tv U.S. House Meets for Legislative Business CSPAN July 12, 2017 9:59pm-11:22pm EDT
beyond 10 years. and i urge my colleagues to vote on this current amendment and yes on my amendment 88. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. >> if anything, my former chairman, when i was on on armed services. he continues to oppose this. why not have a 30-yearly estimate. we have one for the navy and one for the area programs. if they aren't worth on the paper they are written on, the taxpayers deserve and we deserve to preserve jofrle sight. if congress has oversight, we need these reports that accurately reflect these changes to bombs, warheads and delivery
systems. thank you so much. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> the navy provides 30-year cost estimates. i urge a no-vote on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. mr. rogers: i ask for a reported vote. >> further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. . the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in part b of house report 115-212. it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in part b of house report 115-212. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek
recognition? mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: does the gentleman wish to offer his amendment? mr. gare men tee: yes, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in part b of house report 115-212, offered by mr. garamendi of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 431, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. every year, congress receives a very important and helpful report regarding our nuclear weapons enterprises, sometimes referred to eas 1033 report buzz -- 1043 report, because it's
mandated by section 1043 of the ndaa fiscal year 2012. it requires the department of defense, in cooperation with the department of energy, to submit a detailed 10-year plan for a budget estimate for our nuclear weapons enterprise. the bombs, the weapons themselves, the command and control, the national lab the infrastructure and delivery system, etc., etc. that report is then reviewed by the government accountability office for completeness and accuracy and finally the congressional budget office then reviews it and submits an independent report. terrific. all good. we agree that's a good thing. i know the chairman of the subcommittee wanted that to happen and indeed we do have it. this amendment simply deals with the reality that this is not a 10-year program. s that program that will go on for at least the next 25, probably the next 30 years, with extraordinary costs that actually occur beyond the 10-year time horizon. therefore it's important that the united states as we get into this long-term effort to
recapitalize our entire nuclear arsenal, that we encounter today and take into account today the most expensive years that will occur beyond the 10-year horizon. this amendment that i'm proposing simply requires that the department of defense and the department of energy consider a 25-year time horizon for the 1043 report. we really do need to know. and in fact we have some of that information today. the department of energy, that is in the national nuclear security administration does do a 25-year report. and they apparently think it's accurate enough to present to the committees here. we would like the department of defense, which provides the equipment, the means for delivering the bombs, that is the submarine the various ballistic and intercontinental ballistic missile the ground-based ballistic missiles,
the new bombers and quite possibly the new long-range strike lsr;; -- lsro. so let's find out. let's consider that. the reason we need to consider it is that it is a pile of money. well other $1 trillion that will be spent in the next 25 years. this is not just my words but if one were to consider the people that deal with this on a regular basis, for example, the undersecretary of acquisition and technology, mr. kendall, on april 14, 2015, he said, we have a problem. with recapitalizing the strategic deterrent. we do have a huge affordability problem with that basket of systems. so it is a problem we're going to have to face up to. well, who is we? we is us. we're going to have to figure out how to pay for all of this and we're going to have to make some tough choices. this is simply a matter of trying to figure out how we can get detailed information.
i know that our esteemed chairman with whom i have a tremendous regard has a little different view and when he picks up his amendment i will speak to that. in the meantime i ask everyone support this wise amendment so we actually have good information upon which to make some decisions today that will then be paid for in the next 15 to 25 years. that's what this amendment is. i reserve my remaining time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. rogers: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i reluctantly oppose this amendment from my friend and colleague from california. he's a very serious, thoughtful, and clearly articulate member, but it's for the same reasons that i just outlined with mr. aguilar's amendment. i'll keep this brief because we just talked about this, but oing down this path, 20 or
30-year cost estimate is a bad idea and can result in bad day theasm acting secretary -- assistant secretary of defense in the obama administration who is still in the trump administration doesn't think it's a good idea either. we have considered this 30-year cost estimate and each time it's been rejeckthsmed amendment would not result in good, effective eversight and transparency. i urge my colleagues to consider voting for my reasonable, commonsense amendment when we get to it, amendment number 88. i urge my colleagues to vote no to this amendment and yes on rogers 88. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: thank you. i'd like to finish off my time available. may i ask how much time i have available? the chair: minute and a half. mr. garamendi: oh, that's plenty. well this is a common sense amendment. ive great esteem for the chairman but i really don't
think we ought to be mushrooms. i don't think we ought to be kept in the dark. we really are in the process here of making decisions today to spend a vast amount of money not just in the next 10 years, and we do have estimates of what that could cost but in the out years. those out years we know from information that has been delivered to us that it will be a bow wave, to use a military term, of extraordinary dollars. well into hundreds of billions of dollars that would be spent in the out years beyond the 10 years. we need to know today because that will bite into the money that we have available for all of the other things that we must do for our national defense. with that, i would ask for an aye vote on this commonsense amendment. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back.
