Showed up 1665 because it prohibits the Missile Defense agency before going down the path of exploring and researching the spacebased missile intercept we have had some tremendoutremendous progreh directed energy and neutron particle beams with those kind of technological advanced projects i dont see why we woulwewould tell them to explore possibility we would love to have a spacebased defensive capability like this. So i would ask that we adopt this amendment and restore what we do two years ago. In the spirit of being helpful to our colleagues, two of my colleagues voted for this two years ago it would ask for the support of the amendment and that we both restore i would like to speak in opposition to the amendment. For the members of the committee, the technology we are talking about here is called natural particle and it was pretty thoroughly explored in the 1990s and largely abandoned. By now it happens to have one or two advocates and the pentagon, and i hope like the gentleman from colorado does that all technology works, but some are more likely to work than others. I apologize because the amendment is awkwardly worded in talking about the development of spacebased ballistic is really about natural particle and this request for 34 million would be a wild goose chase. Its not even a program of record. Folks ive talked to in the community and ive asked virtually everybody about this in the hearings that weve had this year a kind of roll their eyes when they talk about the neutral particle because it seems to be the project of one or two people in the pentagon, not a real thing scientists think have an opportunity to work so im not against the project to send one oprojects ad might work but it just seemed like this is not as important a priority for the Missile Defense agency as many other things. I shouldnt have to remind the committee that should be the number one priority they are making us suffer because of a series of mistake that they made in designing the absolutely essential vehicle and number two to siphon 34 million so somebody can play with toys in the pentagon seems to me to be a little bit of a mistaken priority so i would urge opposition to the amendment. This is about knowledge and research and development. We advocate for research and development and knowledge. I just wrote down the words mr. Cooper was saying play with toys and test. To be appropriated by the fiscal 2020 for the Missile Defense agency they would be obligated or expended to develop a spacebased Ballistic Missile capability that is only able to be deployed in space. None of us expect we are deploying anything in 2020 if nobodys expecting we have anything we are going to be sending up. This is old research and development. Its about the word a. That means any. You are doing none and i cant imagine how anybody in this committee would say i dont want the United States to have any of this knowledge. We are looking at the issue and how we are being passed by russia and china and we were way ahead. Its the same thing how is it we could ever say you should vote this down because it doesnt say what mr. Cooper said it did. Did. Any further comments . One of the issues we run up against and this is when we look at some of this with different issues but part of the difficulty is seeing what else is going on and where else can we actually put our efforts and our focus. It isnt doing that. Its not putting it in the context. I know that theres still more concerned about it. I realized since march 231983 there has been a strain of thought in this country that posed and i realized that there has been a consistent refrain that it will never work if we should have provided us with the provocative. It is a science project and i would hope the success that we have had as well as the evolution of the threat from north korea would have dispelled such lines of thought and im sitting here listening to the last two amendments. One was the shouldnt even have a test of the missile. This one is we shouldnt even explore whether spacebased Missile Defense makes sense. I think that the American People expect us to promote, certainly allow or promote Defense Department defend the country from missile threats. It seems contrary to what they expect us to do in this very serious area where the missiles are proliferating and the threat over growing. So it just doesnt make sense to me that we would want to dismiss a test or exploration of a spacebased Missile Defense layer because i think the American People expect us to be able to defend the country, and doing so requires the sort of testing and research that can help us do that. Any other comments. Mr. Whitman. I want to yield my time to mr. Lamborn. I will just make this brief. I have all the respect for your abilities as a chair man and you are a bright and intelligent g guy. I would like you to consider with me that as a country we can walk and chew gum at the same time and pursue multiple lines of technological possibilities at the same time. If it were true that canceling the south an and taking that moy and putting it in another program automatically translated to that other Program Began successful, then i would agree with you. But canceling the program doesnt mean that the other program you are concerned about is claimed to be successful. That is a separate issue and we shouldnt conflate the two. As a country we have the ability and responsibility and opportunity to pursue different kinds of technological possibilities. And cannot even say we can ever attempt that is wrong as a country. I would hope that you would agree with that. With regards to the gentleman