Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my fellow Members of Congress to delay ObamaCare for 1 year. President Obama has already delayed the employer mandate, and now he has delayed the opening of the small business exchanges. He has already signed into law seven changes to the health care law. It's clear that ObamaCare is not ready to be rolled out.

One of my constituents, Nicole, who manages her household budget for her family of five, called me recently to say that her health care premiums are skyrocketing as a result of ObamaCare. Her insurance company notified her that her family's monthly premiums will go from $431 to $1,003. Her insurer told her that under ObamaCare, she might qualify for subsidies to offset that increase. But Nicole, like many Americans, doesn't want a subsidy. She doesn't want to take a government handout. Her family is responsible, self-reliant; and they don't want to be bailed out by their neighbors.

The Federal Government is broke and cannot afford another entitlement program, even if ObamaCare would work, which it won't.

It's time to admit the obvious: ObamaCare is not ready for prime time. Let's delay it for at least 1 year and protect millions of Americans from its harmful effects.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the full committee, Representative Hastings, for his leadership on this and many other resources issues. I want to thank the sponsors of the bill, and particularly point out to the American people that Representative Paul Gosar has been working night and day on this issue for years. It is amazing to me, and a sign of his dedication to his district and the people of Arizona that brought this bill to where it's at right now. It's taken a lot of work and dedication, and I admire that as I witness it.

A lot has been said about the good that will come to Arizona, the 3,700 well-paying jobs. But I want to talk about the good that's going to come to America.

Copper is the second-most-needed defense material that the Department of Defense has. I'm on the Armed Services Committee, and I'm sensitive to making sure that our men and women in uniform have the best weapons and supplies that they can have. The DOD says that copper is the second-most-necessary mineral to meeting the needs of the military. The first happens to be aluminum.

Also, this is the third-most-rich site of copper in the entire world, in my understanding. It would supply up to one-quarter of this Nation's copper needs. We are right now importing 30 percent of our needs, so it almost wipes out our trade deficit in copper. Copper is a critical metal. If you want to have a growing economy, you've got to have copper. I just want to say this is good for America, it's good to have this resource, and it's good for the jobs that it produces in Arizona.

Finally, I'm just going to conclude by saying it amazes me when I hear people who profess to be for the working families--the working men and women of this country--stumble over a golden opportunity like this that would create thousands of great jobs and they just throw it away.

I would urge that we not listen to them, we look at the good that comes from this bill and the resources and the jobs that this would produce and the good that it does to our national economy, including our defense industry.

Thank you, Congressman Kelly, for hosting this important hour to share with the American people the serious problems with the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty.

Mr. Speaker, as cochairman of the House Sovereignty Caucus, I assure you this ambiguous treaty poses serious threats to American national security, foreign policy, and economic interests, as well as our constitutional rights.

U.S. arms exports are among the safest in the world. The United States should reject the U.N.'s attempt to force us into a system that could jeopardize the safety of our citizens or those of our allies.

This treaty includes small arms and light weapons within its scope, which covers firearms owned by law-abiding Americans. It sets up a broad registration scheme that threatens the individual's firearms rights.

The Arms Trade Treaty also threatens the ability of the U.S. to protect our allies around the world since it contains questionable language that could be misused to prevent America from arming allies such as Israel or Taiwan.

President Obama knows that even members of his own party won't support this treaty in many cases. He must think that gun control must be pursued no matter what.

In my own State of Colorado, voters just recalled two State Senators who pushed gun control against the wishes of their voters. These were historic elections because no Colorado legislator had ever been recalled in the history of the State.

I urge the Members of the Senate to reject this treaty and protect our Second Amendment rights and our national sovereignty.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if you like the current 7- to 10-year timeframe to do mining permits in this country, then you will love this amendment; but this bill is all about making it possible to do mining in this country and use our natural resources in a reasonable, commonsense way.

Other countries, like Australia and Canada, have a 2-year time cycle from beginning to end to get your application and permit done so you can begin mining. In this country, it's 7 to 10 years. That's why we have declining activity of the well-paying jobs that mining produces, the resources that are available from mining so we don't have to rely on countries like China.

This amendment would eviscerate, this amendment would gut, what this bill is trying to do. It's unnecessary because NEPA already applies. NEPA remains in force. This just allows needless and endless bureaucratic delays by allowing NEPA to do an environmental impact statement at almost every step in the whole process.