the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i thank the chair. i agree with the gentleman, we don't want to be mushrooms but we also don't want bad data. i would urge a no vote on this and urge people to support rogers amendment number 8 which will allow the secretary to go beyond 10 years, to 25 or 30, and the secretary believes it would yield valuable data. with that, i yield back the balance of my time and urge a no vote. 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. garamendi: 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 california will e postponed.
it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in part b of house report 115-212. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. blumenauer: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in part b of house report 115-212, offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 431, the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: it's time to insert fiscal sanity into our nuclear weapons planning. we're set to spend $400 billion over the next decade, $1.2 trillion over the next 30 years, to recapitalize our entire nuclear arsenal. this nuclear escalation will build a force far exceeding what
the pentagon and security experts have said is necessary to deter a nuclear threat. a stronger nuclear program is not going to help us deal with the strategic challenges we face today, the fight against the islamic state. but it will result in having to crowd out army, navy, and air force conventional priorities. we need to revisit this strategy. we're here in congress to make hard decisions about how to spend taxpayer dollars. the pentagon should provide long-term cost reports and to tell us what certain weapons will actually add to our existing capacity. my amendment deals with one particular outrageous piece of this unsustainable escalation, the long range standoff weapon, lrso. this weapon is projected to cost $20 billion to $30 billion. his amendment would lock the so funding in fiscal year at
2017 levels until the administration submits a nuclear posture review to congress that includes a detailed assessment of why we need this weapon. wouldn't prevent it, it would just keep the funding at the current level until they can tell us why we need it. until the administration carefully examines the utility of the lrso, why should we rush its development? after all, the father of this device, former secretary of defense bill parry, argued there's scant justification for spending tens of billions of dollars on this weapon. general mattias stated numerous times he's not sold on it. we shouldn't risk making tens of billions of dollars in commitments like this with potential failure to follow through all while forfeiting other critical priorities. before we continue this nuclear escalation on autopilot, let's
ake sure -- thank you. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama wish to be recognized? mr. rogers: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. romers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i strongly oppose this amendment. it's not just me, the armed services committee considered nearly the same amendment in markup and it was defeated. it's also our country's senior most military office. they repeatedly described the urgent need for the lrso. they have testified before our committee in march on this exact issue. here's the nation's second highest ranking military officer, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general silva, quote, our weapons were built in the 1970's with a 10-year life spann. we know they remain relevant but we can't can't to maintain them.
in a decade they won't be able to penetrate russian air space therefore there's an urgency to find their replace. another said, this is the first -- limiting resources of either of these components will disrupt the timeline. here's president obama's assistant secretary of defense testifying before my committee last year. quote eric the obama administration's fund og of replacement is essential to stable and effective deterrence. finally let me briefly address the nonsense argument that lrso is destabilizing. here's obama's undersecretary for defense, first, lrso is consistent with our military goals, second, lrso promotes strategic stability and does not undermine it. third, it's important in the
eyes of our allies. it's no sign that it's destabilizing. i aurge no vote on this amendment. reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: i yield 90 seconds to the distinguished ranking member, mr. smith. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 90 seconds. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to make two quick points. first to the point mr. blumenauer made about how we're planning on recapitalizing our entire nuclear arsenal. we've had a robust debate about how much is that going to cost over 10, 25, 30 years. i have some sympathy for the argument mr. rogers made, it's going to be difficult to estimate how much it's going to cost over 25 or 30 years, but i do know that if we are talking about recapitalizing our entire nuclear arsenal, all of the submarines, all the icbm's a new
bomber, it's going to cost a lot. i don't know if it's $1.2 trillion or $2 trillion or whatever it is, it is going to be enormously expensive. and at a time when we face a multiplicity of threats from russia, from north korea, where missile defense is critical, i do not believe this is the best investment of our money to get caught up in the cold war in the battle against russia and their nuclear weapons and making sure we can counter every possible scenario. it is not an efficient use of money. this amendment is but one piece of it, to say let's take a step back and see if this is the best place to spend the money. maybe it would be better to spend it on cybersecurity. maybe it would be better to spend it on missile defense. there's a whole lot of other places i think that are better than trapping ourselves in these nuclear scenarios that require us to build an unbelievably expensive nuclear arsenal. second, i will disagree with mr. rogers on one point. the more you build nuclear
weapons, the more other sides to end build nuclear weapons. ky not agree that this is not going to potentially lead to an escalation. in fact, the reason we're so, you know, hellbent on building the lrso and others is because we're concerned about what russia and china is doing. that's how it works. it does have that destabilizing effect. i don't think this is the best place for us to spend our defense dollars. . . the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i was quoting the obama administration. i would like to yield to my iend from wyoming, ms. liz cheney. ms. cheney: thank you, mr. chairman. you know, it's surprising to hear arguments that we have been hearing for the last 70 years
now that the reason that our adversaries are building nuclear weapons is because we are building nuclear weapons. they are threatening us and potentially to hold us hostage and we must deter and the notion if we advance our capabilities andthe notion if we produce get in a position to encourage the other side is flawed understanding. we already have an understanding that they have a cruise missiles. and we shouldn't argue that they are for us as well. imposes real costs and potential adversaries and it forces them to modernize.
