tv [untitled] May 14, 2012 10:30pm-11:00pm EDT
so the statements of the people on the east coast don't need to worry. they can't get there is just really, an absolute overstatement. we're talking about -- the future. we are talking about a threat that is real. secretary gates himself articulated it to the american people. when the secretary of defense tells, the public, of -- of, the continental united states, that they're at risk, they're at risk. and it shouldn't be an issue that we debate here as if it is fiction. it's not fiction. secondly, again, i am going to underline -- you know, subquent subquent -- subsequent we will host s a classified briefing, all of you will be invited to attend. there are many misses that we hat -- missiles that we have that are under development. missiles are deployed. when you lump them together and say, missiles being tested, developed, you put them against a missile that works in the ground. i shot one off i am developing didn't work. i have one in the ground that
did work. so they're 50% reliable. they're not the same missile. we should not be combining all of that information together and confusing people. we have ground-based missiles that work. and we need to, proceed. now -- i again, am going to call on people to oppose the amendment. those who have significant amount of knowledge in this area believe that we need an east coast site to protect the united states. i believe we need an east coast site. and -- i would ask you to vote down the amendment. i yield back. >> gentleman yield back. any further discussion on this amendment? if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered. all of those in favor will say aye. no those owe popposed will say no. the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. roll call vote has been
requested. sufficient support for roll call vote is -- is indicated. roll call vote is ordered. we'll call this roll call vote at the end of the subcommittee mark. are there any other amendments? >> mr. chairman? i have an amendment at the desk. >> will the clerk pass out the amendment? >> 147 r-1, please. >> without, reading the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentle lady for the purposes of
offering and explaining her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this issue is again the ground based mid course defense system. this amendment would reduce the amount for the ground based mid course missile defense strategy by $357,828,000. it has a report of testing failures and those two back to back failures that we just discussed. the u.s. has deployed 26 ground based interceptors in alaska and four in california. and yet, when we have tested, there have been only eight hits, out of 17 tries, of this system since 1997. the last two interceptor flight tests in january 2010 and december 2010 failed. there has not been a successful ground based mid course defense
flight intercept test since december of 2008. in march, of 2012, the pentagon announced that it was delaying another intercept flight test until late 2012 so it could continue to evaluate the system and determine the cause of the recent test failures. general o'reilly has conducted a rigorous analysis and is proceeding deliberately. mda has identified the cause of the failure and is implementing fixes before the ground testing the summer and another flight test in december. more funding will not speed up, let me, reiterate that, more funding will not speed up the test investigations and preparations. in addition, the gao found, in
the most recent budget scrub, that -- there should actually be another $100 million that could be cut from gmd. the system has the yet to prove effective against operationally, realistic threats employing decoys and countermeasures. in his 2011 report, on u.s. missile defense systems, dr. gilmore stated to date gmd demonstrated a limited capability against a simple threat. referring to the decoys and the countermeasures. a 2011 defense science board report added that the ability to dependably discriminate re-entry vehicles from penetration aids and aothother objectsize send s to a missile defense system, discrimination in the xo atmosphere is still not a
completely solved problem. recent nas and ida studies concluded that improvement in discrimination and reliability of gbis are needed. a 1999 national intelligence estimate stated, we assess that countries developing ballistic missiles including north korea and iran would also develop various responses to the u.s. theater and national defenses by the time that they would flight test their missiles. despite spending billions of dollars on missile defense, it remains a troubled system. according to the missile defense of agency estimates. congress appropriated almost $150 billion on these programs between fiscal year 1985 and 2012. this doesn't include the 8.6 billion for the mda in the
fiscal year 2013 serp vis spendispend i -- service spending on the patriot system and tens of billions spent on anti-missile systems first began in the 1950s. basically my amendment would say -- why are you adding more money? general o'reilly says he doesn't need it. he need to get through these tests. and when he finishes, we'll talk about -- what we need to actually build. and i yield back my time. >> mr. chairman, you know, i hear that ditz cushion and tscu that we spent, is not always very productive. and i also sit in the education committee. and i was just asking the chairman how much we have spent on title 1 since it was first passed. it's over $100 billion.