It is important to have a certainty of when the process is over so you know whether or not you can invest in a long-term project like this. Seven to 10 years is beyond any of our economic cycles. It is not feasible from a business standpoint to wait that long in a commodity market like minerals and metals to make these investment decisions. You to have certainty, you have to have closure, you have to have a time certain that you're done.

So the 30-month timeframe is critical. We respect and uphold NEPA. It remains in effect, but we get rid of the ability to do it at every step in the process.

This amendment would be a backward step and back to the current status quo which makes it harder to have

mining projects in this country with the jobs that they create, with the benefit to our economy that these minerals allow for.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge a strong ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to remind my colleague from Virginia that this administration has streamlined NEPA for several uses during its time in office for renewable energy projects, for highways, for the so-called ``stimulus'' that we had in 2007. So this administration at times, anyway, sees the need to balance the creation of jobs with protecting the environment, but not allowing environmental regulations to be used to endlessly delay projects.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I'm afraid, would endlessly delay the production of the projects that we need to produce critical and strategic minerals. For that reason I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague and friend from New Mexico, Representative Pearce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time and say that if you think it's a good situation for the United States to be lumped in with Papua, New Guinea, dead last among mining countries in this world, as shown by a recent study, in that it takes 7 to 10 years to get mining projects off the ground, then you would like this amendment. But if you don't, if you think we can protect the environment at the same time as creating jobs and strike that balance, which this bill does, then you will vote ``no'' on this amendment and ``yes'' on H.R. 761.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intention behind this amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering it. I do want to reassure him, though, that the bill and current law already satisfy what he is after, so I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Let me read specifically from the language of the bill. This is on page 9. I'm going to read a paragraph, and, hopefully, this will alleviate your concerns:

(g) Financial Assurance. The lead agency will determine the

amount of financial assurance for reclamation of a mineral

exploration or mining site, which must cover the estimated

cost if the lead agency were to contract with a third party

to reclaim the operations according to the reclamation plan,

including construction and maintenance costs for any

treatment facilities necessary to meet Federal, State or

tribal environmental standards.

So, in case the company goes bankrupt--in the worst case scenario--it has to post a bond, and I believe it's equal to 140 percent of what the reclamation cost would be.

We already have comprehensive regulations in addition to the bill language from the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. These regulations have been revised during both the Clinton and Bush administrations so that, today, both BLM and Forest Service regulations require that exploration and mining activities have the resources necessary to ensure reclamation after it's over even if the company goes bankrupt.

I appreciate the intention behind this amendment, but I believe it is completely unnecessary. So, for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, let me just summarize by saying that we already have it in current law and that it's already addressed in this bill that there must be adequate financial assurances given, including the posting of bonds to ensure that the reclamation can take place by contract for third parties if the company goes bankrupt or, for whatever reason, can't follow through. All of our western public land States also have comprehensive regulatory and bonding programs covering hard rock mining. That's in addition to the Federal laws and regulations. In many of these States, the Federal and State agencies work together to jointly manage the reclamation and bonding projects.

As of June of 2013, BLM, in conjunction with its State partners, currently holds more than $2.2 billion in financial assurances to reclaim potential mining sites around the U.S. So you can see this is an active and well-funded program that is in place. Under regulation, these holdings are reviewed and adjusted annually to make sure that costs won't spiral out of control if we have inflation or unforeseen contingencies. In some instances, mining companies are required to establish trust funds and to build them over the course of the mine life to ensure adequate funding for any long-term treatment facilities that might be necessary to meet Federal, State, or tribal environmental standards.

So I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there are already in place appropriate and adequate protections and regulations and that the bill respects that also. I respect the gentleman for his intentions on this amendment, but I believe that it is unnecessary, and for that reason, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, nothing in this bill impacts the important multiple use mission of our Nation's public lands. One of the great stories of America is that our Nation recognizes the importance of balancing our land use for many different needs, including mineral and oil and gas development, renewable energy projects, grazing, timber harvests, hunting, fishing, recreation, and other important activities that bring economic vitality to our public lands.

This legislation doesn't change that. It simply addresses the long bureaucratic and burdensome permitting timelines required for mineral exploration and mine development by building on executive orders requiring coordination by regulatory agencies to process permits for infrastructure projects in a timely manner and without compromising environmental safeguards.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the valiant efforts of Specialist Fourth Class Peter C. Lemon of the United States Army.

