Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I join with the chairman and ranking member, a fellow Ohioan, in opposition to this amendment.

I strongly oppose the gentleman from Texas' amendment, as it would seriously undermine our national security.

Specifically, this amendment would strike a provision providing the Department of Energy with the authority to use existing funds for domestic uranium enrichment technology development. Let me emphasize that there is no direct funding in the bill for the project. The provision simply provides the authority to transfer existing funds from other Department of Energy programs.

In the last Congress, as we have previously spoken, the Congress beat two amendments that were offered that were similar, both with strong opposition to these amendments.

According to the National Nuclear Security Administration, in the near future, the United States will need a fully domestic source of unrestricted enriched uranium, based on domestically-developed technology, to support the nuclear weapons program and Navy nuclear reactors program.

The United States is prohibited from seeking this material internationally. Regardless of the agreements, the United States must never rely on foreign companies for such a critical component of our nuclear deterrent. Simply stated, we need U.S.-owned domestic supply of enriched uranium, and the use of a foreign supplied material would violate these long-standing policies and agreements.

This has been defeated twice before, and this is really simple. It has been defeated because this is a critical component of our nuclear deterrent. Do we want to depend on foreign or do we want to have a domestic source? Congress has twice said it would be crazy to jeopardize our nuclear deterrent and rely on foreign sources. Congress should again for the third time defeat this amendment because we need to rely on domestic in protecting the United States nuclear deterrent.

I urge my colleagues to once again oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered by: Mr. Turner

Amendment No. 10: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the U.S. Delegation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Parliamentary Assembly, I am introducing a bipartisan resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that it is in our national interest to support and enhance Europe's energy security through opening of the Southern Gas Corridor.

Many of our allies in Europe are heavily dependent on natural gas supplies from one country or from unstable regions. For example, several European countries have experienced natural gas supply disruptions from Russia, the largest supplier of natural gas to Europe, over various disputes. In addition, Turkey relies on Iran for 20 percent of its natural gas imports. And earlier this year, Islamist

militants attacked a natural gas facility in Algeria, which is the third largest exporter of natural gas to Europe.

The Caspian Sea region holds significant energy resources and proven natural gas reserves. In particular, the Shah Deniz field in Azerbaijan is one of the world's largest gas fields, with over 30 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas. The Southern Gas Corridor will help our European allies diversify their energy resources by providing an alternative and reliable source of natural gas. This will bolster their energy security and help improve geopolitical stability in the region. Specifically, the pipeline will route natural gas from Azerbaijan through Georgia and Turkey to Europe.

Current and past administrations have expressed support for the Southern Gas Corridor. At the U.S.-Azerbaijan Convention in late May 2013, U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan Richard Morningstar stated:

``. . . Azerbaijan's importance to European energy security

will remain strong, helping to guarantee that our European

partners are not overly reliant on any suppliers. Azerbaijan

is now in the final stages of establishing a southern

corridor for natural gas.

``. . . our overriding interest is that Azerbaijani gas

reaches vulnerable markets in Europe . . . ''

Additionally, a December 2012 report by Senator Richard Lugar's Foreign Relations Committee staff entitled ``Energy and Security from the Caspian to Europe'' states:

``. . . the Southern Corridor would advance several U.S.

and NATO foreign policy objectives: it would further isolate

Iran, assist in cultivating partners in the Caucasus and

Central Asia and bolster their sovereign independence, and

perhaps most importantly, curtail Russia's energy leverage

over European NATO allies.''

Mr. Speaker, the Southern Gas Corridor will contribute to regional energy security for our allies in Europe and Eurasia, and help to strenghten our strategic partnership.

I urge all my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Madam Speaker, in 2008, Maria Lauterbach, a female marine from my community, stepped forward to report a sexual assault from another marine. She was subsequently viciously murdered by the accused. Her mother, Mary Lauterbach, took up the issue of sexual assault in the military, and I have worked with her since 2008 on legislative solutions and in trying to change the culture in the military.

With that, I rise today in support of H.R. 1864, the work of Representative Sanchez and Representative Walorski, as part of that effort for us to change the culture and to provide the tools to victims in the military.

The problem in the military with sexual assault is clear: victims feel revictimized by the system, and perpetrators feel safe. Our efforts legislatively are to change that dynamic in which perpetrators feel unsafe so that we can rise to the level of preventing sexual assaults and, of course, to rally around victims so they feel safe.

