Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives  CSPAN  July 11, 2019 1:59pm-3:59pm EDT

1:59 pm
2:00 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 236. the nays are 193. he amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is a request for recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 116-14 by the gentleman from california, ms. speier, on on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 116-143 offered by ms. peier of california. the chair: a recorded vote has
2:01 pm
been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
2:02 pm
2:03 pm
2:04 pm
2:05 pm
2:06 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 242. the nays are 187. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 116-143 by the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 116-143 offered by ms. speier of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by
2:07 pm
the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
2:08 pm
2:09 pm
2:10 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 230. the nays are 199. the amendment -- on this vote
2:11 pm
the yeas are 231. the nays are 199. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in part b of house report 116-143 by the gentleman from new york, mr. brindisi, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in part b of house report 116-143 offered by mr. brindisi of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
2:12 pm
2:13 pm
2:14 pm
2:15 pm
the chair: on this vote the yes -- the chair: on this vote the ayes are 243. the nays are 187.
2:16 pm
the amendment is is adopted -- the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 10 printed in part b of house 114-143 by the gentlewoman from california, mrs. torres, which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 rinted in part b of 116-143, offered by mrs. torres of california. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, aed recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
2:17 pm
2:18 pm
2:19 pm
2:20 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 225. the nays are 205. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is a request for recorded vote on amendment number 11 printed in part b of house report 116-143 by the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11, printed in part b of house report number 116-143, offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is
2:21 pm
ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
2:22 pm
2:23 pm
2:24 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 246. he nays --
2:25 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 247. the nays are 182. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 14 printed in part b of house report 116-143 by the gentlelady from florida, ms. shalala, which further proceedings were postpone the and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14, printed in part b of house report number 116-143, offered by ms. shalala of florida. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted.
2:26 pm
a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
2:27 pm
2:28 pm
2:29 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 251. the nays are 178. he amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 17 printed in 116-143 house report by the gentlewoman from minnesota, miss omar, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignated the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17, printed in part b of house report number 116-143, offered by ms. omar of minnesota. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes
2:30 pm
by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
2:31 pm
2:32 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 219 and the nays are
2:33 pm
210. he amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 19 printed in rt b of house report 116-143 by the gentleman from on which , mr. smith, further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 19 printed in part b of house report 116-143 offered by mr. smith of washington. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. his is a two-minute vote.
2:34 pm
[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
2:35 pm
2:36 pm
2:37 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 243. the nays are 186 with one
2:38 pm
answering present. he amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 21 printed in part b of house report 116-143 by the gentleman from on fornia, mr. sherman, which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 21 printed in part b of house report 116-143 offered by mr. sherman of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.
2:39 pm
any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
2:40 pm
2:41 pm
2:42 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 243 and the nays are 234 and the nays are 195. he amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 23 printed in part b of house report 116-143 by the gentleman from california, mr. lieu, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in part b of house report 116-143 offered by mr. lieu of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered.
2:43 pm
members will record their votes by electronic device. his is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
2:44 pm
2:45 pm
2:46 pm
2:47 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 239. the nays are 187. he amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 24 printed in part b of house report 116-143 by the gentleman from california, mr. lieu, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 24, printed in part b of house report number 116-143, offered by mr. lieu of california.
2:48 pm
the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
2:49 pm
2:50 pm
2:51 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 246. the nays are 180. he amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 26, printed in rt b of house report 116-143 by the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 26, printed in part b of house report number 116-143, offered by mr. smith of washington. the chair: a record the vote -- recorded vote has been requested. a sufficient number having
2:52 pm
arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
2:53 pm
2:54 pm
2:55 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 240. the nays are 185. he amendment is adopted. ed unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 27, printed in part b of house report number 116-143, by the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 27, printed in part b of house report number 116-143, offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island. the chair: a is a request for recorded vote oned -- a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned
2:56 pm
coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
2:57 pm
2:58 pm
2:59 pm
the chair: on this vote the
3:00 pm
254 -- the chair: on this vote the eas are --
3:01 pm
the chair: on this vote the -- are 253 the chair: on this vote the yeas are 252. the nays are 173. the amendment is adopted.
