool for the united states government and for us in congress as we find ourselves facing a shift in the post- in afghanistan. our efforts have already replaced those of iraq as its nations largest ever stabilization and reconstruction operation. among the many challenges we face in iraq, we are a
deteriorating security sister weight -- situation and inadequate oversight over the projects and programs. the deficiencies we encountered, nearly all of them lead back to the fact that we did not have a hand.r plan in place before nearly $100t billion in afghanistan under settlers circumstances, yet we still find ourselves making the same mistakes that we cannot afford to make. in haiti, a recent gao report i commissioned illustrated the lack of corded nation and
inadequate use of funds between the usaid and the state department. in syria, we must prepare for the possibility that similar efforts may be needed in a post- era. in order to ensure that we maintain the know how to properly plan, execute, and oversee any future similar operations, we must learn from the lessons of iraq. we must centralize unity of command, advocate for better interagency coordination, and use our funds wiser, more efficiently, and more effectively. i will turn to my ranking member for his opening statement. thank you for calling today's important hearing. it has been over 10 years since the united states went into iraq under false pretenses. 4500 soldiers were killed.
i think there is an unfortunate perception with so much upheaval , iraq is no longer a priority. trillion, we$2 will feel the lasting effects of this war for many years. the u.s. has spent $60 billion on reconstruction efforts. this to ensure lasting security, not just for the iraqi people, but for stability in the region and to create a reliable partner. even though our military operations have concluded, there are still thousands of u.s. civilian or so now on the ground hasing to ensure that iraq the institutions necessary to sustain a successful and stable state. the united states and iraq are working to implement the
strategic framework agreement. to be on mores than just security. it must be on economic reforms, infrastructure, the imf projects gdp growth rate of 10% for 2013. though production is over 3 million barrels per day. -- oil production is over 3 million barrels per day. for the first time in two years, there is dialogue between all of iraq's political leaders. the run-up to the election was marred by increased violence, the elections were deemed a success. sectarian violence has only increased between april and june. -- a peacefulst transfer of power will be the true test of any democracy. in any operation of this scale,
with this much money, we owe it to the american people to conduct stringent oversight. the office of the special inspector general has audited and investigated the state and reconstruction operations on the ground in iraq. iraq reconstruction efforts have been plagued by waste, fraud, and abuse. the amount wasted totals well into the billions. i am most interested to hear from the inspector general as to how waste and fraud can be better controlled. how waste and fraud can be prevented in future stabilization and reconstruction operations. how do we learn from this?
how do we maintain oversight, it evaluates progress, when you have over 170,000 private contractors on the ground? -- most cnn report importantly, i look forward to hearing how we can better achieve host country bbuy-in. how can we achieve this connection not through bribery at every level of government, but with the people who will be working in the water treatment plant or for the mother who has a chance to send her child to university? the title of this hearing is fitting.
the strategic planning for any future efforts would mitigate the pitfall of iraq. focusing on afghanistan going ,orward, saving taxpayers money stopping fraud, stopping waste, these are incredibly important topics that i look forward to hearing our witnesses speak about today. i appreciate your being here. >> thank you very much. we will then recognize members for one minute opening statement. we will begin with mr. kissinger. >> thank you for serving the nation. i only have one minute, i want to quickly say, i am a veteran of the iraq war and i have been
there multiple times. during that process, i saw a great improvement. it was amazing to me -- as a member of congress, i was utterly shocked to find out the administration decided they would leave no residual troops. we are talking about the lessons we will learn in afghanistan. that is what is important. i just read an article, the u.s. talkings -- they are about a zero troops option after 24 team, which was the number that was -- 2014. . am very concerned the afghan people have fought so hard to achieve on the edge of an afghanistan victory.
>> thank you very much. mr. connolly is recognized. >> the finding that at least 15% of the reconstruction money was wasted, it is troubling enough. that is probably tip of the iceberg when you look at inappropriate projects, projects that have to work, projects that will not have lasting value. that number climbs rapidly. how can we be surprised that the find so much waste based on a war that has nothing but false premises and was -- when the decision was made, it was inadequate to begin with. the chaos that resulted has cost us dearly.