Last year, I had the opportunity to attend a breakfast at the Commandant of the Marines' home to discuss the issue of sexual assault in the military. During that breakfast, a female marine, a lieutenant colonel, spoke up and admitted that if she were sexually assaulted that she would not report it. She said the cost in the military is just too high. No one should serve in the military and feel as if one who is subject to a crime is less secure if one steps forward and reports it, especially a crime as heinous as sexual assault.

H.R. 1864 will strengthen military whistleblower protection laws by requiring that victims of sexual assault are protected from punishment or reprisal for reporting their attacks. Through the passage of this bipartisan legislation, introduced by Congresswomen Walorski and Sanchez, Congress has the opportunity to take the necessary step in providing victims with the confidence, assurance, and peace of mind that they cannot be threatened or punished for reporting a sexual assault.

Recently, the Department of Defense indicated through a survey that 62 percent of those who reported a sexual assault felt that they were punished in the workplace for doing so by both their superiors and their fellow coworkers. This bill will add that additional protection in which they can feel safe once they report the crimes and as they move forward through prosecution.

I applaud Representatives Sanchez and Walorski for bringing this forward. Everyone should support H.R. 1864.

Mr. Speaker, as we consider H.R. 520, the Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act, I would like to recognize the important contributions of Colonel Charles Young.

As a Member of the House Armed Services Committee and Co-Chair of the House Historic Preservation Caucus, I have the privilege of frequently working with our servicemembers as well as a great appreciation for our nation's historic treasures. Additionally, Colonel Young's home, located in my community in Southwest Ohio, was recently designated as a National Historic Monument.

Colonel Young, the third African-American to graduate from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1889, was a distinguished officer in the U.S. Army. He was a pioneer of military intelligence techniques, a commander of troops in combat in the Spanish-American War and the Mexican expedition against Pancho Villa.

His first assignment after graduation was with the Buffalo Soldiers in the 10th Cavalry in Nebraska, and then with the 9th and 10th Cavalries in Utah. With the outbreak of the Spanish-American War, he was reassigned as Second Lieutenant to training duty at Camp Alger, Virginia.

In 1903, then-Captain Young was in command of the 10th Cavalry stationed at the Presidio of San Francisco. That summer, with the Army responsible for its management, Colonel Young was assigned to serve as Acting Superintendent of Sequoia National Parks in California.

Colonel Young was then awarded a commission as a Major in the Ninth Ohio Volunteer Infantry. Later, during the Spanish-American War, he commanded a squadron of the 10th Cavalry Buffalo Soldiers in Cuba. Throughout his military career, Colonel Young distinguished himself in service to our nation with the Buffalo Soldiers of the 9th and 10th Cavalries, and the 25th Infantry, as well as serving as Professor of Military Science at Wilberforce University, Ohio.

Today the House will continue to honor the legacy and leadership of the Buffalo Soldiers. Colonel Charles Young stands out as a shining example of the dedication, service, and commitment of the Buffalo Soldiers throughout United States and world history.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to recognize the important historical contributions of Buffalo Soldiers such as Colonel Young.

We have a significant problem of sexual assaults in the military, and this bill addresses many of the issues that we know legislatively will help both change the culture and change the environment in the military.

Recent surveys indicate that over 28,000 people have indicated that they have been sexually assaulted in the military, but slightly fewer than 3,000 are willing to come forward and actually ask that their perpetrators be prosecuted. When you look at that number further, the survey indicates that 62 percent of those who came forward indicated that they felt they were persecuted in the workplace for having done so.

Many victims of sexual assault in the military report that they have been re-victimized, that they, in fact, fear the system, and that there is a sense that if one reports a sexual assault that it will negatively impact one's career and perhaps even put one at risk for further violence.

What we have tried to do in this bill on a bipartisan basis, in working with Niki Tsongas--my cochair of the Sexual Assault Prevention Caucus--and in working with Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith, is to look at ways in which the commander's role can be restricted and to require that the decisionmaking on sexual assaults be pushed up the chain of command, and to instill upon the entire system an evaluation process so that those who are making decisions are held accountable for those decisions.

We have taken away from the commander the ability to set aside a conviction for sexual assault, and we have added a mandatory minimum so that, if you commit a sexual assault, you are out of the military. If there is an inappropriate relationship between a trainee and a trainer, you are out of the military.