and we're not going to stop, we're going to keep working because we haven't solved all the problems. i think we probably are not going to stop, missile defense, because we have not solved the problems. and until we have a -- totally -- system that is going to do all the job, we are going to have to keep working. because we need to be protected. >> mr. chairman, may i say something to you on that. >> i now recognize the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i guess i would just -- really, begin by reiterating the point that you just made. when one runs into difficulties in an almost any logistical system the answer is not to throw up your hand and give up. i know of no completely solved problem in the world almost. i never run into it -- but when it comes to our gmd system. mr. chairman, it is important to note that this is our only --
tested and proven system to defend the homeland of the united states against incoming, intercontinental, blis allistic nuclear missiles. to me that puts them in a fairly important category for all the consideration that we may have. there has been discussion about some of the recent test failures. it almost harkens back to some of the earlier debates about missile defense in the first place. there was a time when people said, this is star wars. this is an utterly, unworkable, unreachable system. that's like hitting a bullet with a bullet. so many times i remember that debate two decades ago, hitting a bullet with a bullet. how in possible. how ridiculous. yet, mr. chairman, as you know, today the closing speeds of our hit-to-kill technology is far beyond that. those closing speeds are far beyond two bullets ints
septembertion eaints -- intersep intercepting each other. we hit a bullet on the side of a bullet with great consistency. we live in a different world where there may come a time in the future where some jihadist mind set may gain access to be able to launch some type of nuclear missile against the united states. and weep shou should not strip ourselves of the only tested proven system we have to defend our homeland. every year, every year since this president has been in office, he has requested a reduction in our ground based mid course missile defense capability. in the appropriation process. and, mr. chairman, i, just sometimes wonder what the preferred alternative is. i heard from my colleagues on the other side that we have a better system that will more effectively defend the homeland. i would listen with baded
breath. but it seems like the only preferred alternative is to cut funding or reduce funding when weep face we face a different world than we ever faced. mr. chairman, i find that to be irresponsible given the committee and station in life that each of us is in in this room. with that i would hope my colleagues would defeat this amendment and that we would move forward with the markup. >> gentleman yields back. chairman now recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. it's been said by most everybody here that, everyone on this committee shares a common goal of protecting the united states from a missile attack and any other attack. and i think that's really true. i don't think there is any doubt that we all share that -- that mission. the question here, in this amendment, is how are we going
to spend our money. will we spend it wisely that would allow the necessary research and development of a system that presently doesn't work really well and doesn't have capability to achieve its stated goal. and instead of putting an extraordinary amount of money and appropriating it, or making it available for appropriation, this amendment simply says, come it back. spend the money that you need to spend in the coming your to achieve the -- the improvements that -- that are necessary and the men and women in charge of the system say must be made before it is deployable. and reduce the expenditure, but spend only what you need. that's what it does. not a debate whether we should proceed with this or not. we ought to spend this money
wisely. and no more than necessary. now, next year if they're able to solve the problems in the intervening year we'll come back and continue to make money available for continuation of the program. we're not talking about the -- the sm 3. we're pea talking about a different system here. we'll take up the sm 3 later. bus this one isn't working well. we ought not put any more money out there than necessary to continue the appropriate development of this system. and sach the necessary money. remaining money for those things that are necessary. now, those of us that are on this committee though that there are other technologies that are being developed which may be successful. we don't know. but we are putting money into those technologies also as the we should. we do need to protect ourselves. and probably the, and all probability the greatest threat is not an icbm, but rather, some other mechanism of delivering a
nuclear weapon to our coast and exploding that. and that is in another ditch rent worditch -- another ditfferent world. i ask you to put aside the rhetoric, look at the limitation on the amount of money that we will spend, allowing us to take the unnecessary expenditure and spend it on something that we do need. with that, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the chair now yield to the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to -- to focus the debate on this particular amendment. on the fact that this, unlike the last discussion we had that was broad on our missile defense system. this is a relatively narrow amendment, on our ground based -- system. and the ground based system that we have is the only system that