3:02 pm
the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 29 printed in part b of house report 116-143 by the gentleman from new york, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 29 printed in part b of house report 116-143 offered by mr. engel of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
3:03 pm
3:04 pm
3:05 pm
3:06 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 241 and the nays are 183. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 31 printed in
3:07 pm
part b of house report 116-143 by the gentleman from fork, -- new york, mr. engel, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 31 printed in part b of house report 116-143 offered by mr. engel of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
3:08 pm
3:09 pm
3:10 pm
3:11 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 236 and the nays are 189. he amendment is adopted.
3:12 pm
he committee will be in order. members, please take your conversations off the floor. he committee will be in order.
3:13 pm
he committee will be in order.
3:14 pm
it's now in order to consider amendment number 32 printed in part b of house report 116-143. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. blumenauer: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 32 printed in part b of house report 116-143 offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 476, the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. chair. i recognize myself for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: i would first begin by extending my congratulations to the chair and the committee for taking a hard look at this legislation to better meet the needs of the
3:15 pm
military and the taxpayer and long-term stable, careful military policy. i think they made tremendous strides. i'd like to try and make it just a tiny bit better. r. chair, we're looking at a nuteman three extension on land-based intercontinental ballistic missile system that i am proposing we have a study as to whether or not we could be better served by simply extending the life of the existing system as opposed to new development. frankly, there needs to be more attention by this congress, and i appreciate the attention the committee has given. the isbm is the leg of the triad that raises the most questions. .
3:16 pm
there's been a study on the future of the icbm force, found that a new alternative very likely doss two or three times more than incremental modernization. we're careening towards a $1.3 trillion or more investment in nuclear weapons that frankly do not help us for most of our national security challenges we face now. weapons that we simply can't afford and can't afford to use. i think by trying to right-size the work we're doing and taking a hard look at this element, with a study on extending the the life, is a reasonable -- the life, is a reasonable, responsible, cost-effective effort and i would strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the
3:17 pm
gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment's language is so wrong that it was resoundly rejected in the armed services committee by a voice vote. and it's very basic and easy to understand as to why it was rejected. this missile, and it relates to a missile upon which has a nuclear warhead, was put in the ground in 1973. richard nixon was president of the united states. the month before these were put -- the years these were put in the ground in december of that year, was the last time we were on the moon in 1972. this was just at the end of the apollo program. this is technology that is incredibly outdated. mr. turner: if you think the apollo program and the moon launch, you think, well, the next technology is the space shuttle. that launched in 1981, almost a decade after these were put in the ground. even the space shuttle is
3:18 pm
retired. but yet he wants to resurrect these. this is as ridiculous as saying we're going to go to the moon again, let's go to the museum and pull out the apollo moon crafts, let's just jigger them up again and put them up in space. it's not going to work. this is absolutely irresponsible. but it's not really about just trying to extend this life. because this has been studied before. this would be a study of a restudy of a restudy of a restudy. in addition, this is not only a study, this delays the program. everyone wonders why nuclear weapons cost so much. they cost so much because we delay and delay and delay and this will be another one of those that would just continue the prospects of, one, our having a decaying of our nuclear deterrent, but in addition to that, increased costs as a result of increased delay. mr. blumenauer has been a very strong advocate against nuclear weapons. i understand his interest in ying to prohibit, thwart our efforts to modernize nuclear
3:19 pm
weapons. but if you look at what china and russia is doing, it is absolutely irresponsible to say that a richard nixon-era missile that's in the ground, that's been there since we were last on the moon, should just be refurbished and put back in the ground and expect that we're going to be safe. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: i would yield one minute to the distinguished chair of the committee, mr. smith. mr. smith: thank you. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: three quick points. first of all, richard nixon era or not, we agree that the missile right now is working. i certainly hope it is since we are relying on it as a key part of our nuclear deterrent. and we have a lot of weapon systems. i am surprised that the b-52 bomber is still functional. but it is. so to imply that somehow because it's old it by definition doesn't work, i hope that's not true. in fact, i know it's not true. because the current missile works perfectly fine and is a more than adequate deterrent. second, the studies that have been done, we're trying to figure out if we could get away with keeping this missile for
3:20 pm
the entire projected 80-year life span of its replacement. the studies have come back and said, no, it probably will not last 80 years. we have not studied whether or not it could last another 25 or another 50. that's the purpose of this amendment. that would save us money. look, we need a nuclear deterrent. i don't believe the gentleman from oregon, certainly i don't support getting rid of our nuclear weapons. but the question is, how many do we need, what does -- what does the deterrent look like, what makes sense? it is clear that this missile works now and if we did this study, it's quite reasonable to assume it would work another 10, 20, 30 years from now, and that money could be used for other defense priorities. so this is to answer the question that is very important. i'll skip the third point and yield back. thank you. mr. blumenauer: i'd be happy to yield the gentleman another 20 seconds. mr. smith: it's inconsequentialal. the voice vote in our committee was not overwhelming. i'm the one who called the voice vote. it was my sense that the amendment was agreed to in committee.
