Skip to main content

tv   Armed Services Committee Marks Up Defense Authorization Bill  CSPAN  June 28, 2017 7:06pm-7:24pm EDT

7:06 pm
springs, back in the late '90s, where i argued that this was something that we ought to look at. and this was something whose time would come. and i think it has. so personally i've been interested in watching this. but the key is, mr. rodgers and mr. cooper. have talked with an endless number of people over the past year or so, looking back at study after study over the past 15 years plus, i think they've done the work and i think it's time for this to move forward, even though i completely recognize what the gentleman from ohio said this is a significant change. i think the world demands significant change in this field right now. so i support what the subcommittee is doing. other comments about the turner amendment, mr. bacon? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i support the chairman on this i
7:07 pm
don't think it's a matter of if, when it comes to a space force, it's a matter of when. i don't think this is reflection of what the air force has done here. they've worked this hard. i believe they've shown due diligence, they've worked hard to provide us the best space force possible. i think we've gone from a time when space was supporting ground, air and sea, from a supporting roam, we're now transitioning to the where the work will be done in space. think that changes the game. that means we need to grow a space force, space professionals, space culture and people in a service that's totally dedicated to space control. i think we're at that point where we need to move this direction. i think it also will help us consolidate the many space offices we have in the multiple services and also consolidate the many acquisition resources we have out there and put it under one space service. think there's also some chances for an opportunity for savings. and with that i yield back and i support where the chairman is going. thank you.
7:08 pm
>> thank you, mr. chairman. and i appreciate your thoughts on this. i'm not on that subcommittee, i'm on three other subcommittees this is honestly the first time i've heard about a major retorsion our air force and department of defense. i would think something this significant, if it was, we're at that point in our committee that we would have some hearings and discussions at the full committee level. hear from the secretary of defense, hear from the secretary of air force just as mr. turner said. i remember being deployed on over to saudi arabia pre-9/11 and running common search and rescue there was a space cell over next to us and i was like, what do you guys do, i'm just a fighter pilot, no the really understanding all they brought to the fight we learned what they brought to the fight. we integrated them operationally and there's tremendous capabilities both in targeting and many other elements, that this is about from my view, just further integration, not further separation or bureaucracy, i
7:09 pm
want to associate myself with mr. turner's amendment on this. i appreciate the chairman's leadership. for those of us on the subcommittee. this is a shocking first time we've heard of this a very major reorganization of our military and i think it deserve as couple of hearse hearings and discussions on it at the full committee level and i yield back. >> mr. russell? >> we certainly all understand the threats in space and we know that that is, where everything is heading. i guess you know i'd like to associate myself with what what ms. mcsally said this is the first time on reorganization that we've, that any of us have heard about this. i would like to -- pride myself a little bit in staying informed and yet we've not had any, any type of full committee hearings on this issue. either that or i missed them. in i would like if i can, within the limits of my time, ask mr.