it is important that we proceed and modernize. depry, it is an expensive undertaking. defeat this amendment and remember that the sing the most expensive thing we can do is to ail ourselves and encourage an adverse area to attack us. not k it is important to go down the path. and speed up the path. i would like to yield back my time and urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognize the. mr. blumenauer: the amendment ays that the funding level for
this new program would remape at they rent level until indicate ar detailed assessment. if what the gentleman says is true ap i get mixed signals from the secretary. it has nothing to do with unilateral diss armament and we and lavishing funds on programs that have not been justified. you have other things that you want to help the department of defense did do what i think we share. i sfroppingly urge approval of this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the question on the amendment is offered by the gentleman from oregon.
those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. blumenauer: mr. chair, i would request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause , rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 14. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recknigs? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by . mcclintock of california the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock and a
member oppose owesed each will control five minutes. mr. mcclintock: our current defense spending is at the regulate and. about the same next more military forces. and the president's proposed more 54 billion and adding han the establishment of great britain and i do not doubt our military forces are not ready. it is a management problem. we seem to care how much money is being spent and now how, that is a catastrophic oversight. 22% is big irthan necessary.
and asked congress for closure reviews. secretary mattis urged resumption of brac. buywill save 22 billion and hornets or four virginia-class submarines if congress would get out of the to nd allow bases consolidate. ndaa, congress blocks bases on our own soil. my amendment removes this on this needed process and allows brac as our president has requested. his policy is crystal clear.
while the bill contains reforms result and tore allow d.o.d. i have third three objections. we have told the upfront costs can be high. but the first four brac round . e saving us $7 billion and experience tells us that communities rapidly recover by getting these assets and we are told to wait until expanding our forces. and and the new round of brac will have the overcapacity. when we scounder dollars in order to satisfy congressional
constituencies, we directly rob our military resources that we are reminded. you can't fill a broken bunth. you have to fix the bucket. we need to take it more seriously. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. for what purpose does the carolina from south rise? mr. wilson: i rise to claim time numb opsillings of situation of the amendment. i appreciate the efforts by mr. mcclintock. now is not the time torm consider this. brac has been used without and cting a thorough study incurred significant costs such as those in the marylandlands of
outh carolina or for the gordon, georgia. not ecure assets will be replicated. testimony testimony, secretary joe mattis stated he has reservationed about the brac assessments. cost saving measure. d they plan to carry new projected savings. and to communities around the nation to close downing military installations without a study and grow the force to address emerging threats. i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. and i reserve.
the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. >> i yield a minute and a half to the the gentleman from washington, mr. smith. mr. smith: i support this amendment. and i disagree the remarksment the past bracks have saved us enormous ooments of munt. and the fifth one was more expensive. but the fifth one was done in 2005 when we were building up army. it is now saving us army. you can argue against brac but don't argue it is saving us army. it absolutely safes us army. there have been a number of studies, the air force estimated
they are over 20% over their installations. i agree with that. what our bill has done is prohibit them frrm even thinking about a brac. so it is a brilliant argument to say and put in the bill you are plobetted from doing the study. but it isn't helping our military. we have more needs than we have money for. we cannot afford for interests to get in the way what is in the best interests of our troops. and what this amendment does, it doesn't authorize a brac. t removes the prohibition of a brac. and so all this is going to do if this amendment passes is allow the military to do what
the gentleman from sourget carolina said they ought to do. there is no reason to oppose this amendment. and i urge support. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. wilson: i yiled to mr. scott. mr. scott: i rise in the opposition to this offered by mr. mcclintock of karl. t would strike a provision national defense authorization ct does not known as brac. and nearly 13 hours of approved language in the final mark that prevented brac. we passed that vote by a vote of 60-1. colleagues have the
streamline defense spending and it's not the case. and earlier this year, secretary mattis testified on the need to reaseries our military's current infrastructure resources and needs before closing realigning. planct required an updated to date. the. has support we may not have to meet our krnt need as we look at the current threats from china, china and criminal organizations. who knows what threats we will face tomorrow. secretary of defense will work th us to reassess and halt closures.