3:21 pm
but it was not overwhelming. there were a large number of members of the armed services committee who supported the proposal that mr. blumenauer is now making. mr. blumenauer: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. turner: we should turn to the experts when we talk about how long can this be extended. this amendment would try to take this richard nixon-era missile to 2050. the general who is the purpose who is charged with having the he can per tease of this came before -- expertise of this came before us. this year he said, all studies have been done, this cannot be extended. the only reason this amendment is here is to delay us doing what we need to do and what the experts say which is not refurbish this missile but move forward with a replacement. i yield two minutes to mr. bishop of utah. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: thank you. the minuteman 3 has been a great deterrent and source of security for this country. it was put in the ground when i
3:22 pm
was in college and i can't even remember what i was doing in college. it has already been extended three times. and as we said, the testimony in our committee says we have studied this. and the conclusion was, more study and more delay was not cost effective. look at the reality of the situation. if we move into a new system, you have to have the infrastructure to actually make that move so, the system can be seamless in going from place to place. if you pause in that reconstruction of infrastructure, what you do is stop the construction, then you have to start up again which is why the costs continue to increase. there are parts to the minuteman 3 which are no longer being produced in the private sector, so the engineers on our air force logistic centers have to rejigger from old parts a new part. in fact, the blueprints in some cases are so old they are not readable anymore. we have to move forward. this amendment stops us from modernizing our effort. the gbsd has to move forward and let's face, it the only reason it's not moving forward right now is because it doesn't have a cute name like minuteman 3.
3:23 pm
but it is our future and if we want something in our future, we cannot tolerate more delays and this amendment for another study does nothing more than delay what we can actually come up with, a new generation what have we need to defend this country. i yield back to mr. turner. mr. turner: reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: may i inquire as to the amount of time remaining? the chair: the gentleman from oregon has a minute and 3/4 remaining. mr. blumenauer: and my colleague has the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from ohio has one minute remaining. nd has the right to close. mr. blumenauer: i will yield myself 15 seconds to just reassure my good friend from utah that the minuteman missile doesn't have to remember what it was doing in the past, it simply has to launch.
3:24 pm
to the notion that it's a nixon-era weapon, we are flying b-52's which are not just lyndon johnson, those are kennedy-era. and with that, i would yield the balance of my time to my good friend, mr. garamendi. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garamendi: i want to engage in a discussion that's extremely important here. i thank my good friend, mr. turner, for raising some issues. indeed, we might be better off going to a museum and getting the apollo, because the current moon launch system isn't working too well. well overbudget and well delayed. but the issue at hand has to do with these missiles. there is clarity that they can be -- that this can be delayed. general clock in one of our hearings said it can be refurbished once again. other hearings have provided information that the key here is the command and control system. which is indeed antiquated and which indeed must be refurbished
3:25 pm
and rebuilt. we ought to spend our time on that. this amendment does not delay the ground-based system, what it does, it gives us the information so that we can make an informed decision about when to engage and spend the $100 billion to $150 billion on the new ground-based missile system. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from ohio is ecognized. mr. turner: we'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon has 30 seconds remaining. mr. blumenauer: did my friend from california not completely exhaust the time allotted? the chair: the gentleman has 30 seconds remaining. mr. blumenauer: 30 seconds. well. ok. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized.