7:10 pm
rodgers whom i have great respect for, why would the air force which handles one-third of their mission is space, and they see it as a growing third half and they see it as a future, why would the air force not be able to handle the mission? if the gentleman would care to answer. >> the fact is air dominance is their number one mission, you heard general bacon talk about this cultural component. and that's the problem. we have the greatest air force the world has ever seen. because their number one mission when they come to work every day, is air dominance, to be the best air dominant force on the planet. you can't have two number one missions. the fact is space is one of several collateral missions that are subordinate and will always be subordinate as long as they're in the air force. that's the problem i have. if you want to make space, space
7:11 pm
professionals, the best they can be, they need to come to work every day, knowing space dominance is the number one mission thark mission. that culture can only be bred if we segregate them, properly resource them, educate and develop them so they can meet these new challenges. the fact is when i first came here along with mr. turner 15 years ago, space was not that integral in war fighting. today it is absolutely integral. just like it is in our commercial lives if you've got a hand-held phone you look at, you're using space when you use that phone. if you put your debit card or credit card in a gas pump, you're using space. if you are a farmer and you have tractors, you're using space to plow in the fields, space is an integral part of our lives, an integral part of the military. unfortunately, the air force with its organizational bureaucracy has net been able to fix the problems that exist in space and i don't believe they ever will. if i did it would be easier to
7:12 pm
let them do it. >> if i could, reclaim my time. for some additional query. abraham lincoln said nothing good can be frustrated by time. i think in that he's accurate. i perfectly understand if you want to bury something, do a study or a committee. but there are times when it is necessary, for us to really look and examine an issue. so i guess my question is, what would the harm be, other than well we've been digging into this for 31 years, but that's not true of the committee. two-thirds of this committee two-thirds of congress has been elected since 2010. many of us veterans that have been kind of on the user end of a lot of the things that we discussed on this committee, what would the harm be, to have full committee hearings and deliberations to hear from the secretary of defense. who hear from nasa to hear from the air force? what would be the harm in doing
7:13 pm
that. if you would, sir. >> that's a great question and there is no harm and there's nothing that prohibits us from doing that. after we pass this and while the air force is designing the new space corps. to have the different people come before the full committee. you keep in mind they report back to us for us to implement what they design the next year's ndaa. so we can go forward with the full committee hearings and briefings as you're talking about collaterally while this is moving forward in the air force. >> and i appreciate the gentleman's answers, thank you for taking the time to do that. i guess my own, my own thinking on it, and again i don't, i have great admiration from both you and mr. turner, i don't have a dog in this fight. i have the highest regard for the chairman and the ranking member. i personally would like a little more deliberation, maybe that seems selfish or unfair. because of that, i will be
7:14 pm
supporting mr. turner's amendment. because how do we know that the air force is not capable? we've gone from ground attack transitions, they've gone through different support transitions, logistics. we are even talking about re-entry and outer space from ground to space. we're going to cross some fierce here, and for that, i yield back. >> mr. bishop. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i think some of us are expressing a feeling of unease, i realize i've only talked about studying stuff and i guess i'm talking about that again right now. mr. chairman if i could just ask you, is the vision of going forward to actually establish a core, a corps, the marine corps has over 300,000 this would have less than 50,000. is that the done deal at the end of the day? or are we going to be looking at where it should fit in the
7:15 pm
overall structure of the program. if i could just ask how you envision that going forward? >> my understanding is that the division would be for a space corps underneath the air force in a similar sort of relationship to the marine corps underneath the navy. so you have the civilian overseers, just like you have with the navy. but you as far as, the uniform, it would be a separate essentially -- >> before i include that, may i yield at least a minute to mr. turn centre. >> thank you. i just want to emphasize again that i, this, if you support this amendment you're not saying that we don't need a space corps. you're saying that we don't have enough information to do that. i am a very active member of the strategic forces subcommittee and i appreciate mr. cooper, i have not made it to every discussion, but i know that of
7:16 pm
the discussion level it has been on the problems of the air force, not on designing a space corps. and that's really what i think we need is hearings on designing a space corps before we legislatively command a space corps. now with respect to mr. rodgers' statements about the air force and their job for air doll nance. you can't accomplish air dominance without space. everything we do includes space. the question of whether or not the air force can do it or not, it's, you're not taking it away from the air force, you're creating another organization under the air force so they're still doing it. we're changing organizational boxes under the same organization, rather than tasking and funding and working strategically to insure their performance. again, my only concern is is i think there's a whole lot more information that we all should have before we go to that level and that's why i offered the
7:17 pm
amendment, and i would -- certainly appreciate your intention, the needs that we have in space, but i think we should be well-informed, of both the negatives of doing this and the positives of doing this before we would undertake imposing this. i yield back. >> it if i could reclaim my time. mr. chairman, i think all of us are saying the same thing. we want to move into space significantly. the air force is saying the samg thing. we all want to do that. there's some concern as far as how fast we go and in what direction we go. with a little bit more input coming from the air force, i feel much more comfortable with that i think with the turner amendment or the underlying bill we're still going to move in that direction, i'm assuming. but ohio far we go and what kinds of commitment we go to where the end of the line is, is the question we have here. and i would err on this side op the element of caution, i yield back. >> mr. bridenstine?