Specialist Fourth Class Peter C. Lemon was awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry above and beyond the call of duty in action against the enemy in Vietnam.

When the base came under heavy enemy attack, Sergeant Lemon engaged a numerically superior enemy with machine gun and rifle fire from his defensive position until both weapons malfunctioned. He then used hand grenades to fend off the intensified enemy attack launched in his direction. After eliminating all but one of the enemy soldiers in the immediate vicinity, he pursued and disposed of the remaining soldier in hand-to-hand combat. Lemon carried a more seriously wounded comrade to an aid station, and as he returned, was wounded a second time by enemy fire. Disregarding his personal injuries, he moved to his position through a hail of small arms and grenade fire. Sergeant Lemon immediately realized that the defensive sector was in danger of being overrun by the enemy, and he unhesitatingly assaulted the enemy soldiers by throwing hand grenades and engaging in hand-to-hand combat. He was wounded yet a third time, but his determined efforts successfully drove the enemy from the area.

It is for his courage and unwavering devotion to duty that I am proud to honor and remember the actions of Specialist Fourth Class Peter C. Lemon.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah. It's great to serve on the committee as a subcommittee chairman with him. And we serve with Chairman Doc Hastings, who is doing a great job on these issues.

The bill, H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, is a long-term solution to help put hardworking Americans back to work and ensure that these rural counties have a stable source of revenue to help pay for schools and teachers. It was introduced by my friend and colleague, Representative Scott Tipton, of Colorado, and I am a cosponsor.

Over a century ago, the Federal Government made a promise to actively manage our forests and share 25 percent of the revenues generated from timber sales with counties containing national forest land. This is funding that rural counties depend on to help fund vital services, such as education and roads. But the Federal Government has failed to uphold this commitment and has cut back on active management of our national forests.

This lack of active forest management not only deprives counties of revenue to help fund schools and roads but also inhibits job creation and makes our national forests increasingly susceptible to wildfires and invasive species. Currently, there are over 21 active large wildfires burning right now in eight States. Over 406,000 acres are burning, with only 2 of the 21 fires contained.

This year, to date there have been over 35,000 fires with almost 4 million acres burned. Last year, the tragic Waldo Canyon fire occurred on Federal land in my Colorado district, claiming two lives and destroying almost 500 homes.

H.R. 1526 will help improve forest health and prevent catastrophic wildfires by allowing greater State and local involvement in wildfire prevention on Federal lands. It will help improve local forest management by allowing counties to actively manage portions of national forest land.

Restoring active management of our national forests would ensure a stable, predictable revenue stream for counties and schools. Active management would also promote healthier forests, reduce the risk of wildfires, and decrease our reliance on foreign countries for timber and paper goods.

I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.

I want to thank my friend and colleague, Representative Randy Forbes of Virginia, for his leadership in this vital area of religious liberty and for putting this time together.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our constitutionally granted right to religious liberty and in support of our military. I am grateful for our Nation's military, and I feel privileged to represent thousands of men and women in uniform who serve at the five military installations in my district. Our military is made up of brave, peace- loving men and women of all faiths serving to protect our freedom and our way of life. But there is a growing and troubling pattern of religious discrimination against our men and women in arms.

Earlier this year, an Army Reserve training brief listed Catholics, Evangelical Christians, Sunni Muslims and some Jews as ``religious extremists,'' along with groups like al Qaeda, Hamas, and the KKK. Also, in July of this year, a Christian chaplain was ordered to remove a religious column he had written which simply detailed the history of the phrase:

There are no atheists in foxholes.

Furthermore, in drafting religious freedom policies and regulations, officials within the Pentagon have consulted with radical atheists who once characterized Christians as ``monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans who are die-hard enemies of the United States Constitution.'' This same radical atheist is calling on the Pentagon to prosecute military chaplains who share their faith with servicemembers, claiming that even speaking about your Christian faith amounts to ``unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression.''

Mr. Speaker, this is an affront to our civil liberties and demeaning to this Nation that has always believed in the First Amendment freedom of self-expression. Religious freedom is an integral part of America's greatness and has been a pillar of our Nation from the very beginning. We must remain firmly committed to defending religious freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Colonel William W. Moore's posthumous awarding of the Prisoner of War Medal. He was held captive by Chinese forces for 33 months during the Korean War.