and without the foyer, there is no to rebuild a new one. irresponsible. i have nothing but prp for my colleague from california. this is just one that i can't support you on. and i hope you vote against mr. mcclintock's broken amendment's amendment. . . >> to vote against this measure is to vote against our military for the next 10 years. mr. mcclintock: for military bases the pentagon itself says are unnecessary. it comes down to that, you cannot provide for the common defense if you cannot pay for it
and the ability of our country to do so is being called into question. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. wilson: i yield two minutes or such time heas may need to the gentleman from utah chairman bishop of utah. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. there's 90 seconds left. mr. bishop: let me say in 90 seconds, it may sound counterintuitive that brac doesn't save us money but even though it can take money off the who who owns its and who pays for it? i have said every time there's a brac base closure i end up with a new national park and new marble monument. i can give you a half dozen off the top of my head where they happened. the question is, does the taxpayer save money?
and if you invent a brac process that guarantees that the federal state will not be enlarged you won't simply transfer property from one federal entity to another or from the federal government to state government so the taxpayer saves money, i will gladly support a brac process. until we can guarantee that, all we're doing is shifting the money around, shifting the entity around, we may help the department of defense change their budget, but the taxpayer is still on the hook for all the property and all the efforts that go into it and that is wrong. that is the process. when we change the brac process to make it more public, to make society taxpayers save, i'll support it. but that hasn't happened yet. therefore i ask you to vote no on the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields ack. 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. mcclintock: on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed. 3ur sunt -- pursuant to the order of the house today it is now ined or to consider amendment number 88 printed in art b of house report 115-212. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 88 printed in part b of house report 115-212 offered by mr. rogers of alabama. the chair: the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers and a member opposed each will control five
minutes this the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: as i said a few minutes ago, i submitted this amendment as a hopeful compromise with my colleague from california who submitted amendments 10 and 12 on this same issue. going down the path of a 30-year cost estimate is a bad idea and will result in bad data. as we debated this for the past five years now, the obama administration didn't want to do it, the trump administration doesn't want to do it and the house has vote against it every year. i merge colleagues to vote for my reasonable, commonsense amendment, commonsense way to get this issue to resolved, amendment amendment -- amendment number 88. it allows the secretary of defense to provide information beyond 10 years if he thinks it would be accurate and useful in the information yielded. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment and no on
amendments 10 and 12678 i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. in opposition se though i'm not opposed. o the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i have some broader concerns about the nuclear issue but this is a way to get an option to get a greater idea of the costs, it may not be everything we would want but it's not something we should oppose. i do not oppose it, would urge support. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. smith: actually, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. rogers: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alabama yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment zpwry -- is agreed to. mr. rogers: request a recorded
vote, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment of the gentleman from alabama will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas sec reek in addition? >> pursuant to h.res. 431, i offer amendmented en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 1 consisting of amendments umbered 3, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26, 1, 22, 23, 24, printed 9, 30, and 31, in part b of house report 115-212, offered by mr. thornberry of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 431, the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, each will control 10
minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. rohrabacher: i rise in support of a very important part of this en bloc proposal which is filled with important parts. dr. fritti is a pakistani doctor who risked his life to help our special forces identify the hiding place of osama bin laden, the planner and command ore they have slauth over 3,000 americans on 9/11. dr. afriti, clearly an american hero, has languished in a pakistani dunfor the past six years and has been sentenced to spend another two decades in captivity. he's a courageous hero, he's not forgeten, his plight is not ignored. tonight i'm pleading that this language be retained in the final version of this en bloc amendment. this man is suffering for us. may he -- making my amendment in
order acknowledges his sacrifice and demands pakistan authorities release him immediately. if we turn our backs on such a noble friend as dr. afriti, shame on us. i thank the members who put this bill together for including this very moral statement. thank you. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. wilson: mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak on amendment number 66. on july 4, the communist totalitarian regime in north korea marked the holiday by testing an intercontinental ballistic missile, another escalation by a regime that's tested ballistic missiles and conducted five nuclear tests