from colorado i want to congratulate him because even though he isnt a member of the subcommittee, he has more attendance than other members. You care passionately about these issues and i shared your concerned with science in fact i would like to invite you to an events that we have had the golden goose awards in which we celebrate nationally and internationally though sometimes unexpected benefits of government funded research. Its amazing. Weve actually had difficulty some folks may want to talk to randy and folks like that we have difficulty getting folks to help us with that. Its amazing what research can produce and i am as pro science as anybody in congress, may be anybody in america. I hope and pray this word. The witnesses i talked to in the subcommittee it just seems like of all the areas we could explore this isnt one of the more productive ones and maybe they are all wrong. We have to prioritize on the committee and i think the evidence so far at least is that this is more of a science fair project than it is something that is likely to help us with Missile Defense. I am for Missile Defense and i want to fund it in a way that they will work. Lets work on that together and i think that we can do that. Further debate. They are working overtime to develop antiBallistic Missile capability. If the defense is possible i guarantee they are going to go down that path and try to field it. We wanted to be like Hypersonic Weapons where china gets a big advantage where we have to catch up. I think its worthy of doing research to know what is possible. We dont want to be left behind. They put so much more energy on this than we do and we cant afford to be left behind so. I want to take the prerogative is there any sense of cost factors that we are talking about in this regard . The only thing would fall under the petition was 34 million that they requested just for that component. There are no costs for the system at this point. 200 million approximately bought a small amount of change. If it would be for the test. Any more discussion. The question is on the adoption. I just want to clarify or are we talking about the cost of studying this or the cost of implementing it . Spinnakers 34 million to begin the testing that would be deployed by 2023 so there isnt a study at this point, its Development Money for the actual test. This isnt a line item that is removed from its anything considered anybody wants to redirect funding to, they are prohibited from doing anything in this category. The provision states that has to be deployed with possibilities to be deployed in space. Theres absolute prohibition. Its not like he went into budget, it is an absolute position no one caprohibition no the lab and consider anything with respect to this. Thank you for yielding your time. Can i followup with your question is that language typically used in the situation that it would be fully prohibited for any development of the technology that can be deployed that doesnt apply to other technologies that could be deployed on things such as uav aircraft, cbs orlando pace. Its complete. Its not just a line item im not sure we are working on it in an aggressive way versus this program. As i understood this issue and its intention, it is what we have to use before here fly before you buy its clear that it will wor work if its purposefully achieved. My understanding is the way that its intended but it wouldnt move to the deployment until such time as we had assurances that there was a probability that it would work. The current discussion seems to indicate Something Different we ought to move in stages, in other words fly it before you buy it to make sure there is a high assurance that its going to work before we deploy. Thank you for your time. This isnt about that. This is a complete prohibition against anybody doing any research and development with respect to any portion of the Missile Defense that would be deployed in space. Reclaiming my time, i understand what youre saying. Understand what youre saying. I also captioning performed by vitac my understanding of what was intended by this amendment. I think what we might my understanding of what was intended by this amendment and if mr. Turner excuse me, if the author of the amendment would proceed with the engineering, the science, to the point that we have some reasonable assurance that the thing is going to work. You can go through the testing process. But dont move to the deployment until we have some assurance that this thing is going to work. So perhaps what we need to do is to redesign the Foundation Just the one year period. Youre for mr. Lamborns amendment. Everything that youre concerned about is like another year, another request. This is just this request and this ban. No one is deploying anything and this only applies in this year but it stops everything. So youre actually speaking in favor of his amendment which i am too. Thank you, mr. Turner and to be quite honest, mr. Moulton i actually never yielded my time and this is why take your time. I walk away for five minutes here. But i actually agree with both mr. Garamendi and mr. Turner, and would like to support the amendment because i dont think we should cancel all research and development on this technology. So now that the chairman i do yield back. Well give it back to him, but sounds to me like theres enough question that maybe we dont want to move perhaps in the language that we have right here and come back to this and, you know, in a little bit. Sorry, mr. Chairman im sorry, we have like five people talking. Whose time is it . Mr. Chairman, its mine. Its mr. Garamendis