Col. Moore began his military career by joining the Army Air Corps in 1942 and graduated flight school in 1944. He was assigned to Wheeler Field in Oahu, Hawaii for deployment, but World War II ended before he got to fly any missions. His next assignment was at Eglin Air Force Base near Ft. Walton, Florida where he served as a test pilot. While stationed there he was able to fly up to five fighters in one day.

He was then assigned to 7th Fighter Squadron in the 49th Fighter Group in South Korea. While on temporary duty as a Forward Air Controller, he was taken captive when his vehicle was ambushed by Chinese forces. Col. Moore liked to make clear that he was ``captured out of his element'' on the ground rather than being shot out of the sky.

While in captivity, he was determined to stay alive and return home to his wife and sons; remaining active and trying to eat everything he could, helped to save his life. The prisoners were marched at night when it was -40 deg. in the snow up North, and they secretly stole as much wood and coal as they could find to keep themselves warm when they rested during the day. When they arrived at the camp, Col. Moore was elected by the other prisoners to be the cook, a position he held the entire time of his captivity.

While in the camp the Chinese tried to reeducate the captured Americans, holding classes to teach them the ``truth'' about America. The Americans resisted everything they could through subtle tactics such as retelling the landing of Pilgrims and other stories of history with humor and distorting facts to maintain a healthy morale for the prisoners. They also tried to attend all of the church services so as to annoy their communist captors.

When the Armistice was signed in 1953, Col. Moore was finally released from captivity and reunited with his family. After the war he was assigned to the 94th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, where he flew the F-86D and F-102. In 1958, he was promoted to the rank of Major and assigned to the Air Defense Tactical Evaluation Team at Air Defense Command Headquarters in Colorado Springs, CO. While with the ADC he wrote the training and flying manual for the F-106. His next assignment took the new Lt. Col. to Australia to join the RAAF Operational Command as the Chief of Fighter Operations.

In 1964, the Air Force sent him to the Pentagon where he was the F-5 plans officer in the Military Assistance Program where he was promoted to full Colonel. He selflessly volunteered to go to Vietnam, but only if he could fly; instead he was given command of the 27th Fighter Interceptor Squadron in Loring, Maine. As commander of a fighter squadron, with over 400 men and 18 aircraft, Col. Moore flourished. His last assignment took him to Murphy Dome, Alaska where he was the base commander for a radar unit.

After 30 years of a full career in the Air Force, Col. Moore retired in 1972 to Colorado Springs, CO. He and his wife, Lila, had four boys they raised as they moved all around the country. Col. Moore and Lila were married for 60 years before she passed away. He then remarried his wife of 10 years, Bonnie. He was a devoted family man who enjoyed fishing, camping and hunting with his sons.

While he was in captivity for 33 months, Col. Moore did not let that define his life or his career. He continued to look at the positives and strive for the best, yet gained a lot of perspective on life while a prisoner. He was a man who selflessly did not call attention to the fact he was accidently not awarded the POW medal when he returned from Korea, instead his loving wife, Bonnie, sought to honor him by correcting that error. I am truly humbled and offer my sincerest thanks to Col. Moore and his family for their selfless service to our nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Jim Downing who will be celebrating his 100th birthday on August 22, 2013. Throughout his century of life, he loyally served the United States Navy, was a devoted husband and father and faithful to his Creator.

He enlisted in the Navy in 1932, and was assigned to the USS West Virginia where he held a variety of roles onboard. On April 8, 1935 Jim gave his life to the Lord and vowed to follow Him wherever he was led. Jim was involved with original founders of The Navigators who discipled him and gave him the tools to evangelize to his whole ship and lead regular Bible studies onboard.

A survivor of the attack on Pearl Harbor, he helped rescue men from his ship and fight fires onboard. He later rose to the rank of Lieutenant, commanding his own ship the USS Patapsco. While at sea in 1954 his ship was showered with the radio-active ash from the ``H'' bomb being tested at Bikini Atoll. He served as an advisor to the Brazilian Fleet in Rio de Janeiro and later became an assistant professor of Naval Science at the Merchant Marine Academy.

Jim retired in 1956 with 24 years of service in the Navy and went to work for The Navigators for the next 22 years. During the years he served on The Navigator staff he held many capacities including, Divisional Director for Europe the Middle East and Africa with Headquarters in London, Vice President, Deputy to President Lorne Sarmy, and Chairman of the Board of Directors.