this amendment expresses a clear sense of congress, we will not tolerate escalation by the regime in north korea testing ballistic missiles or develop agnew clear weapon threatening american families. the amendment reaffirms the strong commitment of the united states to our allies in the region, especially south korea, japan and australia. i'm encouraged by the leadership of president donald trump far commit. of peace through strength. it is clear the regime in north korea will only respond to strength and this sense of congress strongly state ours commitment to keeping all options on the table while addressing the threat of north korea, whether it be military, diplomatic or economic. mr. chairman, i am -- i urge support of this amendment with the en bloc package. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from texas reserves. mr. smith: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from
pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognize for one minute. mr. fitzpatrick: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the most important duty of this body is to ensure the safety of every american family. from foreign enemies who intend us harm. we must advocate for a foreign policy that projects strength and purpose. the threat profile our nation faces has never been more severe, including from rogue regimes and those who directly and indirectly support the spread of terror. acting in isolation, each of these threats requires u.s. attention. however, we must also investigate and understand the scope of evil's reach, especially the nexus between iran and north korea. mr. speaker, my amendment would compel the fonge report the extent of cooperation on nuclear programs, ballistic missile development, chemical and biological weapons development, and conventional weapons programs between pyongyang and tehran. only when we understand the complex dealings between these
enemies of peace can we outline a plan to combat them. my amendment will provide better, more comprehensive tools for american defense and i urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to support it for the sake of our nation's security. mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise in support of a bipartisan amendment i've offered along with my colleague from texas, chairman thornberry of the armed services committee and mr. conaway a fellow c.p.a. it's essential that democrats an republicans work together to control government costs to root out west, fraud and abuse and we specifically focus these efforts on the department of defense. r. suozdi: chairman thornberry
pro-- thornberry tharme proposed -- chairman thornberry proposed such a bill. i propose eliminating bureaucratic mandates, the chairman supported my goals and suggested i work with my fellow c.p.a. mr. conaway. in a bipartisan spirity agreed on this amendment which will help cut costs of become logs, two, help reallocate resources to prioritize audits with potential savings for government, three, help ensure private sector auditing capacity exists, and most importantly, four, root out waste, fraud, and abuse in defense contracting. i never thought i'd come to washington to work on department of defense audit but chairman thornberry's willingness to engage my expertise and the bipartisan manner of the amendment will hopefully result in significant reforms and aid in my on fwoing going efforts to
help save taxpayer dollars by making government more effective and efficient. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. johnson. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you. i rise, mr. chairman, to speak on the national defense authorization act being considered this evening and on my amendment, number 22, to require an army cybertraining readiness assessment. it's vital we adequately fund our military with the necessary training and tools they need to succeed. our men and women in uniform deserve the greatest amount of resources we can possibly provide at all times. if agreed to, my amendment requires the army to review the combat training centers or c.t.c.'s and rethe resident cybercapabilities in the training to make certain the needs of prerotational cybertraining are met. these c.t.c. rotation serve as premier events to evaluate
collective training and the rotations provide feedback to commanders on how well they train thared units and leaders and what they need to do to improve readiness. improving cybertraining is a commonsense step to meet the needs of our nation. the army will testify that this air is falling short and resources are needed for cybertraining. our armed forces must be able to operate within highly defended environments possibly at the leading edge of a joint force, to control air, sea, space and cyberspace domain. i urge my colleagues to support this. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. correa. the chair: the gentleman is ecognized. mr. correa: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of my amendment, en bloc package three amendment 53. that would require the secretary
of defense in coordination with the director of national intelligence to provide congress a report in any cyberattack attempts by the russian government and other russian hackers targeting the department of defense within the past two years. these defense department systems are the foundation of our nation's defense and security and it is crucial that they are protected. despite this understanding, our nation is still not fully aware of the magnitude of the problems and congress is not appropriately advised of these past breaches. my amendment would require a report from the secretary of defense to congress so that we can begin to properly address the strength of our nation's security. i want to thank congressman shea-porter for supporting my amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from texas is
mr. thornberry: i have no further speakers on this en bloc amendment. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: you cut ut in half is my understanding. so i would yield -- i will give you the 908 seconds to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. 810. mber 88, h.r. 22 this will have the cyber capabilities yber nd authorize international capabilities. and it has become one of the most global security issues.