We tried to make certain in this that we had bipartisan consensus. Now, there are those who say that we need a whole new judicial system in order to be able to address sexual assault, but, in fact, the judicial system hasn't been the failure; the chain of command has been the failure, and we have addressed that by restricting the authority of the chain of command by requiring decisions be pushed up the chain of command and by imposing criteria of holding them accountable.

Mr. Speaker, there are two things that I think are important to note about the Speier amendment. First is that the author of the amendment is actually a full member of the Armed Services Committee and chose not to offer this amendment in the Armed Services Committee where there could have been unlimited debate on the substance of the amendment; instead choosing to offer it in this more limited format where there were hundreds of amendments and certainly limited time and issues of great import.

Also, it is cast in the light of the fact that you have bipartisan, full support for the provisions that are in our bill that do address sexual assault. The second thing that is important about the Speier amendment is that, as the author noted, there had been debate on this in the Senate. And in that debate, in fact, it was rejected--the structure that was being proposed in the Speier amendment. So we already have the Senate's view, and we also have a bipartisan view of this House on what needs to be done. And we share with the author the absolute commitment that this needs to be addressed.

The manner in which we've done it, again on a bipartisan basis, is by moving it up the chain of command and restricting the chain of command. No more can a commander, by their signature, set aside a conviction for sexual assault. No more can someone who's convicted of a sexual assault stay in the military. We will never have another victim who has to report that after a conviction of a perpetrator for sexual assault, that they were forced to salute their attacker. That attacker will be out.

Now, there is more that we can do. In fact, I want to thank the Rules Committee for having ruled in order my amendment, the Turner amendment, that would also include 2 years of incarceration along with the mandatory minimum of being thrown out. I would encourage everyone to support the Turner amendment that actually would like to increase the penalties beyond what we've done.

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

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

I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Adam Smith for their efforts. They had given to Representative Tsongas and myself the task of doing a bipartisan package to address the issue of sexual assault in the military.

We all know and people have spoken on this House floor eloquently of the tragedy of the issue of sexual assault in the military. We have to do something both to change the culture and to change the legislative regime that affects the prosecution and the prevention of sexual assault and the protection of victims.

Many times victims report they are revictimized by the system. It is our effort in changing the system so that the perpetrator fears the system, not the victim.

There is one other thing that we need to address. Mr. Chairman, many people have taken this House floor and say we need to go further. The Turner amendment is what we need to do to go further.

We have put in this bill currently a mandatory minimum, meaning if you commit a sexual assault, you are subject to a statutory minimum. That minimum in this bill, unfortunately, is only that you're out of the military. We want to increase that to include 2 years of confinement.

Mr. Chairman, 22 States have mandatory minimums that include confinement, incarceration. Of those 22 States, we took the minimum of those so that we're not going higher than any State.

But here is the issue, Mr. Chairman, that we need to remedy: unfortunately, under current law, if you commit a sexual assault on a base that's in a State that has a mandatory minimum, you might actually avoid a mandatory minimum. That has happened.

In the case of Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant Nicholas Howard, he committed a rape on a 23-year-old woman. He was a recruiter in Alaska. He was convicted of sexual assault due to DNA testing, and he was found guilty of first degree sexual assault. He was given a dishonorable discharge but no jail time. In Alaska, he would have been subject to incarceration.

Mr. Chairman, we should not have people who are in uniform or on base committing sexual assaults actually avoid jail time because they're in the military. We shouldn't have a lower standard.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mrs. Walorski.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Do I have the right to close, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concern that I have heard from the other side of the aisle. The issue, I think, comes down to being in a military uniform should not be a get-out-of-jail-free card. Basically the state of the law is that if you're in a State that has a mandatory minimum and you commit a sexual assault or a rape, you're going to jail. But yet under our law, you could be a member of the military and commit a sexual assault or rape and be free from incarceration even if you commit the assault or rape off base.

When we talk about wanting to make certain that we uphold the victims and make certain that the perpetrator is the person who feels insecure and threatened by the system, you can't have a system that threatens the perpetrator when the perpetrator knows that being a man or woman in uniform or by being on base and a member of the military that you're subject to a lower standard in conviction and sentencing.

The case we have in Alaska where a member of our military, a member of the Marine Corps, committed a rape and then received no jail time whatsoever--no jail time whatsoever--and if he had been off base or if he been a civilian in Alaska, he would have been subject to a significant mandatory minimum of incarceration.