i hope we focus on the lessons learned. >> thank you, mr. connolly. >> i would like to thank the chair in the ranking members for this hearing. it gives us the opportunity to learn lessons from our past endeavors in the middle east region and not make the same ones again. results --ifferent by having hearings like this, we can inject a little sanity to our foreign endeavors. i look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. >> i want to thank the witnesses for being here. there has been considerable national debate about our engagement in the war in iraq,
but there should be no question that we haven't warned responsibility -- that we have an important responsibility that we are good stewards. this report raises some alarming concerns. it ought not be a surprise based on the false premises that led us to this conflict. i am anxious to hear from the witnesses and to hear your recommendations as to how we might perform this process to safeguard american lives and safeguard american treasure. >> i look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today. lookingking forward -- forward with a look to the past is appropriate. as we lookof -- forward in what happened as
someone who has been in iraq tom , let's do what we are here to do. real lives were lost. we need to focus on what we can learn and move ahead. >> thank you very much. mr. kennedy is working nights. -- recognized. >> thank you to our witnesses. i will add my voice to the voices. reviewing the report, i join my colleagues in being troubled with some of the markups in the contracting that you pointed out. page, a 12,000% markup.
what can we do? sure ourwe do to make treasure is spent wisely and we are matching the commitment that our service members are making a broad? >> thank you, mr. kennedy. you for being here to testify. looking back, it is disturbing to know we have so much waste, fraud, and abuse, and we do not know the full extent of what happened to their. ened there.d a hospital that cost three times what it should have, $70 million
spent on anticorruption efforts that did not show any result. $70 million. the money is gone, but what i am hopeful to hear is what we can do in terms of lessons learned. i appreciate your work. hear thegued to efforts in terms of creating the u.s. office of contingency operations and the implementation there of. i look forward to working with you to find ways we can reduce waste and fraud. >> ms. frankel of florida. >> i'm the mother of an iraq veteran who served willingly. he returned safely.
it is unfortunate that we even have to have this hearing today. i understand the reason for it. >> thank you very much. thank you, madam chair, for having this hearing. i was a veteran of iraq. i served in baghdad. one of the hallmarks of the army is that you always engage in self critique. the failures that you need to improve in the future so that you can always gain in your levels of performance. i look forward to hearing more about what we can learn from iraq and how we can apply those lessons to afghanistan and we cannot ply them in the future
will me find ourselves in conflict again in defending our country. ahope we do not devolve into backward 10 years or more into what took us to war in iraq, what americans can do in the future. thank you very much. i appreciate the opportunity to speak on the hearing. i want to thank the witnesses for being here. the numbers are staggering. . i am very anxious to hear your testimony. and to find out if we really are in a better position today than we were 10 years ago. thank you very much for being here. thank you for holding this
hearing. i want to thank the witnesses for coming. this is very important, a lot of good things we did in iraq. i saw of a lot of positive actions, a lot of bravery from our troops. we did extend a lot of blood and treasure their and there were some good things and some not so good things. i look forward to learning from your report and your testimony. thank you to our witnesses for your service to our country and for being here today. special inspector general for iraq reconstruction report provides valuable insights into the reconstruction process in iraq. this is an important opportunity to reevaluate our previous rebuilding efforts.
of the countries in conflict around the world, it is critical that we learn from our past mistakes and failures before involving ourselves in any other reconstruction efforts. i look forward to exploring how we can use the information contained in this report to develop more effective responses and produce better results. thank you for allowing me to speak. good seeing you again after all of these years. we live in a hurricane zone. we would never vote for a hurricane. when it happens, we want to be prepared. we want to anticipate the worst. have -- it is critical that we address how we can do a better. i am excited that you are addressing these issues and i
complement for you doing this under the fire of military while you are trying to audit them at the same time. forward to seeing how we can save the dollar. this is an issue that we need to adjust, saving money for the taxpayers. i think i speak for all of the members when i say how blessed we are to have in our four veterans of the iraq war. they have a deep personal knowledge and what went on there. thank you for your brave service. ms. frankel, for your son. thank you very much to all of these brave heroes.
we are so pleased to welcome back to our committee the inspector general for iraq reconstruction. he has served in this position since 2004. overseeing more than $63 billion in u.s. funds. over the past nine years, he has made 34 trips to iraq and his oversight work has produced the u.s. benefits to government in excess of one $.8 billion and has yielded 87 convictions for fraud and other crimes. .e is a military veteran thank you for your service and welcome back to our subcommittee. the week will welcome director of the center for operations at the national defense university. prior to this, the ambassador was the ambassador to the
2010.e and retired in he also served as the state department's coordinator for reconstruction stabilization overseeing the creation of the civilian response corps. 1000 civil servants trained and ready to deploy quickly. he is a two-time recipient of the presidential distinguished service award and has received the state department distinguished honor award. mr. bolin is here with his daughter -- bowen with his daughter. the ambassador is here with two interns. we welcome them here as well. he has a oneg if minute opening statement. >> in the interest of time, i will forgo that.