the presidential election came under cyberattack. but the u.s. is not alone. there were press reports of massive cyberattacks. my amendment will increase our offense iffer capabilities from espionage. cyber protecting our network us vital to our nation and my amendment works to that end. i thank congresswoman rosen and i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. he gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from recognizes. mr. thornberry: i urge adoption
of the en bloc. mr. smith: i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from illinois, mr. lipinski. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lipinski: i thank the chair and ranking member for supporting these two amendments one in this en bloc. the first will authorize the hacking for the program. this is a program that was developed in silicon valley and finds unique solutions. rst product, it uses methods to engage america's best and brightest. pid low cost technological technologies but the d.o.d. has
the members of the committee nisms in place. and it creates ways for engineers to work were veterans and to innovate solutions that ake america safer. an article how a graduate can elp track north korean exathes hoping to make our world safer. i ask unanimous consent to enter this letter. mr. speaker, at the second amendment, deals with cybersecurity standards. d.o.d. issued standards for defense standards. companies must implement these
standards by january 1, 2018. i have heard from a small number of manufacturers and it is difficult to get information necessary to institute these standards. they hear the mean of their company. america cannot afford to lose these small members. i encourage the sk of defense firms in and acheeping compliance with the updated standards. this will help access across the supply chain while preserving competition for d.o.d. contracts and reseff broad support. i wan to thank the chair and ranking member for supporting these two amendments. and i ask my col ocean to
support these amendments and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered by general leave. mr. smith: i yield to the gentleman from new jersey. the chair: the gentlewoman from new jersey is recognized. >> i rise in support of this is rtisan amendment to this a critical program that provides that members with training and community healing. we cannot allow this suicide program to expire and the men and men who have been on front lines. and protect the freedoms we hold dear. my is improving safety and peace of mind to the men and women and
served. we should doing everything to help our service members. ntil guardsmen face unique soldiers. and suit up to protect us. not knowuardsmen would how to help. mental help to identify health issues. and i'm proud to offer this amendment in honor of those who serve in the new jersey guard and reserves. i want to thank congressman mcsally and for her advocacy and chairman thornberry and ranking member smith for their work on this legislation and i look to
dwerned our dwation and protect all those who serve. mr. smith: i yield back the ball aps of my time and i urge adoption of the amendment. e chair: the those in favor say aye. . those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition j mr. thornberry: pursuant to .res. 31, i offer a second package of amendments en bloc. the clerk: amendment number 38, amendments 32 , 37,
, 45, 46, 4 , 4 , 4 47, 48 printed in how tall report offered by mr. thornberry of texas. the chair: pursuant to houseries like the gentleman from texas and the gentleman from washington each will control 10 minutes. mr. thornberry: i have no requests for time and urge adoption of this package of en bloc amendments and i reserve. mr. smith: i yield myself such time to clean up a couple of amendments. d on robust t a strong and
nuclear deterrence. and there is simply asking in a budget challenge is this the best use of our money to rebuild and the amendments were offered weren't saying no, but saying this is something we ought to study. and over the last 70 years, our add veer various and we have built. i think that is a big misreading of history. we were first to the fable and enabled us to end world war ii. and when the soviet union developed theirs, we had them and they didn't. and no part of their thinking was if the united states of
america we better have them, too. we saw the arms race accelerate. and how candidate john kennedy talked about the missile gap we had. it wasn't true. we didn't have the gap. it was unfair what the eijssen hire administration was doing. and arms races do happen and and what we have to do is contain them in a reasonable fashion. i do believe it becomes a shelf- per perfect ating thing. opening ut is actually up lines of communication with with china and russia. i'll grant you with north korea
is concerned, we have to deter them. we have the power to destroy north korea. we have the nuclear capacity torle deter them. as we look at modernizing our weapons system, we will consider e costs and effectiveness of doing this. and that's all with we were trying to say on that. on brac, one was that secretary mattis said he wanted to look at it situation, implying that wasn't a good idea. president trump's pentagon recommended a brac round that we rejected. so make no mistake about it. the president and secretary mattis support a brac round and
two more points, it was argued we voted for this 60-1 out of committee. we were in favor of the bill. this was a small bees. to argue in a bill, i know last year's was 1,600. you have to support everything in it. i don't think any member would supports it. and the notion that gosh, they don't have a study and when it prohibited that has them legislatively and several of them from doing that. numbers. k at the same point as we have heard, we ve crucial readiness
shortfalls. we are right now, not doing right by the men and women serving in the military by the training and equipment they need . if that is the case and find vings, or closing instewings that we do not need, that is something we owe the men and women in the military. let's not kid ourselves. wife a whole bunch of bases in the state of washington. if the military says that's the best thing to do, i'm not going to stand in the way of it. and what has been described by our republican colleagues and do what is best and make sure that
we are spinding the money and milwaukee certain that the men and women are trained and equipped. and i would yield the balance of ur time and i urge adoption of they have en bloc amendment. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i want to address the top exs the gentleman addressed. first off, i completely agree with him this bill we are considering today is -- and tomorrow and the next day -- is about 1,000 pages. i dent agree with it all. it has everything from missile defense to helping spouses pay licenses when they are forced to move from state to state. and i suspect i will not agree with it all at the end of the
day. what's important, though is the overriding obligation we have to support the men and women who risk their lives to protect us. so i think the gentleman is exactly right, just because you vote for the bill does not mean you endorse everything in it and at the same time, even if you disagree with some of the things in it, it's important to support the men and women who serve by voting for the bill even if you have disagreements. i completely concur with the gentleman on that. when it comes to the nuclear issue, there are a few points i want to make that maybe were not made during the previous debate. number one is, we had drastically fewer nuclear weapons now than we had during the cold war. i think a lot of people do not realize how significantly fewer weapons and delivery systems we have now than we had all during the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's and into the 1980's. but these are still machines.