When people ask what's different in the military, this is different. We need a mandatory minimum that says if you commit a sexual assault and you're convicted, you are out of the military, you are dishonorably discharged, and you are going to jail. And that mandatory minimum will be at least 2 years of incarceration.

I was just at a facility where I asked the commanders what had occurred on their facility with sexual assault, and they reported there had been a sexual assault and there was currently someone in jail, in the brig for 7 months. They didn't get a dishonorable discharge. That's all they got, 7 months. They were going to be out walking among their fellow men and women, and they will have committed a sexual assault. That has a chilling effect both on reporting, and it also creates an environment where people who are perpetrators feel they could be safe.

Our law, this amendment, would make it: you're out, mandatory, dishonorable discharge, 2 years in prison, and that's it. We urge support for the Turner amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, last year I stood here on the House floor and I asked the President of the United States to make available to us, to Congress and the American public, the details of what I believe is, and many have seen is, a secret deal that the President has with the Russians concerning the United States missile defense.

Everyone is very much aware that the President had an open mic incident where he didn't expect the American public to hear what he was saying when he was meeting in Seoul, South Korea, with then-President Medvedev of Russia, and he said to him that he needed some space from the Russians.

He said to him, as we all are familiar with now, ``This is my last election,'' Obama told Medvedev during the two-day nuclear summit. He said, ``After my election, I will have more flexibility.''

You don't have to take my word for it. You can see this on YouTube, where the President offers the issue of missile defense as one that's negotiable with the Russians after he's no longer answering to the American public through the election.

What's troubling is that, as we stood on the House floor and demanded the President make public the terms of this secret deal that he was talking about with Medvedev, the President didn't make any of those details available. But, instead, after the election, with the stroke of his pen, abandoned phase IV of his own phased adaptive approach missile defense plan that would have provided missile defense protection for the United States homeland. It was a portion of the missile defense shield that was objected to by the Russians.

So here we have the President sitting with Medvedev saying wait till after the election, I'll have more flexibility, and then subsequent to the election, abandoning a portion of the missile defense shield that was intended to protect the homeland.

But what's more troubling is Russian press reports indicate that President Putin says that they have received from the United States indications of a further deal and further negotiations, further offers from this administration to what I believe weaken and diminish our missile defense shield.

The President needs to make these public. We are asking for a sense of Congress demanding that the President of the United States make public the details of the terms of what he is offering President Putin.

The President has said he's going to be the most open, most transparent administration; and yet this is an area where not only did the administration deny negotiations are ongoing, which we know to be the case, but he even denies the American public and us the terms of those negotiations.

Our sense of Congress says, Mr. President, make these public.

As we know, South Korea is incredibly vulnerable to North Korea. Now the United States is vulnerable, as North Korea has taken missiles and put them on a launch pad. We have Iran that's emerging. We have real concerns and threats to the United States. This President should not be negotiating away our missile defense shield, especially not in a manner that's not open and transparent to the Members of Congress.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine).

I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama, Mike Rogers.

We have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let's be clear. It has been misstated that if this amendment doesn't pass that we would leave nuclear weapons at the Cold War level. Our nuclear weapons have already been reduced by 90 percent since the peak of the Cold War and 75 percent since the end of the Cold War.

Ronald Reagan never said that the United States should disarm itself at its disadvantage. He saw a world where no one would have nuclear weapons, not that we would place ourselves at a disadvantage. I certainly believe that, as Ronald Reagan would look around the world today, he would have never foreseen a nuclear-capable North Korea, and he certainly wouldn't have seen the world watch as Iran marches to become a nuclear state.

This amendment actually would take money from programs that are important, but it would put money toward something that is just not ready. We know we're not ready for New START treaty implementation, and we also know that we are certainly not going to be in breach.

This is not an issue of our walking away from a treaty obligation. This is not at all an issue of saying that Russia should not reduce their nuclear weapons. In fact, we believe that Russia ought to further reduce especially their tactical nuclear weapons, the overwhelming thousands that they have pointed at Europe that are in greater numbers than Europe or the United States would ever imagine.

We believe that we should stand up to the treaty obligations. But to fulfill those, we have to look to what the President promised, which, as the President said, in order for us to go to the New START treaty levels, that America has work to do. That work needs to be done.

While the President walks away from his commitments to nuclear modernization of our infrastructure and our weapons and fails to turn in the 1042 report that would give us the understanding of what our overall strategy is, the President wants to continue down this path of dismantling nuclear weapons when we're just not ready. New START can wait until we satisfy the convictions that even the President had put forward.

