Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in the FY12 NDAA a drafting error was uncovered in section 1045.

Subsection (c) of section 1045 reads ``If, during any year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act, the President makes a proposal described in subsection b'' the Commander of STRATCOM shall take a prescribed action.

This provision should have read, ``If, during any year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act, the President makes a proposal described in paragraph 2'' the Commander of STRATCOM shall take a precribed action.

As the Joint Statement of Managers to the Conference Report makes clear:

Finally, the conference agreement would, in any year in

which the President makes a proposal to reduce the number of

nuclear weapons in the active or inactive stockpiles of the

United States to a level that is lower than the level on the

date of enactment of this Act, require the Commander of U.S.

Strategic Command to conduct a net assessment of the current

and proposed nuclear forces of the United States and of other

countries to determine whether the proposed U.S. nuclear

forces would be capable of meeting U.S. objectives of nuclear

deterrence, extended deterrence, assurance of allies, and

defense. The Secretary of Defense would be required to submit

the Commander's unaltered net assessment, together with any

explanatory views of the Secretary, to the Committees on

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of

Representatives. In any such year, the Administrator of the

National Nuclear Security Administration would also be

required to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the

Senate and the House of Representatives, a report describing

the current capacities of the U.S. nuclear weapons

infrastructure to respond to strategic developments or

technical problems in the nuclear weapons stockpile.

While Congress addresses this, and any other technical corrections needed in the bill, I urge STRATCOM and the Administrator of the NNSA to construe this legislation per the clear intent.

Mr. Speaker, today I am glad to recognize the 16th anniversary of the Dayton Peace Accords.

On December 14, 1995, the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, known as the Dayton Peace Accords, ended a conflict that threatened to destabilize Europe and resulted in the death of approximately 250,000 people, and the displacement of more than 2,000,000 men, women, and children.

Negotiations began on November 1, 1995, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, and concluded there on November 21, 1995, when the leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia all agreed to a breakthrough peace settlement that sought to halt conflicts that began in Bosnia and Herzegovina in April 1992.

Previous attempts to negotiate peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina had been unsuccessful; and the negotiations were initiated under intense pressure by many of the world powers, particularly the United States and Russia, prompting the leaders of the three sides to attend the negotiations in Dayton, Ohio.

The United States negotiating team, led by Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, guided peace negotiations endorsed by members of the European Union (EU) and Russian Federation; and 21 days of intense negotiations occurring at the Hope Hotel at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base brought hope and an opportunity for peace.

The negotiations succeeded, against all predictions, due to the visionary leadership, the determination of all involved, the desire for peaceful resolution of the conflict, and the extensive community support. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base was chosen as the site of the

negotiations due to its diversity and security, which offered an environment where the warring parties could focus on negotiating peace out of the spotlight of the media and away from distracting geopolitical pressures.

The Dayton community unexpectedly became part of the process as its people became proud to be part of history, holding candlelight vigils, placing `candles of peace' in their front windows, congratulating and praying for the negotiators, forming a human peace chain around Wright- Patterson Air Force Base, and continuing to study peace and human rights based on the community's experiences hosting these historic negotiations.

The negotiators highlighted Ohio's ethnic diversity to show the warring parties that people from disparate ethnic histories could live everyday life in peace; and the Dayton Peace Accords provided a framework and common agreement to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) implementation and stabilization force missions which provided security for the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia.

The Dayton Literary Peace Prize, established in 2006, remains the only literary peace prize awarded in the United States, and continues the legacy of the 1995 Dayton Peace Accords by honoring authors who write about peace and whose work provides enduring literary value.

The Dayton International Peace Museum in downtown Dayton, a nonprofit, all-volunteer organization, is one of the few community- based institutions with a focus on peace in the United States, and the Museum honors Dayton's history as the host of the 1995 Dayton Peace Accords, offering nonpartisan educational programs and exhibits featuring themes of nonviolent conflict resolution, social justice issues, international relations, and peace.

Mr. Speaker, the Dayton, Ohio, community supported the peace negotiations and worked to create a strong, lasting relationship with Bosnia and Herzegovina by hosting numerous visiting delegations, creating a sister city relationship with Sarajevo, and hosting an international anniversary commemoration. Bosnia and Herzegovina has received a conditional Membership Action Plan to join NATO pending continued progress on reforms. Croatia is progressing on the path to join the EU, became a NATO member in 2009, and has deployed troops around the world, including in Afghanistan, fighting alongside the United States Armed Forces to bring peace, stability, and prosperity to others. The Montenegrin Parliament declared independence from Serbia on June 3, 2006, and thus created a multi-ethnic country with a viable economy, professional military and democratic institutions.