protects the intercontinental united states from icbms. the only one. portions have been tested and worked. and it, it absolutely -- is the system we rely on for existing threats and for the immediately emerging threats. to cut this system is to actually go to the heart, really, of, of our current capability. all the other systems, the aegis, xm-3, all the different misses people are referring to during these debates are either future missiles or missiles that do not have the capability of responding to an icbm threat. now, i don't know what the president meant when he said, with that open microphone, that i will have greater flexibility fee after this election to medvedev to be delivered on to putin about our system. we asked the president to describe the details of what the
future flexibility is. but he has not told us. but the one thing i can be pretty sure of, itch the russians were going to look what he was doing, they would really like this. and that is cutting the only system that we have that protects the intercontinental ballistic missile threat to the united states. i think when we talk about future capabilities and failures in testing, it's our reach, our trying to get greater technology, greater innovation, greater understanding of how to better -- protect the united states. now -- the, the ranking member said this does not, the system does not currently respond to. there is a bunch of lists of future threats it might respond to. not designed to do that. those are things we want to design in the future. what the money helps us to do. the risk is evolving. we need to evolve. and with that, i will be opposing my ranking member's amendment. and, thank you, mr. chairman. >> if there is no further debate on this. question is on the adoption of
the amendment offered by ms. sanchez from california. amendment number 4310. so many as are in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> 147r 1. mr. chairman. >> excuse me. 147 r-1. >> i'll ask for a recorded vote. >> amendment is not agreed to. a recorded vote has been requested. roll call vote has been ordered. we'll call this roll call vote at the end of the subcommittee mark. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment. without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with.
the chair now recognizes the gentle lady for the purpose of offering her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would reduce funding for nuclear weapons activities in nnsa by $369 million beyond the budget request. this funding increases unexecutable. at a house strategic forces subcommittee meeting, nnsa administrator stated it would be irresponsible of me to try to jump right back onto the 1251 curve. that would be like $100 billion increase in one year. we can't responsibly spend that kind of money. that from the administrator. the bipartisan and republican house passed budget control act
has imposed a new fiscal reality that is putting a more, enormous pressure on all government programs, including the pentagon and the nnsa. the section 1251 troreport whic committed funding for nuclear weapons and new delivery vehicles was crafted in the prebudget control act era and presequesteration prospect. even though these promises in exchange for new start were made nine months before the budget control act became law, fiscal year 13 target falls only 4% short of the $7.9 billion target. and the fiscal year '13 budget request increases the nuclear weapons budget by 5% over fiscal year '12 appropriations when most of the agencies in the federal government and most of the programs are taking cuts.
the fiscal year 2013 request of $7.58 billion for weapons activities is an increase of $363 million above last no small feat in a budget environment in which many other security and nonsecurity programs have suffered decreases. by way of additional comparison the fiscal year 2013 request is ar unprecedented increase of $1.2 billion over fiscal year 2010 enacted level. the cuts to the nnsa weapons activities began before the budget control act was negotiated. and it was spearheaded by the republican-led house, not by the administration. house budget committee chairman ryan and chairman rogers proposed to reduce fiscal year 2011 requests for weapons activities by over $300 million
in february of 2011. this cut was ultimately reversed in the 2011 spending bill. the final 2012 enacted level was also higher than what the republican-led house appropriations committee approved during the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process. the u.s. can still meet the highest priority goals of the nuclear posture review with less than the 1251 report sanctioned levels of nnsa weapons activities. the 2011 and 2012 appropriations and the 2013 budget request provide more than enough to maintain safe, secure, and effective nuclear warheads. these increases are hollow budget authority, both the senate and the house fiscal year '13 house appropriations committee funded nnsa weapons activities at the fiscal year 2013 requested level.