lux thank you so much. we will begin with the honorable stuart bowen. it is indeed an honor to appear before you again. iraq.cuss learning from which isonal note, gracias -- muchas gracias. it is an honor for me to be at , whoable with my friend has truly the most applicable firsthand knowledge about the attempts to dress the challenges that arose in iraq, and the story of how those attempts did not meet the mark. thank you for joining us. we issued the report this march.
of my understanding of this mission from the start. ,ot just to generate audits inspection reports, and obtain convictions. but to learn from what we were observing and to communicate it to operators. so that it could be applied to improve how u.s. taxpayer dollars are being spent. my mission was as the taxpayers watchdog and and his advisor -- and as an advisor. this report revived seven chapters that lay out that 60 billion was spent over the last 10 years. it concludes with seven lessons that are the focus of today's hearing. that is what we should absorb
from the entire rock experience. how it can be applied to reforming our system for stabilization and reconstruction operations. when we next encounter such an operation, and we will, we are structured to succeed and we are prepared to win. in answer to an issue raised , we are not much better off today than we were 10 years ago with regard to planning, executing, overseeing. begin rebuilding only after you have established adequate security. why is that a lesson? it is a lesson because we did not apply it effectively in iraq. to put it in very simple terms, begin modestly.
"small projects and do not pursue large ones until the setting is stable. ensure host country engagement. we did not consult enough with at the onset. i did 44 interviews with leadership. they all focused on this. we did not consult with them about what they really needed and we build what we wanted. we came to iraq and we tried to do it our own way. , consultation is key. establish uniform contracting,
personnel and information management systems. all missing in iraq. one of our first audits, which we issued exactly nine years ago found that the coalition provisional authority could not account for who was there. they did not have the staffing system that was apropos. that is the wrong way to protect our national security interest. improvisation is the wrong approach. is the firstnning and foremost element. you have to take the right people to the situation to succeed. our audits repeatedly found that there was no coherent information management system in place to track what we built. we concluded only 70% of what we built was captured in any information management system.
unacceptable. congress has reponded to the contract and challenges that departments have but have the departments responded in an integrated and effective fashion? the answer still must be no. also unacceptable because if you want to talk about waste, a lot of waste occurred in poor contract in vehicle choice, poor quality assurance, or contract management, ineffective oversight on the ground and the implementation of contract. the most important lesson that these issues can be resolved by establishing an entity that would ensure civil military integration of planning, execution, and oversight for future stabilization reconstruction operations. hr-2606 introduced by mr. stockman and mr. welch would do that.
it provides a structure and addresses a contrasting problem addresses the personal problem and put somebody in charge. no one is in charge and then someone should be in charge. accountability is key to success. that is the purpose of this hearing, oversight, to impose accountability and looking forward as the members have reticulated which we must do as we learn from iraq, we have to implement reforms that will affect kuwait -- a effectuate future stabilization reconstruction operations. the u.s. office for contingency operations would ensure such success. thank you, madam chairman and members of the committee. i look forward to your questions. >> excellent, thank you very much. ambassador, we would love to hear from you as well. just push that green button. >> madam chairman and members -- >> a little bit closer. >> thank you for inviting me to appear today and it is a pleasure to appear beside stuart bowen.