But even further, we have to look at what the President currently is doing. The President has signaled that he wants to reduce nuclear weapons further even before we've gone to New START. The problem is that obviously North Korea has just recently marched a weapon to the launch pad that could threaten the United States. This is not the time to do this.

This amendment is unlike anything that you're going to see in the National Defense Authorization Act. That's because this is not a function of Congress.

This amendment says the President shall end the permanent basing of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Germany and return them to the United States.

We don't move troops. There is a reason we don't move troops. There is nowhere in this bill you're going to find any provision that we move troops. That's because, in 10 minutes, we shouldn't have a debate about where troops would be.

The gentleman is absolutely, dangerously incorrect. These troops are not like the troops with whom he served in the early seventies. These troops are active in defending the United States and our allies. They are absolutely necessary for forward deployment. We need the 3 to 5 days it would take for these troops to make it to the important areas of Afghanistan, Israel, the Middle East, and it would take 20 days from the United States.

No, I will not yield to the gentleman.

Here is the most important thing:

The gentleman says that these troops need to be reduced. We've reduced troops. Mind you, the gentleman served in the early seventies. Here is 1989. We had 213,000 troops. We've already drastically reduced them. They're already down to one-sixth of what they were. We are headed towards 30,000 troops in 2013.

You have to think about what it is that these troops do--they do regional security; they do international cooperation; they do partner nation training; they're part of our ISAF support in Afghanistan; they're part of NATO cooperation. These troops are active. If you go and meet with any of our troops who are currently in Europe, they are actively working--our men and women in uniform--on our operations now.

No one since the seventies has been staring down the bad Soviet Union. They are there protecting the United States and the United States' interests. They are our active men and women in uniform, and we have them forward-based because they help the United States in its functions of being able to deliver forces and our men and women to the important areas of where there are conflicts.

General Breedlove of the European Command says that this is as far as we can go. He vehemently opposes this. Even those people who might be for reducing troops should not be for this. Congress should not be specifically telling the Commander in Chief where troops should be and how to move them. This is dangerously wrong. If the gentleman wants to move troops, he should apply for a job at the DOD if he is qualified.

Mr. Speaker, about 5 years ago in my community, we were saddened to hear of the news of the tragic death of Marie Lauterbach. Marie Lauterbach was a marine who came forward to report the sexual assault that she had endured and came forward and reported her belief of a subsequent pregnancy from that sexual assault, only to have the Marines inform her and the accused in the sexual assault, the perpetrator, that they would wait until her baby was born, and when the baby was born, they would do DNA testing. And if the DNA testing showed, in fact, that the baby was the accused's, then they would move forward with the prosecution. Until then, they left the two in close proximity until the accused murdered Marie Lauterbach in her eighth month of pregnancy and burned her in her backyard in a bonfire.

It was at that time that I saw that the issue of sexual assault in the military was not just one of unacceptable numbers, it was an issue of an environment where victims were re-victimized and perpetrators felt safe.

Mr. Speaker, a recent survey in the military indicated that 28,000 servicemembers have indicated that they were sexually assaulted, but less than 3,000 of those were willing to actually report it in a manner that would result in charges against their accused. We think we know why: because 62 percent of the slightly less than 3,000 indicated that they felt that they were persecuted in the workplace for having done so. They were re-victimized.

What we're doing in this NDAA is to ensure that that culture shifts, that the perpetrators are those that fear the system, and the victims are those that will feel embraced. We change the relationship between the commander and the victim, moving the responsibility for both the prosecution and the handling of those cases and diminishing the direct commander's authority over the disposition of sexual assault cases when a conviction has occurred. We expand legal counsel for victims, making certain that victims have beside them someone who can advise them in the legal processes, and we remove the chain of command's authority in the disposition of these cases and establish a mandatory minimum.

Mr. Speaker, we include mandatory minimums that say if you commit a sexual assault, you are out of the military, you will be dishonorably discharged, and if you are a trainer and you enter into a trainer-trainee relationship that is inappropriate, you are out. No longer will a victim be forced to salute their predator or their accused. These provisions are incredibly important. They're ones we worked with on a bipartisan basis.

I want to thank my cochair of the Military Sexual Assault Prevention Caucus, Niki Tsongas. I also want to thank Ranking Member Smith and the chairman, Buck McKeon, and also the chairs of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Susan Davis and Joe Wilson.