i'll finish by saying that nnsa administrator tom d'augustino testified to the house energy and water subcommittee on february 29th. the fiscal year 2013 budget request for nnsa weapons activities fully meets the requirements and will be able to take care of the stockpile, maintain, do the annual assessments that we need to do, commence the life extension work that nuclear weapons counsel has recently improved on the b 6112 as well as take care of the scientific and technical infrastructure that is so critical in order to evaluate the surveillance data that we get from the stockpile. so the stockpile is safe, secure, and reliable. the commander, general robert keeler stated, i wouldn't want to suggest that the four sets deployed today is not safe, secure and effective.
it is. i believe it can achieve its deterrence responsibilities as we sit here today. in fact, i'm extremely confident of that. i ask support in cutting this over $300 million redundant amount of moneys towards these programs. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. turner from ohio for five minutes. >> i want to briefly say i oppose ms. sanchez's amendment. as a ranking member knows the mark provides $7.9 billion to the national nuclear weapons activities. this is a modest increase of $324 million to a budget request. what's important about that increase, it's an increase based upon the president's request. that's the president's own number. in november 2010 that is the number he put forth for fy-13.
in his report to congress where he has to lay out what's necessary. in fact, i want to underline the word necessary, for preserving our nuclear deterrent, this is the number he utilized and the number they put forth for their activities to justify the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. if we go to lower levels we will have to invest in our nuclear weapons infrastructure. this is the investment that's need needed. we didn't come up with this number. this is his number. it's the president's own description of what's necessary. we should defeat the amendment. thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi for five minutes. >> i don't think i'll take five minutes here. while this number may have initiated in 2010, in the intervening time, several things have occurred. one is a very serious deficit problem that we have to address. and we only need to and must only spend that which is necessary. the nnsa has been very, very
clear that what is necessary is the amount that was in this year's president's budget. the augmentation in a has been put forth here is not necessary. you can spend an unlimited amount of money on this. i wouldn't recommend it. i would recommend that we deal with the deficit in a prudent way. the amendment that's been put forth by the ramg ranking member member does that and meets the need as stated by the nnsa officials. i'd ask for support of her amendment. >> the gentleman yields back. no further -- mr. thornberry, the gentleman from texas, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think mr. turner makes the essential point that is worth emphasizing, however, and that is the ratification of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty was dependent upon a certain level of funding of our nuclear weapons infrastructure. now, the reason they were
connected is because we had something that was central to our national security and the national security of many of our allies. we were going to have a lot fewer of them. that means that if something goes wrong with any one, we are hurt much more. and the ones we have left are already beyond their design life and getting older and older and older. so if we are going to make these significant reductions down to 1,550 warheads, we better make darn sure that they are as reliable and safe as we must have them be. and as our allies must have them be. so that's the reason that the number the administration comes up with and says this is what is necessary in order to support these much lower numbers of nuclear weapons has got to be supported.
if you take the numbers away, the whole deal falls apart. we are restricted in how much we can talk numbers in this setting. i think most americans don't realize as far as how many nuclear weapons have been and are in our stockpile. we hit the hot point. about 1966 with 312,555 weapons. now we are less than 5,000. remember it takes us to 1,550. that's a big, big difference. the other point, another chart in the same article looks at the average age of u.s. nuclear weapons stockpile. in recent times had hit a lull of about ten years in the early '90s.
the average, average age of the u.s. nuclear weapon stockpile is 25 years and these are designed to last 20 years. they are already five years on average beyond their design life and we better make sure we have the diagnostic tools and infrastructure in order to keep these things running because our security and security of allies are depending upon it. that is the reason this money is important. it is that we can't guarantee our security if we don't make the investment necessary. whether the administration backs off or whether some committees back off of what is necessary. it doesn't matter. our job is to defend the country with what we believe is necessary. so i oppose the amendment.
yield back. >> if there is no further discussion on the amendment the question is on adoption of the amendment offered by ms. sanchez log 153. so many as are in favor will say aye. those opposed say no. the noes have it. >> i will ask for a recorded vote. >> recorded vote has been requested. we will call the role call at the end of the subcommittee mark. are there any amendments to the committee's report? >> mr. chairman i have an amendment. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment? without objection reading the amendment will be dispensed with.