3:26 pm
mr. garamendi: if you're around here long enough, your mind can go in one-minute sections. i was right on the one minute. i'll try to close very quickly on this in the next few seconds. this amendment doesn't stop the ground-based system from going forward. it simply gives us the decision -- us, the decision makers, the opportunity to have some very informed decisions about when we must renew this system. there is clear evidence, clear discussion in various hearings that an additional period of time is available before we initiate and go full-bore into the new ground-based system. so let's get information, let's get knowledge. with that, i am finished. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. turner: i yield the balance of our time to our ranking member, mr. thornberry. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: thank you, mr. chairman. it seems to me the studies that have been conducted make it
3:27 pm
clear that it makes no cost sense to try to extend the life of these missiles that have been in place for so long. i think what's really at stake legs whether the three of the triad upon which our defense has depended for so many ecades is to be renewed, modernized and remain credible. and each leg of that triad, the submarines, the air leg and the missiles that we're talking about now, have unique characteristics and it's the three of them working together that has been so successful in making sure that our country has been protected and that nuclear -- no nuclear weapon has been used since the end of world war ii. this is essential to make sure that -- it is essential to modernize the land-legged base
3:28 pm
of our triad, to make sure that it stays credible and modern and safe. that's why this amendment should be rejected. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. turner: 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 oregon will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 33 prohibited in part b of house report 116 -- printed in part b of house report 116-143. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. blumenauer: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 33 printed in part b of house report 116-143 offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house
3:29 pm
resolution 476, the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment here that on the l with a study cost effectiveness of the w-80-4 life extension program. we've been having these debates over the years before the committee on this issue of nuclear weapons. i'm deeply troubled that we really haven't done a deep dive on the floor of the house in terms of the path we've been on. i have settled in the past for trying to have some studies to determine whether or not what we are doing going forward is actually cost effective. in this case, we're looking here , the father of this device,
3:30 pm
former secretary of defense, bill parry, has argued that there's scant justification for spending tens of billions of dollars on the weapons. general mathis has stated numerous times that he's not sold on the lrso. i simply want to be able to make sure that we know what we're getting into, what the costs are, and that we -- in terms of some of the increases that are going forward. we need to do a better job of our oversight, our debate. these weapons have not been used as the gentleman said since the end of world war ii. it's not at all clear that we needed to have the volume of weapons we had, the number of delivery systems. in fact, there's a strong argument that we could have done a better job or just as good a job of deterrence with less and there have been a whole host of problems in the past in terms of mismanagement, accidents that we have narrowly avoided disaster.