Jim and his wife Morena were married for 68 years before her passing. He has authored two books, Meditation and Living Legacy, both of which have been very well received. He has spent over 78 years working for the Lord and being a disciple maker wherever he is located. While he retired from full-time ministry in 1983, he has not retired from teaching others about the Lord and is on the volunteer staff of The Navigators' Collegiate Ministry.

To this day, Jim is investing in the lives of thousands of young people through personal discipleship and The Navigator's Collegiate and Military Ministry. I am greatly honored to help celebrate 100 years of life for a man who has been influential to so many communities around the world through his service and devotion to the Lord.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. Chairman, the House has rejected these amendments--this and a following amendment by the gentleman from Colorado--on the National Defense Authorization Act already this year.

This amendment would strike the funding provided in this bill to provide for multi-year procurement authority of booster motors for the ground-based interceptors, GBIs, that Secretary Hagel announced the United States would deploy this past March.

This amendment, if it were adopted, and perhaps this is unintentional, but it would actually cost the United States as much as $200 million.

Perhaps the gentleman is opposed to the Obama administration's missile defense policy as articulated by Secretary of Defense Hagel. If so, that is a separate issue.

But when you look at North Korea, you look at Iran, I think it would be unwise to oppose the decision to add ground-based interceptors.

All that this amendment is doing is raising the price that taxpayers have to pay for the GBIs that the President and the Secretary of Defense have said we should buy. This isn't just my position. It is what the Missile Defense Agency and the CBO have already said: multi- year procurement will save the taxpayer money.

Now, the reliability issues that the gentleman brought up have nothing to do with this funding, because this funding talks about booster motors. Of the 26 tests that involve the GMD system, Ground- based Missile Defense, 18 of those were 100 percent successful. Of the remaining eight that had problems, none of them involved the booster motor. That is the subject of this amendment. So this amendment is misdirected if it is concerned about the stated concern of reliability.

I can't understand why we would oppose multi-year procurement and advance procurement of the 14 GBIs that the Defense Department says we will buy.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It prohibits funds in this bill from being used to do an environmental impact study on our intercontinental ballistic missiles. You might think that an environmental impact statement, or an EIS, sounds innocuous, but let me lay out the facts that we have.

First, the Obama administration has made it clear that it believes in nuclear zero--the idea that we can achieve a world without nuclear weapons. This sounds like a wonderful idea, but our competitors and adversaries will almost certainly never give up their nuclear weapons. So, until there is a change of heart on the part of our adversaries, this could be a dangerous idea.

We've had reductions in our nuclear forces to date, and it hasn't stopped our potential adversaries--or hostile countries for that matter--from reducing their nuclear programs. As a matter of fact, they've been increasing. I'm talking about countries like Iran and North Korea. In President Obama's second Berlin speech just a few weeks ago, he announced a desire to reduce America's nuclear arsenal by one- third regardless of what the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Iranians, the Pakistanis or anyone else, for that matter, does.

It is in this context that we see in this budget the President's requesting an environmental impact statement for our current ICBM forces. We decisively rejected an amendment not just a few minutes ago here on this House floor that would have defunded one-third of our ICBM forces.

I am proud to be joined in this effort to protect our ICBMs by the three Members who represent States in which bases are located at which we find our ICBMs.

At this point, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Wyoming, Representative Lummis.

I thank my colleague for pointing that out. I appreciate her coming to the floor.

I know we are joined in this effort by Representative Steve Daines of Montana and by Representative Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, and they wholeheartedly support this amendment as well. A strong nuclear deterrent is what we need in the face of uncertainty, not any kind of unilateral disarmament.

Mr. Chairman, at this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

I inquire of the balance of my time remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I have to take issue with what was just stated as far as maintaining a credible deterrent even with massive unilateral further reductions. We've already reduced our nuclear forces under New START to 1,550 weapons, and when you reduce beyond that, it becomes less credible to our allies that we will have a credible deterrent.

We have a nuclear umbrella right now with about 30 countries relying on us. If we start unilaterally reducing the number of our nuclear warheads, they will become less certain about our deterrent. They will be incentivized to go out and start their own nuclear programs. I'm talking about countries like Japan and South Korea, which have a neighbor, North Korea, that is threatening to them. If we want to see more nuclear weapons in the world, we should reduce ours. Other countries are simply not going to follow our example, and it will lead to more nuclear weapons worldwide.

So I would urge the adoption of this amendment. I disagree with my colleague from Indiana, and I would ask for a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, across this country tonight, 600,000 Defense Department civilian employees are struggling with a 20 percent pay cut due to civilian furloughs, and these are scheduled to go through the end of September.