This is a matter on which we've worked together very thoughtfully. At the same time, we know that Chairman Dempsey, Secretary Hagel, and former Secretary Panetta have made this a significant issue to address in the military. What we're trying to do on a legislative basis is to give them the tools to, once again, make perpetrators fear the system and hold them accountable.

Mr. Chairman, I am here today to speak in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act, and I am very privileged to serve as the chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

I first want to begin by thanking Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for their support for the provisions in the bill that go to address the important issue of sexual assault in the military.

Ms. Tsongas and I were tasked by the ranking member and the chairman to come up with a bipartisan solution. We worked directly with the staffs of both the ranking member and the chair, and we believe that we have put provisions in this bill with the full bipartisan support of the committee, which will end the re-victimization of the victim. We have a problem of sexual assault in the military, and that

problem is that the perpetrators feel safe and that the victims feel insecure and re-victimized. This bill includes provisions of the Turner-Tsongas BE SAFE Act. It also includes provisions from Representatives Heck, Walorski, Noem, Castro, Sanchez, and Duckworth.

Basically, this bill will strip commanders of their authority to dismiss a conviction for a serious offense by a court-martial, and it significantly limits the commander's ability to modify or dismiss the sentence determined by a court-martial, but we go even beyond that.

This bill says if you commit a sexual assault, you are out. If you have an inappropriate relationship between a trainer and a trainee, you are out. No longer will it be tolerated for someone to commit a sexual assault and stay in the military. No longer will victims ever have to passionately tell in a hearing before Congress that they were forced to salute someone who had committed a sexual assault against them.

We ask for the Department of Defense to convene an independent panel to review all of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as it applies to sexual assault so that we can see if there are additional provisions and reforms that need to be enacted.

I want to thank my ranking member, Loretta Sanchez, on the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee. We have worked together to make our priority that of serving our men and women in uniform in the area of Afghanistan. Also, we've added over $1.3 billion in the President's budget that was requested to be authorized to address urgent operational needs for the warfighter, including counter-improvised explosive device requirements.

The bill includes support for the production in our Nation's heavy armored vehicle industrial base by maintaining the minimum sustained production of upgrade modifications for the Abrams tanks and heavy improved recovery vehicles.

The committee bill retains the Air Force's Global Hawk Block 30 unmanned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft to support the deployed warfighter rather than placing these aircraft in storage as the Air Force plans to do.

The committee bill also addresses the critical need to reduce the weight of individual warfighter equipment, improve acquisition practices used for this gear, and it requires the Secretary of Defense to assess options for providing personnel protection equipment specifically fitted for the female warfighter.

Our subcommittee is very proud to look at all of the aspects and ways that we can support the warfighter. Again, I want to thank the chair and the ranking member for their steadfast support in addressing the epidemic issue that we have of sexual assault in the military.

Madam Speaker, it is literally ``lights out'' at our military bases.

Next to me is a photo that ran the other weekend in my hometown newspaper, which shows darkened hallways at the largest Air Force base in the world, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. There wasn't a lack of power at the base that day, but a lack of leadership here in Washington. The lights were out because the Senate and the President have failed to take up the issue of sequestration.

Sequestration is having a devastating effect on the readiness and the morale of our servicemembers and civilian workforce. Imagine going to work and the President feels that you are so insignificant that you don't even deserve to have the lights on.

The President promised the American people during his reelection campaign that this would not happen, but it has. It's time for the President to come to the table with a solution to this issue before our military is irreparably impacted.

Mr. Speaker, the American public always decries the partisan tone that happens here on this House floor, and I'm always amazed when people come down to the House floor and rail on Republicans and Democrats and try to place blame. I'm always particularly amazed when someone comes to the House floor and blames the Republicans for a bill that they voted for. I voted against sequestration, and I certainly agree with Mr. Hoyer's current statements of how bad sequestration is. It just would have been nice if the consistency was there in the actual voting record besides just the attempt to blame Republicans.

This clearly was a project that was proposed by the President. I opposed it because I knew it was going to wreak havoc on our national security. And I wish those who now see its folly actually had voted against it when it was on the House floor.

But, Mr. Speaker, I'm here today to talk about energy security. It continues to play an important role in global relationships and dialogue. In my role as chairman of the U.S. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, many foreign leaders and officials have expressed to me the need to diversify energy resources away from one source or from unstable regions.