3:31 pm
i think this is a small step forward and i would respectfully request that the study be approved. and i reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio is ecognized. >> we are blazing on the timeline of nuclear weapons where we had a nuclear in 1973 during richard nixon's term -- second -- after elected to a second term. mr. turner: we now have a 1980-era jimmy carter warhead. the b-52 has been a continuous -- flight -- we are not talking about a planes that been put in the hangar since jimmy carter but these items, these are items we don't use. this is to deter our adversaries. the only way to deter our adversaries is to have them believe any aggression against us would be matched with such overwhelming force that it would be at their great risk. to the extent we allow our
3:32 pm
nuclear deterrent to degrade, which we have with nixon-era missiles and carter-era weapons, we lessen our overall security. now, this is, again, it sounds like just a study. it's not really a study. it's a study of a study of a restudy. it's been studied so much that it's on a bipartisan basis that this w-80-4 warhead needs to be refurbished, needs to be redone. even the obama administration had an analysis of all alternatives and concluded that the air launched cruisele could not be sustained. even the obama administration said don't do this. they said move forward. now, one again, this is not about a study. this is about stopping the ongoing efforts of a program. this is about holding moneys back so we don't modernize nuclear weapons. again, china is moving forward. russia is moving forward. but here we are on the floor of congress trying to stop our
3:33 pm
ability to match and meet those who might wish to do us harm. this amendment needs to be defeated. this is an ancient, 1980's carter-era warhead. even the obama administration agrees it needs to be replaced. we should not jeopardize its funding. every time we do this, every time we stop and say, let's study this, our costs go up and our risks go higher and our security gets lower. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: what is the ime remaining? the chair: the gentleman from oregon has three minutes. mr. blumenauer: i yield a minute and a half to the distinguished chair of the committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. this is a little bit smaller than what the gentleman from ohio implied. we're not stopping the funding of this program. actually, what we're stopping is the additional $185 million
3:34 pm
request that n.s.a. and the president requested in the budget. the missile will continue to be funded. we talked about it in committee. we let it go. but they have not really told us what they're going to do with this additional $185 million, and we have concerns, in addition to the concerns that mr. blumenauer raised, about the efficacy of the program, about whether or not they're going to be able to execute this $185 million and what their exact timeline is for the program. in fact, the air force recently said they were delaying by a year or two certain steps in the development of this missile while saying they were also going to still meet the ultimate deadline for deployment. but the specific $185 million that -- was an amount that was asked for in addition that was originally planned for f.y. 2020. we don't have an adequate explanation in my view and mr. blumenauer's view from d.o.d. as to why they want that additional $185 million and that is the purpose of this. not studying the entire
3:35 pm
missile. it's saying, why are you accelerating the program and asking for this additional money? i support the amendment and with that i yield to the gentleman. mr. blumenauer: reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. to our r: two minutes ranking member, mac thornberry. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman yielding. mr. chairman, my understanding is that in january of this year, the independent cost estimating and programming evaluation office, which is part of the department of energy's n.s.a. provided a report and objective analysis of this program and everything that they reported was that the program remains on budget as expected for the first production unit by fiscal year 2025. i think what's happened is they have a greater opportunity, a
3:36 pm
greater need to spend more money from 2019 to 2020 than they originally planned. now, that can occur for several reasons. number one, the program can start to move a little faster so you can make good use of money. unfortunately, what sometimes happens is, once you start looking into some of these very old warheads you discover problems that needs some resources in order to deal with those problems. now, we can't really talk on the floor about the specific concerns with any particular warhead today because of classification. but the key point is, this program has stayed -- its overall funding profile has remained consistently and perfectly within the guidelines of what was planned originally. again, i'm afraid that this amendment, like the last one, is delayed by study. we can study things to death,
3:37 pm
but we have not done what we should to renew the three legs of the triad and the weapons which you constitute our nuclear deterrence and postseason which our security depends. we have basically reached the point where we have no margin for error. we have to move ahead with submarines. we have to move ahead with a new bomber. we have to move ahead with the minuteman iii replacement and we have to move ahead with the warhead replacement, not only to make sure they work, but to make sure the people around them are safe. that's the crucial point. the chair: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: i would yield one minute of our minute and a half to mr. garamendi from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. garamendi: with enormous respect to my colleagues who are opposed to this amendment, i think this amendment makes
3:38 pm
enormous sense. it's $185 million of additional money that's been requested in just the last couple months to move this program forward. we ought to be careful here because the nnsa is only 50% sure it's a $12 billion program. that's on the upside, not on the downside. so we're talking about something very expensive. it's unfortunate we divided this extraordinarily important debate about the future of our nuclear systems into five-minute segments. this ought to be a five-hour debate on the floor. i see my colleagues nodding their head. a fundamental question is being asked here about where we are going with our nuclear enterprises. we do know this. we are in the midst of a three-party nuclear arms race, and this one's going to be extremely dangerous because the weapons are more -- are bigger. they are safer, to be sure, but they are more likely to explode. and finally, they are going to
3:39 pm
be delivered by stealth technology. sad but true, we need a five-hour debate on this entire thing. with that i'm yielding. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. turner: people don't like nuclear weapons. i don't like nuclear weapons either. but i don't like nuclear weapons in the hands of other people, and, yes, there are those who say we are in the middle of an arms race, but the reality is we're sitting this one out. we're not in the arms race. when we're talking -- when we're debating on the house floor about a warhead from the carter era and a missile from the nixon era and we can't talk about moving forward to funding, there's no race here. we are sitting this out. but our adversaries are racing, and i am concerned about what they're doing and that's why this is important that this be defeated. another aspect of this that's incredibly important, this calls for an independent study. independent. that's saying they don't trust the study that happened before.