they do not live forever. whether you're talking about the weapon itself or the delivery systems, they age. and as they age, there's chemical reactions. parts wear out. things change. and so, they have to be modernized if our deterrent is to remain credible. now, you can get into an argument about, ok, how many wems does it take to be credible, and what delivery systems are required to penetrate defenses, hold enough targets at risk to have that credible defense? but what i think there can be lit dell bait about is that the world is growing more dangerous in the nuclear field. we've seen what happens with north korea. there's enormous concern about what happens in the middle east and elsewhere. and so the important -- i believe our nuclear deterrent is the foundation upon which the rest of our defense efforts are built. and that foundation must remain
credible. it has to be rebuilt. my understanding is the estimates are at no point will rebuilding that entire nuclear deterrent require more than 7% of any year's testifies budget. 7% for the foundation. 93% for the house that's built on it. it is essential that we maintain that credible deterrent and it's got to be big enough to be credible so that a country like china does not think, huh, they can build a few more weapons and get to parity with the united states. on the subject of brac, i do disagree with the gentleman from washington on this point. two years ago, i specifically asked that we have included in the bill that was signed into law a requirement that the
pentagon provide with us an updated cost estimate on excess infrastructure. but we have all been -- what we have all been citing is a 2004 estimate that there's about 20% excess infrastructure. 22% is the number often used. what we got back was seven pages of nothing. and so i am very interested, by the way, that was not prohibited by the bill, it was required by the bill. what i'm interested in is real, updated, data-driven study that shows what -- whether we have excess infrastructure and of what sort. i think that's exactly what secretary mattis said. let me quote his exact sentence, quote, i am not comfortable right now that we have a full 20-something-percent excess infrastructure. i need to go back through and look at this again. i don't want to get rid of something we can't sustain and then say we got to go buy some land here in 10 years.
so that's -- i think that's what we need. an updated study. if it shows we've got excess infrastructure, i'm not at all opposed to having another round of brac. i am opposed to having another round like 2005 which i believe the -- it's either c.b.o. or g.a.o., i can't remember which, has not yet broken even 12 years later. it still costs more money and it has not started to save yet. so i don't want a repeat of that. i am interested if it shows that we do have excess infrastructure and a way to deal with that, secretary mattis, i believe, shares that view of -- but until e see the data, i'm not -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. thornberry: of course. mr. smith: i think the bill doesn't get there. the bill has a prohibition on
brac, but it doesn't have a prohibition on a study, nor does it call for one. as we get into conference it might be a worthwhile thing to say that we authorize, ask, i'm not sure if this is something the defense department can do without our authorization or not, but it's something we should discuss as we get into conference, to have them do that study. i think that would be an excellent first step. i'm not sure that we cover it in this bill. maybe we do and we can figure that out over the course of the next 48 hours. but you know if it doesn't, that's something that i think we ought to try to do. mr. thornberry: i appreciate the point. i'm not convinced the gentleman and i really differ on this point. what the bill says now is nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize an additional base alignment enclosure round. it's that -- that's what it says. i it says we don't authorize it, of course. it does not prohibit a study to say whether we ought to and i, again, i would welcome a real
data-driven study that will help us reach that conclusion. mr. chairman, this is just further evidence that there's a wide range of issues and discussions to have in this bill, all for that purpose of supporting the men and women who serve our nation. i support en bloc package number 2. i urge my colleagues to, and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the question is on amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?
mr. thornberry: pursuant to h.res. 431, i offer a third package of amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc pursuant to house resolution 431. the clerk: en bloc number 3, consisting of amendments numbers 57, 1, 5 , 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 65, 0, 61, 6 , 63, 66, 6 , and 68. printed in part b of house report number 115-212 offered by mr. thornberry of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 431, the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: plmp, i urge members to support en bloc package number three and reserve the balance of my time.