time. Do you wish to speak or yield to somebody . Well, ive yielded to several people unknowingly, but i would like to do this. I think theres a need to hold this for a while. To i think follow what was suggested and that lets see if we can work out some language here that achieves the goal without flying before we buy. Or buying before we fly, but we continue the research. Got it. Hold on a second. Its mr. Lamborns amendment, so right. I want to make that clarification to help clear up some things. The language that were struggling with is the language in the bill not the language thats in the amendment. The amendment strikes the language in the bill. Got it. So if we hold the amendment it doesnt help was the language thats in the bill. We need to proceed with mr. Lamborns amendment at your discretion. Understood. The possibility here is that we are able to rework the underlying language in a way that is agreeable to everybody as opposed to strike it. Now if thats not possible thats cool. But i believe what mr. Garamendi is saying could we rework this that makes it workable. If you want to do that, you may. If you dont, we dont have to. If the gentleman would yield i would like to propose a possible solution. That is to go with my amendment for now so that the funding is in place. However, we discuss further before this hits the floor whether or not we want to clarify that were not talking about deployment of nothing is going to be deployed. Its strictly research and development. In fact, nothing is ready for deployment. Thats not really an issue. Thats what my amendment is just seeking to accomplish right now. Is we continue with the research and development. If i might, mr. Chairman, mr. Mr. Garamendi, you have a little bit of time because the clock is stopping. Anyway, let me make this very, very quick. Lets do something that creates clarity here. We are very close to an agreement here. The research, the development, thats not a problem. The deployment would be. By striking all of the language we might wind up with deployment. Lets just write something thats very clear that says continue with the research and the development. Hold the deployment until such time as theres whatever words work. Would that language be agreeable to you . It would be agreeable to me. Would staff help me do that before we finish up tonight . Yeah. You do not have to withdraw your amendment. You can put it in abeyance and then in the full committee portion . Yes. All right. We are now on its now an order to consider log 396 r 1. For what purpose does the gentle woman seek a recommendation . I have an amendment at the desk. The gentle lady is recognized for five minutes. Thank you. This amendment seeks information from the department helping to make sure that the committee is able to ensure that in i extension of the new s. T. A. R. T. Treaty would reflect the reality of the threats we face in the world today and in the decade since president obamas new s. T. A. R. T. Treaty was ratified, the world has grown more dangerous. And my amendment doesnt say we should not extend new s. T. A. R. T. , but its an effort to make sures that this arms control arms treaty should contribute to the security of the nation by addressing the real threats we face. So the amendment seeks information from the chairman of the joint chiefs and asks for the chairman to report to the committee on two things. First, the russia and chinas expanding inventory of strategic and nonstrategic Weapons Systems and secondly the impacts on the National Security if an extension or a successor agreement to new s. T. A. R. T. Werent trilateral including china, the United States and russia. And also, the impact on our security if such an extension did not include all strategic nonstrategic Weapons Systems. Reflecting on what we have seen the russians do in terms of the expansion of their capabilities during the period of the new s. T. A. R. T. Treaty and what we have seen china do because theyre not party to new s. T. A. R. T. Or not party to any limitations. My amendment would ask the committee and ensure to make were making an informed assessment about whether or not any extension of the new s. T. A. R. T. Treaty actually served to contribute to the security of the nation. So i would urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment and with that i yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman . I need to understand what in amendment does precisely. If im reading this correctly, and theres a pretty good chance im not, that this basically would require us to go back in and renegotiate new s. T. A. R. T. But we have to include the chinese and the russians in that discussion . If im understanding this correctly. Mr. Chairman and the key question for me on this, does this mean that basically that the s. T. A. R. T. Treaty or the s. T. A. R. T. Treaty we have right now would be allowed to simply go away and would have to be replaced by this triparty agreement. Ill give you a crack at explaining what it means here. I believe the underlying language in our bill is urging them to not dump the new s. T. A. R. T. Treaty, when is it by 2020 or Something Like that when its ready to go. Can you clarify for me what the status of the new s. T. A. R. T. Treaty is. It expires in 2021. 