3:40 pm
the study that happened before was the obama administration. the obama administration. i think their answer was correct. we need to not study this. we need to move forward. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: what is the time remaining? the chair: the gentleman from oregon has 3/4 of a minute remaining. mr. blumenauer: and my colleague from ohio? the chair: time has expired. mr. blumenauer: well, let me just make three points. first and foremost, anybody who thinks that we're standing still and defenseless is not in the real world. we are spending billions of dollars on nuclear weapons and delivery systems and in fact, you're relying on a delivery system from the kennedy era with the b-52. so don't tell me that you cannot move these items forward. second, you do not have a good fix in terms of what's happening with the cost
3:41 pm
increases. this study just will -- is required to be able to have the additional money. if we can do the appropriate study and it makes sense, the money's there. but this is a step towards accountability. and it's long, long overdue, and i hope we can start now approving this amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment 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: on that -- the chair: for what purpose does -- mr. blumenauer: 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 oregon will be postponed.
3:42 pm
the chair: it's now in order to consider amendment number 34 printed in part b of house report 116-143. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. frankel: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 34 printed in part b of house report 116-143 offered by ms. frankel of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 476, the gentlewoman from florida, ms. frankel, and
3:43 pm
a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida. ms. frankel: thank you, mr. chair. you know, i think there's a few of us here in congress that are old enough to remember a time when we actually did nuclear bomb drills in school, and it's probably would have been a futile action if there was an attack. even though a nuclear warfare is an existential threat to all of us and our allies around the world, it's been arms control hat have led our lives -- go about our lives daley without that worry of nuclear war. agreements, like the intermediate-range nuclear force treaty, known as i.n.f. treaty, which led to the elimination of thousands of united states and russian nuclear missiles. in recent years, it's become apparent that russia has been
3:44 pm
violating this treaty, and in response, in february, the trump administration announced its withdrawal to the consternation of our european friends, giving both the united states and russia freedom to produce more nuclear weapons. and it's the general consensus of arms control community that we should be working with russia to bring them back into compliance instead of adding to our nuclear arsenal and sidestepping nato. once again, this administration is alienating allies who don't want to be targets for russian attacks. nato secretary-general said clearly, we do not intend to deploy new land-based nuclear missiles in europe, and in recent testimony to congress, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff stated, there were no military requirements that we cannot currently satisfy due to our compliance with the i.n.f. treaty.