the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i urge members to support this en bloc package and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i yield as well. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields. the question is on the amendment en bloc offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek
recognition? mr. thornberry: pursuant to h.res. 4 1, i offer a fourth pack odge of amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: amendment -- enblorm number four consisting of amendments you were in 70, 71, 2, 73, 74, 78, 79, 81, 81, 82, printed 5, 86, and 87, in part b of house report 115-212, offered by mr. thornberry of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 431, the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith -- the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i ask unanimous consent that amendment number 76 in part b of house report 115-212 be modified in the form i have placed at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: modification otemperature -- to amendment number 76 printed in part b
hough -- mr. thornberry: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the modification be dispensed with. the chair: without objection, the reading is dispensed. with is there objection to the gentleman's request? without objection, the modification is agreed to. the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i support this en bloc package and eserve the balance of my time. mr. smith: i support the en bloc package as well and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i yield back the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendments en bloc as modified offered by the gentleman texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments as odified are agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek
recognition? mr. thornberry: 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 speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 2810, 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. 2810 and has come to no esolution thereon.
the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. guthrie of ntucky for today and mr. khanna of california for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the requests are granted. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess subject to the
how much spending does this bill authorized and how does a deal with the spending cap? authorizes just under $700 billion in military programs. it does a couple of things to get around them. the pentagon has a separate war account. it is called the overseas contingency operation fund, known more commonly as oco.
it helps them get around that cap. 600 million dollars in defense spending that would billion in defense spending that would bust through they will have to rewrite those caps later on. >> this bill came out of the armed services committee after debate, unanimously approved. what are the key provisions in the bill that we will see debate on? some bipartisan agreement on the general -- on the bill in general. the house rules committee met yesterday and teed up 88 amendments to go on the floor today. we expect they will meet again today, this
afternoon, to make and order another tranche of amendments. something we will probably see haste on, the house rules approved a couple of amendments that would strip provisions in the bill that bar the administration from moving detainees from guantanamo bay to states.ed that is less of an issue now because you have an administration that wants to at least keep guantanamo for the time being. there is an amendment from tom mcclintock that would allow for base closures, a process known as bracks. it is not popular. there is another amendment from colorado and california, democrats, that would basically an act a 1% across-the-board spending cut at the pentagon. those are probably the more controversial amendments that i have seen get sent to the house
floor for today. i think him a when you look at that list, it is mostly noncontroversial stuff and they will be able to package a lot of those amendments and get through the debate. >> the debate will also deal with border funding. you write in the morning defense in politico, at politico.com, contributed to that today, talking about the self-executing rule that would strike the bills provision.der wall explain all that to us . in the markup last month of the bill, ruben gallego, democrat from arizona, had offered an amendment to basically prohibit any defense department funding from going toward a border wall. it was amended a few times. therelly what it said was
was no dod money going toward a border wall. that was adopted by a voice vote. the house rules committee yesterday made an order and amendment, they suffocate -- a self-executing amendment, to take the provision out. there will not be a separate vote and a separate debate on that amendment. this provision will least dripped down once the house approved the rules for the debate this afternoon, which it is expected to do in a fairly partyline vote. it is a procedural sleight-of-hand to get a provision that isn't very popular with conservatives out of the bill. trump, a dig at donald who campaigned on building a border wall with mexico and having mexico pay for it. republicans made the point that this is a moot issue because no one is proposing pentagon money go to a border wall.
see how doeslso that affect how democrats approach this bill and whether they are more or less likely to support -- whether they are less lightly to support it or start jumping ship on this bill. covering debate on the defense authorization in the u.s. house, pat o'brien for political. you can read his political reporting on politico.com. you can follow him on twitter. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> with the help of our comcast partners, this weekend, the c-span cities tour takes book tv and american history tv to concorde massachusetts, where the first shots of the american revolution are fired. less than a century later, a ' revolution takes place. saturday afternoon eastern on book tv, we will take you inside orchard house, where luisa may
alcott wrote "little women." seeore "walden pond" to what influenced david thoreau. set the trend for the transcendental movement. >> it is a house of two revolutions. it is a house that has such great history to it. >> on sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv, the north bridge where the battle of concorde began in 1775. >> this is considered to be the beginning of the american revolution. it was here that americans, colonial militia, if you will, and the british regulars would encounter one another. shots would be fired. lives would be lost on both
sides. most importantly, it is where the colonial militia was ordered to fire on the kings troops -- the king's troops, an act of treason. >> see the largest collection of materials in the earliest days of the revolution displayed at the concorde museum. tour ofspan cities concorde, massachusetts, saturday at noon eastern on c-span two's book tv. working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. twice a year, janet yellen appears before the financial services khamenei to talk about -- services committee to talk about the economy and monetary policy.she said she expected higher rates of inflation . yellen also said the fed was on track to reduce its bond holdings in the nut -- in the coming months. she was asked about financial regulations and the possibility of her