Systems. Thank you so much. The chair the gentleman is recognized. The navy provides 30year cost estimates. I urge a novote 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 115212. It is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in part b of house report 115212. 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 115212, 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 its 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 10year 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 thats 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 10year 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 10year time horizon. Therefore its important that the United States as we get into this longterm 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 10year horizon. This amendment that im proposing simply requires that the department of defense and the department of Energy Consider a 25year 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 NuclearSecurity Administration does do a 25year report. And they apparently think its 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 groundbased Ballistic Missiles, the new bombers and quite possibly the new longrange strike lsr;; lsro. So lets find out. Lets 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 were going to have to face up to. Well, who is we . We is us. Were going to have to figure out how to pay for all of this and were 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. Thats 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. Hes a very serious, thoughtful, and clearly articulate member, but its for the same reasons that i just outlined with mr. Aguilars amendment. Ill keep this brief because we just talked about this, but oing down this path, 20 or 30year 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 doesnt think its a good idea either. We have considered this 30year cost estimate and each time its 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. Id 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, thats plenty. Well this is a common sense amendment. Ive great esteem for the chairman but i really dont think we ought to be mushrooms. I dont 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 dont want to be mushrooms but we also dont 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 115212. 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 115212, 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 its time to insert fiscal sanity into our Nuclear Weapons planning. Were 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. Were here in congress to make hard decisions about how to spend taxpayer dollars. The pentagon should provide longterm 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. Wouldnt 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 theres scant justification for spending tens of billions of dollars on this weapon. General mattias stated numerous times hes not sold on it. We shouldnt 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, lets 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. Its not just me, the Armed Services committee considered nearly the same amendment in markup and it was defeated. Its also our countrys 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. Heres the nations second highest ranking military officer, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general silva, quote, our weapons were built in the 1970s with a 10year life spann. We know they remain relevant but we cant cant to maintain them. In a decade they wont be able to penetrate Russian Air Space therefore theres an urgency to find their replace. Another said, this is the first limiting resources of either of these components will disrupt the timeline. Heres president obamas assistant secretary of defense testifying before my Committee Last year. Quote eric the Obama Administrations fund og of replacement is essential to stable and effective deterrence. Finally let me briefly address the nonsense argument that lrso is destabilizing. Heres obamas undersecretary for defense, first, lrso is consistent with our military goals, second, lrso promotes strategic stability and does not undermine it. Third, its important in the eyes of our allies. Its no sign that its 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 were planning on recapitalizing our entire nuclear arsenal. Weve 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, its going to be difficult to estimate how much its 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 icbms a new bomber, its going to cost a lot. I dont know if its 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 lets 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. Theres 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 were so, you know, hellbent on building the lrso and others is because were concerned about what russia and china is doing. Thats how it works. It does have that destabilizing effect. I dont 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, its 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 shouldnt 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 virginiaclass 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 gettin