3:45 pm
in other words, the world has enough nuclear weapons to destroy civilization. it's clear that our withdrawal of i.n.f. is being driven by extreme elements of our administration who've made their careers out of destroying arms control agreements. to stop this nuclear escalation, my amendment would prohibit funding for missile systems noncompliant with the i.n.f. treaty unless the defense department demonstrates an ally has agreed to host the missile and we've exhausted all other diplomatic options. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment to prevent a dangerous and costly nuclear arms race. enough is enough. i reserve. . the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is
3:46 pm
recognized. mr. lamb: mr. chairman, i yield my -- mr. lamborn: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamborn: this is a dangerous amendment. the trump administration withdrew from the i.m.f. treaty because russia had been treating on this treaty for years -- cheating on this treaty for years. the only country that was in compliance with the treaty was the united states. and we were handcuffing ourselves by putting limitations on our ability to respond to threats from russia or china, that we were the only country in the world complying with. china was not a signatory to the i.n.f. treaty. this was, like you said, signed 32 years ago. china was not the military power that it is today. it was not a party to this treaty. going forward, i would love to see some kind of treaty between the u.s. and russia and china. but that's not in the works if this amendment is passed. this ignores china. china has more missiles in the
3:47 pm
pacific region than anyone else in the world. they have more certainly than the united states. so that's another flaw with this amendment. russia has been cheating on this, and to say we're going to comply with the terms of the treaty, regardless of what russia does, is to reward them or their cheating. one other key point that this makes it a dangerous amendment is because it would prevent the testing necessary for the growth of our missile defense program. the i.n.f. treaty that this would put us back into in a backdoor kind of way prohibits testing or deployment of missiles with the range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. those are the kinds of tests that we need to be able to do to test our missile defense systems. the department of defense stated just a couple of days ago,
3:48 pm
land-based missiles required to support ballistic missile defense system flight testing also have ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. loss of target missile capability will likely prohibit upcoming missile defense flight tests, requiring such target missiles. and they go on to say, this will limit the war -- our missile defense capabilities. that's a dangerous thing. there's some dispute over whether allies like israel would be included in this ban of test vehicles. i'll leave that for another discussion. but it is a serious issue. but it would certainly prohibit our testing of our missile defense systems between the range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. that would cripple our growth of missile defense for the future. that doesn't make the world a safer place. certainly doesn't make the united states a safer place. so for all those reasons, mr.
3:49 pm
chairman, this is a bad amendment and i would urge that we reject it and vote no. i reserve the balance of my time . the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. frankel: thank you, mr. chair. let me respond and say, according to the department of defense, there is nothing in this amendment that would impact missile defense test systems. and with that i'm going to yield a minute to mr. engel of new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: i'm pleased to support this amendment. there's been some misinformation out there about what this measure would actually do. so let me just clear up a few things. the measure's a prohibition on the united states deploying a short or intermediate range ground launch ballistic or cruise missile system. just the united states. it has nothing to do with any other country. we want to prevent an arms race, we want to push back on our
3:50 pm
careless approach to russia. the i.n.f. treaty has been a corner stone of arms treaties for 30 years. we're clear about the threat russia poses. yes, russia has violated this treaty again and again which threatens transatlantic security and stability. this is no surprise coming from vladimir putin. but we have to use every diplomatic tool at our disposal to try to salvage the treaty. instead the administration is following putin's lead and walked away and now russia will feel totally unconstrained to start another arms race. i know that the relationship with putin and all kinds of things that putin does, we have to be very, very, you know, wary about it. i just think what joth the gentlewoman is doing -- what the gentlewoman is doing is a commonsense approach to this. the united states can go back at any time and change our policy. and it's russia and putin, we don't trust them. trust and verify. i thank the gentlewoman. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from
3:51 pm
florida. ms. frankel: i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. lamborn: i'd like to inquire how much time both sides have remaining. the chair: the gentleman from colorado has two minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from florida has 1 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. lamborn: i'm going to make a brief statement and yield to the gentleman from ohio. first, let me say that this doesn't just put us back in the i.n.f. which would be bad enough. this puts us in a worse posture than the i.n.f. this amendment is more stringent on our ability to develop our defensive capabilities than the i.n.f. would be. specifically, the i.n.f. has an exemption for interceptors. this does not. so we can't do interceptor tests . we could have under i.n.f. but we can't under this amendment. also, there's an exception for ballistic missiles without warheads for testing our
3:52 pm