As we all know, the United States is currently experiencing a surplus of natural gas production, helping to keep the price low compared with global rates. This is creating opportunities to boost job growth right here at home and for U.S. natural gas to compete in the global marketplace.

In fact, a recent Department of Energy commissioned report found that increasing exports of natural gas would have positive economic benefits for our country. In my home State of Ohio, exploration and development in the Utica Shale would have a $5 billion economic

impact and create or support nearly 66,000 jobs in Ohio by 2014.

Increasing natural gas exports would not only help reduce our trade deficit and create job opportunities for American workers but would also help key allies diversify their energy sources, bolster their energy and national security, and strengthen our strategic alliances. Many of our allies are heavily reliant on natural gas from either one country or from unstable regions and are paying significantly higher prices.

Several of the largest natural gas importers are also NATO members with strong national security ties to the United States. In recent years, several European countries have experienced natural gas supply disruptions from Russia, the largest supplier of natural gas to Europe. Turkey relies on 20 percent of its natural gas from Iran.

Earlier this year, Islamist militants attacked a natural gas facility in Algeria, which is the third-largest exporter of natural gas to Europe.

Japan, a strategic ally in Asia and already the world's largest importer of natural gas, may need to seek greater imports of natural gas as a result of the 2011 nuclear plant disaster. Japan already relies on 42 percent of its natural gas from Russia, the Middle East, and North Africa.

The surplus of U.S. natural gas production is already having an impact on global natural gas markets. Natural gas previously destined for the United States, but no longer needed as a result of our domestic increased production, has been diverted to other markets. For example, in 2012, nearly half of the natural gas supplied to Europe was purchased under spot contracts. Helping our allies diversify their energy resources is important to strengthening our partnerships and bolstering security.

Under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, companies seeking to export natural gas must receive permits from the Department of Energy, which determines if such exports are in the public interest. Export permits to U.S.-free trade countries are automatically approved. Non-free trade countries must go through a process.

In general, when it comes to exporting U.S. goods, we often talk about barriers in other countries for U.S. producers that they must overcome to sell their products, but in this instance we have a domestic barrier that prevents us from exporting our natural gas to consumers willing and eager to buy.

There are currently 20 applications before the Department of Energy from companies seeking approval to export natural gas. As the DOE evaluates these applications, I hope it takes into consideration the domestic economic benefits.

I have authored bipartisan and bicameral legislation, H.R. 580, the Expedited LNG for American Allies Act, which would make approval of export licenses to NATO countries and Japan automatic. This bill creates a process that allows the addition of other foreign countries to this list if the Secretary of State deems, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, that it would be in our national interest.

Exporting U.S. natural gas presents opportunities to create American jobs while helping to bolster our strategic alliances. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bill that would have great economic impacts for the United States.

Mr. Speaker, once again, President Obama and his administration have offered up America's missile defense shield as a bargaining chip. Just the other week, Secretary of State John Kerry flew to China and offered to remove our recently added defenses in the Pacific to encourage them to counter the increasingly belligerent tone and actions by North Korea.

This is the same failed strategy that the administration offered up to the Russians in exchange for them engaging with Iran. If it failed to work then, how could it possibly work now?

At a time when our missile defense system is the only defense that we have to the threat from North Korea and the emerging threats from Iran, I am greatly concerned that our Nation's missile defense strategy is languishing. The end result is increased risk to the United States, increased cost to the taxpayer, and needless alienation of our allies.

Our enemies around the world have sought nuclear weapons and missile technology, yet the Obama administration has consistently reduced missile defense funding, abandoned previous Bush administration strategies that sought to respond to these emerging threats, and has compromised the implementation of current missile defense programs. Meanwhile, they have sought elusive Russian, and now Chinese, approval of the right of the United States to defend itself.

Most recently, the administration has abandoned its own missile defense strategy, known as the ``phased adaptive approach,'' in favor of a stopgap measure of finally placing the additional ground-based missiles in Alaska that they had previously canceled. I welcome the administration finally completing the missile field which it has attempted to close. Although, this reveals that they have no plan to reasonably respond to the real and foreseeable threats from North Korea and Iran.

This announcement leaves the United States without an articulated missile defense strategy. This deficiency is compounded by the effects of the administration's clumsy handling of our relationship with our NATO allies. The abrupt cancellation of the Bush administration missile defense commitments, coupled with the announcement of the abandonment of the President's phased adaptive approach, have left our allies to stand alone in the face of domestic criticism and Russian opposition.