2021 so our underlying language in the bill says, please renew it. Basically. Or it says Something Different. We have an item of special interest microphone. We have an item of special interest that will be just commenting on new s. T. A. R. T. But theres no bill language or so our language basically says keep new s. T. A. R. T. Its positive language. And your language says what. Thank you for the crack at explaining the amendment. I appreciate that. My language simply says report language it says that the chairman of the joint chiefs should report to the committee on whether or not first of all, give us an assessment of the overall the inventory of strategic and Nonstrategic Nuclear weapons that both russia and china poe session and give us an assessment on whether or not an extension of new s. T. A. R. T. That does not include china has a positive or negative impact on americas security. Mr. Chairman i see from your face youre not pleased with this language. But it also says that if there would be an expanded arrangement that would include all strategic and Nonstrategic Nuclear weapons and my amendment is an effort to make sure reclaiming my time its actually my time. No, actually, you stopped, i started and then i yielded to you. Its my amendment, mr. Chairman. Is this the substitute amendment . Does it strike the underlying language . No, it does not. Okay. Thats helpful. Mr. Garamendi . Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have the next amendment on the same subject. I had not had a chance to see ms. Cheneys amendment. Her amendment in some way excuse me, mr. Bacon, i would like to communicate with ms. Cheney here for a moment. A major part of my amendment is a report requirement. It goes further than yours, ms. Cheney. And it goes not as far. It goes further in some of the specifics that are asked for, for example, a current status of the Russian Nuclear forces. And then an impact and analysis if new s. T. A. R. T. Is not extended. What is likely what are the russians likely to do . What are the potential . Similarly, it would assess out our own circumstances, what would we do in response. In other words, a full description. It does not, however, my amendment does not, however, deal with the chinese which i think youre correctly bringing about as an important point. The new s. T. A. R. T. Does not affect china at all as does the inf which has been discussed extensively by this committee. I also go further on the in my analysis. I believe i do not have a waiver on my amendment from the Foreign Relations committee. If that is the case, i was simply going to do talk about it and withdraw. I would like to work with you on expanding the language in your amendment to include the report language, the study language thats in mine thats more fulsom with regard to russia and china that you suggested with regard to china and yes i would be happy to yield. What youre talking about, i dont think we can do. Youre talking about amending ms. Cheneys amendment with some of your language . Well, that would be the ideal from my point of view, but i do understand that that would be difficult to achieve. What im really looking at here is when we go to the floor okay. Try to work this out. So that the appropriate issues that ms. Cheney is raising i believe the appropriate issues that im raising are all brought to bear. If the gentleman would yield again. So well have to withdraw your amendment. If youre simply asking the chairman joint chief of staff to evaluate the s. T. A. R. T. Agreement visavis china, we dont have to take his word for it so it informs us a little bit, but doesnt mean that we have to say, well, no point in having new s. T. A. R. T. Because this guy thinks its more important to have the chinese involved in it. I dont see the harm in this personally so im willing to accept it. Unless there are strenuous objections from anybody. If i might just add one point. Yes. Much of what mr. Cooper and i have talked about in the last three amendments or four amendments have spoken to general hayden and i would just want to put this on the record. Two things. First in the Nuclear Posture review it says that new s. T. A. R. T. Is really important. Having heard the Nuclear Posture review bringing it up several times and in february of this year, general hayden said new s. T. A. R. T. Is really important. Thats a paraphrase of the lengthy statement he made in support of new s. T. A. R. T. So i want to bring general hayden and the Nuclear Posture review back to support my position this time. With that i yield. Thank you. By the way, general hayden said the new s. T. A. R. T. Treaty is important to me. Any other comments . Mr. Walsh. In support of ms. Cheneys amendment the Chinese Nuclear missile the chinese missile arsenal is now the largest in the world and they have built that arsenal while the United States and russia have limited themselves under s. T. A. R. T. And limited ourselves under inf. So i certainly think it would be responsible and reasonable to have the pentagon come back to us and have the chairman come back to us with how the chinese fit into the new s. T. A. R. T. Type arrangement and certainly support ms. Cheneys amendment. Mr. Moulton . I would like to register my support for studying this as well. I think we could benefit from understanding what the implications are going forward. And i think its a reasonable responsibility for us to gather that information. I yield back. The house takes up the 2020 Defense Authorization bill on wednesday. Next highlights from the Armed ServicesCommittee Meeting and debate on chair adam smiths Budget Proposal that would authorize approximately 725 billion in Discretionary Spending for National Defense including 69 billion for the overseas Contingency Operations program. This runs an hour and 15 minutes. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thanks very much chairman cooper and to Ranking Member turner. Unfortunately, we were as the Ranking Member