defenses. that's in the i.n.f., it's not in this amendment. this is worse than the i.n.f., which is bad enough. i yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from ohio. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> thank you. this is very basic. you cannot have a treaty with yourself. you must have a treaty with someone else. if that other person steps out of the treaty, you no longer have a treaty. russia stepped out of the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty. mr. turner: the north atlantic council all came together and confirmed it at the last nato summit. every one of our allies confirmed it. the treatyy -- the treaty is dead. to have a treaty where it's only us that are left and say by statute we're going to shackle ourselves so that we're going to stay there, its into reflection on reality -- it has nos remain flexion on reality. it isn't a minor violation of the treaty. they have developed, tested and deployed a weapon that violates the treaty. that means that they are once again deploying nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons of which we
3:53 pm
don't have a response. and our response doesn't necessarily have to be go field one. we can continue diplomacy. but legislation is not diplomacy. you're by legislation going to say the united states shall forever, until the legislation stays in, be tied to a treaty that the person on the other side already left, and went and deployed missiles that are point at our a-- pointed at our asset -- our assets, our men and women in military uniform and our aliles. this is folly. the -- allies. this is folly. this effects our cooperation with israel and our interceptor research with them. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. frankel: i yield a minute to mr. garamendi. the chair: the gentleman from alifornia is recognized. mr. garamendi: oh, my. we definitely need five hours. this is extraordinarily important. in fact, it is the united states that terminated its role in the
3:54 pm
i.n.f. treaty when president trump pulled out of the treaty. presumably russia is still in, although they are clearly violating the treaty. we lost whatever leverage there may have been. we're now in the midst of what i said a moment ago, one more stage of a nuclear arms race. all of us better take a deep breath here and begin some serious negotiations because this time it is extraordinarily dangerous. in addition to that, please understand that our allies, on whose land these missiles may be placed, are not in agreement that they should be placed there. so there really is no plan for the deployment, let alone exactly how these missiles would be done. and by the way, we clearly have alternative ways of delivering nuclear weapons, short range, long range, intercontinental ballistic missiles and most every other way, except no longer in a brief case or in a projectile, fortunately. so it's not a haller harm -- it's not harmful to delay this. it's not harmful to make sure
3:55 pm
that our allies are in sync with us as to where they may be deployed. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from florida has 15 seconds remaining. flannel flannel -- ms. frankel: how much time do each side have? the chair: the gentlelady from florida has 15 seconds remaining. ms. frankel: the department of defense says nothing in this amendment wime pact missile defense cooperation with israel and i just want to end by saying, enough is enough. diplomacy, not more nuclear weapons. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by -- by the gentlelady from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. lamborn: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman request a recorded vote? mr. lamborn: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida will be
3:56 pm
postponed. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 476, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin, and a member opposed each will
3:57 pm
control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. langevin: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment funds ongoing efforts to assess the viability of using low enriched uranium fuel and able reactors, including those in aircraft carriers and smaub are ins. -- and submarines. something congress has supported for many years now. the united states has demonstrated strong leadership to eliminate the use of highly enriched urijah for civilian purposes -- uranium for civilian purposes. doing so makes clear that the accumulation of h.e.u. is solely for nuclear weapons purposes, undercutting any nation's argument that they need it for anything else. using low enriched uranium can bring significant national security benefits with respect to nuclear nonproliferation, lower security costs and put naval reactor research and development at cutting edge of nuclear science.
3:58 pm
pursuing the development of l.e.u. fuel offers the opportunity to achieve transformal progress on fuel technology. additionally, a lesser alternative is developed in the coming decades, the united states will have to resume production of bomb-grade uranium for the first time since 1992, ultimately undermining u.s. nonproliferation efforts. using l.e.u. for naval reactors is not a pipe dream. france's nuclear navy already has converted using h.e.u. to using l.e.u. fuel for its vessels. we must evaluate the feasibility of a similar transition for the u.s. navy and take into account the potential benefits to the u.s. and international security of setting a norm of using l.e.u. instead of nuclear bomb-grade material. as america confronts the threat of nuclear terrorism and its countries continue to enrich uranium for naval purposes, the imperative to reduce the use of h.e.u. will become increasingly important over the next several decades.
3:59 pm
congress has sought to advantage these efforts in a bipartisan, bicameral way over the last several years by eliminating -- by evaluating the potential of utilizing l.e.u. fuel and reactors of u.s. naval aircraft carrier submarines. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to point out that there have been multiple studies done on this. in 2014 the department of defense department of navy pointed out the negative impacts that low enriched uranium would have on the capability of the navy. again, 2016, another report. i remind the folks here in the chamber that this report was specific about saying the negative impacts that low enriched uranium will have on the capability of our united states navy.

105 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on