i am here to offer support for his suggestion to create the u.s. office of contingency operations. this discussion comes at an inopportune but necessary moment. the country's continuous loss since 2001, our military has been stretched in afghanistan to the breaking point and the resources for repair and rejuvenation had been there. with our planned withdrawal from afghanistan next year, the u.s. seems to be entering a new era of u.s. security challenges chased by the double cost in afghanistan. the american public's preference is to avoid this in the future. this clear preference to avoid large scale interventions has reinforced by the nation's budgetary woes. this has put serious pressure on
the federal budget and the pentagon. there's not much support at this time for the u.s. to invest its reduced budget resources to ensure that we conduct stability operations in an efficient way. this is a serious mistake because whether or not the country is entering a new post- afghanistan. policy, the international scene is characterized by state dissolution and instability. al qaeda called up in the taliban-led a failed state of afghanistan launched the september 11 attacks. today, this extremist group is recruiting terrorists in minneapolis. various criminal groups are making common cause around the world to the detriment of law- abiding states and citizens. the fund for peace and national farm policy issued a 2013 failed state index last month. it listed 20 countries with somalia and the democratic republic of," leading the way as
in critical condition and 20 more in serious danger. this problem of uncovered spaces will be with us work for a generation or more in there will be contingencies when american interests and the american public demand that we act. for example, haiti has earned its ranking as eighth most unstable country in the world. lately, the interventions haven't driven by her desire to alleviate human misery and prevent a flood of haitian refugees washing up on our shores. these are objections that the american public can understand and support but i was in the state department during our last intervention in haiti following the january earthquake. i recall vividly senior officials saying we will do this intervention -- intervention right so there will be no need for future interventions. as the chairwoman pointed out, we did not do it right.
our engagement achieve little. there will be occasions in the future we have to engage haiti so it is good if we are prepared. there's one more reason to developed stabilization and reconstruction operations. the american public is fed up with intervention abroad, many in congress are not. we saw this in the run-up to the intervention in libya. president obama was initially reluctant to engage but under pressure from our allies and the u.k. and france and from congress, we decided to go in. the president put clear limits on our role. we only used airport power and put no soldiers on the ground but this intervention was in support of a principle, the responsibility to protect helpless citizens from their own leadership which would lead to our intervening again and again around the world. right now, we are witnessing pressure to get involved in syria. this pressure is despite our failure of intervention in libya, our failure that led to the destruction of democracy in mali and the humanitarian tragedy there.
pressure is growing for us to engage in syria despite the fact that the most effective members of the opposition are extremists. if we go into syria, we better be prepared. we're not prepared at this moment to properly run stabilization and reconstruction operations, the u.s. needs to complement our world-class military. one way to explain our less than successful stability operations in iraq and afghanistan is to point out the obvious. these operations were carried out by professionals on the military side but by amateurs on the civilian side. this is not to denigrate our state department. i was a career foreign service officer for 31 years and i can't attest to you that our foreign service officers are courageous and intelligence and cable and
the same is true with our usaid colleagues. they don't hire or train people for large stability operations. this was evident in a rock and afghanistan agreed we deployed hundreds and thousands of u.s. aid and state department officers but we eventually staffed with tens of thousands of contractors. these are people who served one tour and that left. their experience vanished with them. contrast that with the military personnel who served three or more tours in iraq and afghanistan. the problem on the civilian side has been noted for some time and let president clinton to issue directives 56 president bush to issue a national security directive 44. the purpose of the second directive was to create a rapid reaction of civilian response that could be used for conflict prevention and response. it was under the control of my old office of the state department.
scrs was beginning to build a civilian response corp., the obama administration came in. under the quadrennial the policy review undersecretary clinton, the department took the step of making my old office a girl and renaming it the conflict instability operations bureau. unfortunately for budgetary and other reasons, they decided to take apart the civilian response corporate this was once numbered over 1000 and has been reduced to a handful. in other words, if we had gone into a major stability operation today, we would have to staff the contingency operation with contractors. we are no further prepared to staff with professionals in the u.s. government than we were 10 years ago. that is the problem. experience has shown that we need a core of dedicated
civilian professionals in order to conduct the stabilization operations well. this is where usoco comes in. since the end of the war in afghanistan and as we draw down, the military is putting together smaller numbers for stability operations but that had the ability to ramp up. we do not have something equivalent on the civilian side. we have not had that since u.s. a id was taken apart after the vietnam war. usoco is the first jet to re- establishing this capacity. the initial cost of this proposal is insignificant, $25 million to put together a staff of one of 25 professionals that could organize the civilian side. it would provide the first stability operation of professionals wedded to respond to emergencies abroad. this would put our civilian side enacted in the same situation as our military which is ramp down the numbers but was able to ramp up in emergency brake has retained the know how to conduct
civil operations. we have pre of the world's greatest military but without a professional civilian counterpart, the military will not conduct stabilization operations successfully. this would help us avoid tomorrow. i apologize for going over my time. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. we will begin the questioning. i will recognize myself for five minutes. mr. bowen, we have spent nearly $100 billion in afghanistan already but we continue to make some of the same mistakes we have done in iraq. one of the lessons learned from your testimony that you pointed out is that we should begin rebuilding only after establishing sufficient security. given the fact that we have seen press reports this morning that the president is considering leaving no troops in afghanistan after our withdrawal in 2014, how will this security vacuum impact our reconstruction efforts in afghanistan based on
the lessons learned in iraq? >> i thank my interview with secretary pannetta on this point sheds some light on the decision making with regard to the withdrawal from iraq. secretary panetta said to me that the ability to negotiate a basis for continuing u.s. military presence in the post- 2011 strategic framework agreement, let the united states without import leverage in iraq. the u.s. will push for greater change within the government of iraq. that is a lesson, i would say, from the iraq experience and from secretary panetta's perspective. it is one that should be listened to carefully. as we look forward to afghanistan, that lesson to be kept in mind because the truth is, the last quarter in iraq has been the most devastating quarter since the summer of 2008.