These are hardworking American patriots who work hard to keep our Nation secure. They are supporting our warfighters. They are doing essential work. They are working side by side, shoulder to shoulder, with Active Duty personnel who, because of the language of the Budget Control Act, are exempt from any kind of furloughs. I approve of that, but it's sad that the civilians are singled out for this treatment.

Mr. Chairman, I talked today to someone from the administration who came to a hearing for Armed Services. He said that the savings are estimated to be about $2 billion for the rest of the year. That may sound like a lot of money except when you look at the entire DOD budget of $500 billion. $2 billion is four-tenths of 1 percent--less than half a percent--of the total defense budget for this year.

This is a savings that is a false economy. It is demoralizing, and it is hard on the families that are suffering this. We should adopt this amendment, which says that the Defense Department can find other savings but not take it out of the hides of the civilians who are supporting our warfighters.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke).

I thank the gentleman.

I now yield 1 minute to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to my colleague from Kansas, Representative Jenkins.

I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

Madam Speaker, the record is clear--ObamaCare has been a train wreck since its inception. This latest delay is a testament to the poor planning and widespread mismanagement by President Obama and his administration.

President Obama's decision to delay the employer mandate comes after months of promises from the Obama administration claiming that implementation was on schedule and that the law was working the way it was supposed to. Every day, I hear from constituents who remain strongly opposed to the government's takeover of their health care. Delaying the employer mandate for 1 year is a step in the right direction, but individuals need relief also.

We must protect all Americans from the unworkable mandates of the President's health care plan by voting to delay both the individual and employer mandates. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2668, and I urge its swift adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained due to a flight delay and was unable to vote on rollcall No. 305, rollcall No. 306 and rollcall No. 307.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 305, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 306 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 307.

I object.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to this amendment. I object to where this money is being cut. The amendment would take another $50 million away from already low amounts for modernizing our nuclear stockpile. The President agreed several years ago that he would modernize our nuclear stockpile in order to secure ratification of the New START Treaty. Under that treaty, both Russian and U.S. forces are being reduced; but we have to modernize the force so that we maintain a credible deterrent with the remaining weapons after the reductions take place.

The President is not fully funding that obligation. That's troubling enough. This committee has lowered what the President recommended to an even lower level, and that's even more troubling. If we take this amendment for a further reduction, we're really getting into serious cuts.

The trouble with not modernizing our nuclear capability is that we will no longer have an effective deterrent. These weapons degrade over time. They lose their effectiveness and reliability. If we have allies who can't depend on our nuclear deterrent, what are they going to want to do? They're going to want to go out and start their own nuclear programs. Countries like Korea and Japan are already talking about that, by the way. Unless you want more nuclear proliferation in the world, you want the U.S. to maintain a serious and credible deterrent and have an effective nuclear arsenal.

So this amendment takes us in the wrong direction. It's not good strategically for the United States. It's not a good savings of money, and I would urge strong rejection of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with what the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman of the subcommittee, has just said, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, we have debated similar concepts recently and we rejected them. This would be harmful to our national security. The reason, besides what the chairman from New Jersey has already said, these weapons are forward deployed in Europe to support NATO and are employed also by U.S. strategic forces in the continental United States.

If we do not extend the life of the B61, here is what the Department of Defense has said:

Failure to fully fund the B61 Life Extension Program will

be viewed by NATO and other allies as a weakening in the

overall U.S.-extended deterrence commitment, potentially

prompting certain allies to pursue their own nuclear program.

Unless you want other countries in the world to start their own nuclear programs from scratch to develop their own weapons systems, increasing proliferation, then you want to reject this amendment, because that will potentially be the result if the U.S. deterrence is weakened. That's what this amendment does.

It is important that we do the Life Extension Program also because under New START, which this country entered into recently with Russia, it was determined that we would be upgrading the remaining weapons. We are making dramatic reductions in the amount of the nuclear weapons in our stockpile, so those that remain have to be more reliable or we made a bad deal.

To make sure that those remaining weapons are more reliable we do the Life Extension Programs. The B61

weapons we are talking about are 30 years or more old. They are degrading. They are using sometimes obsolescent parts, so they are not as secure as they could be. We need to do the Life Extension Program for that reason as well.

For all these reasons, I would ask that we strongly oppose and reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.