The entire State of Ohio has contributed to stability and prosperity in the Balkan region by fostering an exemplary relationship between the Ohio National Guard and the Serbian Armed Forces; and the Dayton Peace Accords effectively ended the conflict, created a multi-ethnic country in the Balkans, and addressed topics critical to the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including regional stabilization, a constitutional framework, the repatriation of refugees, and internal security.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize a distinguished member of the General Daniel ``Chappie'' James American Legion Auxiliary Post 776, located in my congressional district, for the service she has given to her community.

Ms. Madie Tillman received the Member of the Year Award for the Department of Ohio during the American Legion Auxiliary 2011 Department Convention, for her exceptional contributions to the American Legion Auxiliary. She is a long-time volunteer at the Dayton VA Medical Center. Last year, she raised $500 for a Christmas party for veterans and their families.

As the widow of a veteran, Ms. Tillman has been a dedicated, generous and unselfish advocate for veterans and their families. After learning that veterans in the Homeless Program at the Dayton VA were in need of book bags for their classes at Sinclair Community College, she collected bags for the veterans from local charitable organizations.

In January, she collected over one hundred 2011 calendars after learning that our troops deployed overseas wanted them so they could mark off the days until they could return home. The calendars were shipped to our troops by the Blue Star Mothers. An associate member of the Blue Star Mothers of America, she also donates to their ``Trick or Treat for Troops'' program, and other activities.

I appreciate this opportunity to recognize a good and compassionate citizen, Ms. Madie Tillman, for her service to our community and our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in speaking in favor of passage of the conference report on the FY12 NDAA.

As chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I would like to walk through some of the key provisions of the conference report.

This conference report imposes checks on the administration's plans for nuclear reductions by requiring assessments of those reductions from the STRATCOM commander before any nuclear weapons reductions are made. It also requires the administration to disclose its plans for future reductions and reasserts congressional oversight of the Nation's nuclear war plan.

Concerning the proposed LightSquared network, we have retained House and Senate provisions that will ensure that the FCC will not be able to give final approval to that network unless it resolves concerns about impacts to our national security. Recent press reports indicate that, per new test results, LightSquared's proposed network continues to create unacceptable interference to DOD GPS systems.

I would also like to thank Chairman Hal Rogers and Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen for their support of the NNSA vital nuclear weapons programs.

And I would also like to discuss an issue that is important to our men and women in uniform, impacts our Air Force's readiness, and forces servicemembers to choose between their service to their Nation and their families. This is the issue of military child custody.

A short time after becoming a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I was struck to learn that this country's judicial system was using a servicemember's deployment against them when making child custody determinations. Just to be clear, we're asking an all-volunteer force, which consists of less than 1 percent of our population, to engage in the longest conflict in our Nation's history, endure more deployments than any other generation in our history, and do so at the peril of losing custody of their children upon return.

Recognizing this unconscionable injustice, the House Armed Services Committee has included language in the past five National Defense Authorization Acts to provide servicemembers a uniform standard of protection. This provision has also made it through the House Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Unfortunately, despite overwhelming bipartisan support in the House and the support of the Department of Defense, the Senate has once again failed our servicemembers and their families. It appears that they are operating on false information.

This provision should pass the House, and we are going to continue to stand for our servicemembers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of passage of the conference report on the FY12 NDAA.

As the Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I'd like to briefly walk through some of the key provisions in the conference report.

First, concerning U.S.-Russia missile defense, the conference report contains a modified version of a provision offered by Mr. Brooks of Alabama to require the President, before sharing any classified information about U.S. ballistic missile defenses, to prove that it is in the interest of the United States and to show how the information will be protected from third party transfers.

Second, regarding U.S. nuclear forces, the conference report imposes checks on the Administration's plans for nuclear reductions by requiring assessments of those reductions from the STRATCOM commander before any nuclear weapons reductions are made; requiring the Administration to disclose its plans for future reductions; and, re- asserting Congressional oversight of the nation's nuclear war plan.

Third, concerning LightSquared, we retained House and Senate provisions that will ensure that the FCC will not be able to attempt to slip one by Congress and the DOD in the dark of night again. And I note recent press reports that new proposals for LightSquared's network continue to impose unacceptable interference to DOD GPS systems.

Also, for the first time, DOD will be able to directly transfer funding to NNSA Weapons Activities for up to $125 M per year if there are shortfalls in that budget in the event of an appropriations shortfall.