Our relationship with the Polish Government has yet to fully recover, and I am concerned that this administration may repeat the same relationship-straining affront with our Romanian allies. The President and his administration must address the damage done to our relationships with our NATO allies as a result of their failed missile defense strategies.

In addition, I am concerned that the administration fails to recognize the significance of the emerging threats

from North Korea and Iran which places the United States at risk. The administration should inform Congress of the effects of the abandoned and failed Obama administration phased adaptive approach and of their plan to complete the Bush administration's Alaska missile defense strategy.

Further, since completion of the Alaska missile field alone is insufficient for the full protection of the United States, I am calling upon the administration to support the site selection and completion of a United States east coast missile field to complement the Alaska site.

The world is not becoming a safer place. Offering to weaken our defenses in hopes of irrational nations suspending their weapons programs is not an effective strategy to protect the United States. Simply put, these offers are of greater benefit to our adversaries than to the protection of the American people. They are to the detriment of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to a respected community leader and a dear friend from my congressional district, Mr. Robert L. Corbin. He is part of our ``Greatest Generation'' who fought in the Second World War--an ordinary American who did extraordinary things to serve our country and protect the freedom we cherish today.

Mr. Speaker, today I'm here to honor and pay tribute to a dear friend of mine who has been valiantly battling cancer for the past year, Dan Curtis. Dan is a long-time resident of Dayton and a pillar of the community, and he has committed his talents to improving the lives of countless Ohioans.

A dedicated volunteer and philanthropist, Dan has given generously of his time, expertise, and financial resources to make a difference in the lives of individuals and the quality of life in his community.

He joined the Dayton Development Coalition soon after its inception and dedicated his efforts to stimulating the region's economy, while embracing the Air Force as a member of the community, and improving the lives of airmen.

Dan helped shepherd our community through good times and bad by selflessly giving of himself and his resources. He has always enjoyed working with people and assisting them in reaching their goals, and in no place is that more evident than in his home. Dan is a devoted husband and father who enjoys the loving support of his wife, Amy, and children, Kevin, Chelsea, and Matthew.

His relationships are characterized by selfless devotion, a caring nature, and altruism. These traits carried over into his professional life, where Dan demonstrated an incredible work ethic, generosity, contributions to the community and his love of the country. His many achievements and qualities are a testament to Dan.

As a community, Dayton, Ohio, and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base are forever indebted to him.

Thank you, Chairman McKeon.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.

This bill sets important national security priorities, such as the block-buy procurement of two space-based infrared system satellites. It also establishes important oversight mechanisms for the acquisition timelines of satellite, ground, and user-terminal segments of space programs, which have been lacking in recent years.

The conference report urges and ensures greater efficiency and effectiveness at the National Nuclear Security Administration by limiting the bureaucracy and paper-pushing, and begins the process of important reforms of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

It requires the administration to make good on its nuclear infrastructure modernization promises, including completing the Los Alamos Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility by 2026. The United States must not be the only nuclear weapons state without a meaningful production capability.

It also imposes important oversight on unilateral nuclear reductions, including requiring a new nuclear posture review.

Lastly, it supports a robust national missile defense, including requiring the Department of Defense to begin the work of fielding an additional missile defense site in the United States, likely on the east coast. As I have told my colleagues for some time, every Member of Congress is just three classified briefings away from understanding how important this site is.

Our Israeli allies have proven how important an effective, layered missile defense is, and I'm grateful that the conference report includes the $211 million recommended in the Strategic Forces mark this past April for Iron Dome, and it supports our other cooperative missile defense programs with Israel.

I want to thank Chairman McKeon for his leadership that has resulted in the 51st consecutive National Defense Authorization Act, and we look forward to beginning work on the 52nd.

I also want to thank Tim Morrison, lead staff of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, for his expertise and his leadership in ensuring that our Strategic Forces Subcommittee and this mark include important initiatives to protect our national security.

Lastly, I, too, want to join many who are congratulating Mr. Frank on the end of his congressional career, but I do want to note his rhetorical question of why do we have troops in Europe defending Europe against the Soviet Union that no longer exists. Even though it is a statement that many Members state here on the House floor, it is absolutely incorrect. There is not one servicemember that we have there that's doing anything but essential work to our national security.