a lot of causes for that like what is going on in syria but the rule of law certainly is not under control in iraq at this moment. >> speaking of syria, due to the ongoing bloody conflict, the infrastructure in syria will continue to increase and the u.s. might be asked to assist in the reconstruction of syria in the near future. looking beyond afghanistan, what would you suggest, year one of you, should are planned before a post-assadd syria in construction and how much cost would be involved? can you envision what those would be and what mistakes might be repeated their decks >> at a minimum, we should be actively planning for participating in a multilateral stabilization and reconstruction operation in a post-assad syria.
we should have been planning for a while and un, under the former syrian minister is doing that and he has publicly expressed some frustration at the lack of multilateral engagements. it is impossible to project the cost but we do know the devastation in syria is massive. the stabilization and rebuilding of the country will take time. what should be clearly on the table and would be if there was a usoco existence is identifying the contractors, the personnel, the it systems, the oversight and how money would be managed, the controls. to ensure that we avert fraud, waste, and abuse of the kind of stuck in iraq and afghanistan. >> mr. ambassador. >> i agree with stewart agreed we should be planning now and have been planning long ago for
possible engagement in syria after the assad regime falls. whether we do that depends on many things. for example, whether the government after assad friendly to us. we should be planning for that contingency now. i believe there has been some planning done by the office of conflict stabilization and operations at the state department for this but i don't know how comprehensive it has been. it needs to be done in conjunction with what is being done by you and. >> if i could interrupt -- you talk about the bureau of conflict and stabilization operation which was established in november of 2011. this pure was preceded by the organization that you lead, the office of court mission for reconstruction and stabilization. even though the bureau concentrates more on small crises, do you believe we should increase the capacity of the existing pierre within the state department or establish a new center which you propose called the u.s. office for contingency operations?
wouldn't there be more redundancy and duplicative efforts between those two entities? >> i think there is the possibility for duplication if usoco established. the core of a successful stabilization operation on the civilian side consists of planning, second late an integrated core of government professionals and what you have in cso now is an able planning capacity and a small competent staff. but there is no larger interagency core of professionals to do this work properly the conscious decision was made to reduce that court. conceivably, it could be done in that office or be done with stuart's proposal for usoc .
there does not seem to be an interest in the state department to do that and even when i was in charge of the scrs of us, there did not seem to be retinas on the rest of the building to use it. it was something of a foreign entity in the state department. >> thank you very much for good answers and mr. deutsch is recognized. >> thank you, madame chairwoman. mr. bowen, you say and you spoke today about facilitating greater host country but-in. i would like you to speak to what that did not happen in iraq and then you also recommended insuring security before rebuilding. while that is important, i wonder the extent to which we
can actually do that and whether there is concerned that it actually prolongs the conflict and that slows the reconstruction infrastructure that meets to happen. if you could speak to both of those and ambassador, as it relates to syria -- if that is the sort of thing that usoco would do and that's the view that would be taken here, how -- when is it ever relevant -- when is the security situation and who deems the security situation address well enough to be able to come into these other things? >> thank you. on the consultation point -- part of it was a shift from liberates and leave which was the pre-war plan to occupy and rebuild which became the policy just over 10 years ago now.
it was a significant shift from spending $2 billion-$20 billion in the blink of an eye and then $60 billion over 10 years. we were planning on leaving by the end of september of 2003. thus, there was no commitment to consultation with the plan to short stay. when we shifted to a significant infrastructure based rebuilding program, the plan evolved within and among the u.s. contractors that were identified and was developed by the coalition provisional authority. it did not a gauge -- engage with iraq he sent us. aqis and us.