7:18 pm
>> thank you, mr. chairman. i just wanted to make a few operations, because i'm on chairman rodgers' committee. i've been hearing talk about this for well over a year. i saw chairman rodgers at the space symposium give a speech on it and i've seen more media about this and i've seen chairman rodgers bring more attention within the media. on what's happening in space. than i've seen since my time in congress and quite frankly, in my entire life. chairman rodgers has been making sure everybody is as well aware of this as he could do. with the media and everything else. so the idea that this is new, is absolutely not true this was a recommendation of donald rumsfeld's commission, was even before he was secretary of defense. and that, that commission was very bipartisan. as has been all of our discussions, on this inside the strategic forces subcommittee.
7:19 pm
so it's not new it hasn't been a secret. it's been so well publicized in the media. chairman rodgers has given plenty of speeches on this. so i would just like to go on record reporting chairman rodgers on this record and oppose the amendment. >> mr. karimendi? >> with specific regard to the amendment it's going to be a study that speaks to the secretary of air force deciding if it is an interim report on whether there is a strategic need to establish a space corps, we've already heard from the secretary that she thinks not. there i there is no need for it. those of us that have served with mr. rodgers on the committee and gone through multiple committees on all the various pieces of the air force that deal with space, i don't know if they share my conclusion, but my conclusion is there's mass confusion as to
7:20 pm
this and therefore, an inability to focus on the overarching need. i also recall in some of my hearings that the chinese government has totally reorganized its military and one of their sections is space. i see mr. rodgers confirming what i think my memory told me. and apparently it is accurate. they did it for a very special reason as i recall. they recognize that it is the critical frontier of the next war. if there is to be one. or the next peace. if we fail to recognize the strategic importance of space, so let me put it the other way. if we recognize the strategic importance of it, there probably won't be a war. but if we fail to, we leave ourselves vulnerable and therefore the deterrent effect is lost we really need to focus and pull together all of the
7:21 pm
various elements involved in space issues. and unfortunately mr. turner's amendment is all too often a way of avoiding a necessary issue. i don't know that this would become law this time. i know the chairman would want very much to push this forward to try to make it law this time. but if we accept the proposed amendment it will simply be buried and this issue will tend to not be addressed. so i would oppose the amendment in hopes that the space corps as in the mark would continue and cause us all to focus on something that is critically important. i suspect that i'm probably misinterpreting mr. turner's intent here. but we've seen a lot of, a lot of studies. and it's a great way of avoiding the reality of the problem. i think, mr. turner, as well
7:22 pm
intended you may be, you're about to bury a very important issue, another study, and therefore, i oppose your amendment. >> other discussion on the turner amendment? mr. mcquichen? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i recall shortly after we were brought into this congress, in assigned to this committee, we had the day-long meeting on the challenges of space. i personally don't know what else we need to study, to go forward with the space command. i had to laugh to myself and when i say laugh to myself. i laughed in an admiring way when mr. bishop quoted 1776 and so i will share with you my quotation from 1776. that one useless man is called a disgrace, two or more are called a law firm and three are called a congress. and then john adams goes on to say, all we do is twiddle, piddle and never resolve.
7:23 pm
let's not do that in this case. let's go forward with, with all due respect to the pate robb of the amendment, let's reject the amendment and let's get on with the establishment of a space command. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> if there's no further discussion, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. those in favor of the amendment will say aye? those opposed will say no. in opinion of the chair the no's have it the gentleman from ohio request for a record vote and there is support for that. further proceedings on the amendment for mr. turner will be postponed. next we'll turn to the gentleman from alabama. >> we're going to leave the house armed services defense authorization mark-up. can you continue watg


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on