And the bill ensures that the credibility of the U.S. deterrent and extended deterrent will start to get equal billing with safety, security and reliability.

I also would like to thank Chairman Hal Rogers and Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen--I have appreciated their support for funding for NNSA's vital nuclear weapons programs, which are key to maintaining the safety, security, reliability and credibility of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, and enabling any of the force reductions the Administration may plan, including those under the New START treaty.

I also hope that our NATO allies and the Administration read closely the provision on our extended nuclear deterrent in Europe and any future arms control negotiations with Russia, which states that if any negotiations occur they should focus on Russia's massive stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons and that for the purposes of the negotiations, consolidation or centralized storage of Russia's tactical nuclear weapons should not be viewed as elimination of those weapons.

This last position was recently endorsed by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the U.S. delegation to which I am the Chairman.

Now I would like to discuss an issue that is important to our men and women in uniform, is impacting our Armed Forces readiness and forces servicemembers to choose between service to their nation and their families. This is the issue of military child custody.

Now I would like to discuss an issue that is important to our men and women in uniform, is impacting our Armed Forces' readiness and forces servicemembers to choose between service to their nation and their families. This is the issue of military child custody.

In a short time after becoming a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I was struck to learn that this country's judicial system was using servicemember's deployments against them when making child custody determinations.

Just to be clear, we are asking an all volunteer force which consists of less than one percent of our population to engage in the longest conflict in our nation's history, endure more deployments than any other generation in our history, and do so at the peril of losing their children.

Recognizing this unconscionable injustice, the House Armed Services Committee has included language in the past 5 NDAA's to provide servicemembers a uniform national standard of protection. This provision has also made it through the House Veterans Affairs Committee.

Unfortunately, despite overwhelming bipartisan support in the House and the support of the Department of Defense, the Senate once again failed our servicemembers and their families. It appears that they have done so using false information.

Earlier this year, Secretary Gates stated, ``I have been giving this matter a lot of thought and believe we should change our position to one where we are willing to consider whether appropriate legislation can be crafted that provides Servicemembers with a federal uniform standard of protection.'' This year, I worked with the DoD and the House Armed Services Committee to provide that legislation. Yet, the Senate failed to provide the protections in the final bill.

Given all the sacrifices made by our servicemembers, I ask that the Senate finds it within themselves to reconsider their position and work with us to provide the protections our men and women in uniform deserve. It's the right thing to do and we owe it to them.

Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that the men and women who bravely served our country have access to affordable housing. My bill, the Senior Veterans Housing Assistance Act, seeks to make sure that government regulations do not pose an impediment to achieving this important goal.

This issue came to light because of conflicting rules and regulations between the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Veterans Affairs. In Dayton, Ohio, the St. Mary's Neighborhood

Development Corporation has been attempting for several years to construct senior housing on the campus of the Dayton VA Medical Center. St. Mary's was able to obtain an enhanced-use lease from the VA to construct the housing and also obtained HUD Section 202 funding to allow for the financing of the construction for low-income senior housing. So we had VA providing the land and HUD providing funding, and both VA and HUD agreeing that this would be an excellent project to help homeless veterans, provide low-income housing for veterans, and respond to the needs of seniors in the community.

However, HUD asserted that St. Mary's was unable to use these critical dollars if the VA lease required a specific preference for veterans to occupy the proposed facility on the VA grounds. The VA rules and regulations require that the VA assert and request a preference for veterans for housing to be built on its campus.

In the 111th Congress, this body unanimously approved and the President enacted into law a provision I authored to solve this issue. Specifically, the Fiscal Year 2010 appropriations measure included a prohibition on enforcement of HUD's restriction against a veterans preference. However, this solution was only temporary.

To ensure that these conflicting regulations do not present further, long-term obstacles for our veterans and seniors, I have introduced the Senior Veterans Housing Assistance Act. My bill will permanently ensure that organizations that seek to provide our senior veterans with affordable housing with HUD funds on VA property are able to overcome the HUD and VA conflicting rules and regulations. Specifically, the bill will allow HUD funds to be used for supportive housing for the elderly that provide preference to veterans if the property is or would be located on VA land, or is subject to an enhanced-use lease with the

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to Dr. George Miller, who has announced his intention to retire later this year from his position as the Director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Dr. Miller has served his country honorably for nearly forty years as a scientist and leader within the nuclear security labs, and he deserves our thanks and praise for a job very well done.

Throughout his long and varied career, Dr. Miller's work has made our nation more secure in ways that are difficult to fully encapsulate. He has been a critical force in maintaining and reinvigorating the nation's nuclear deterrent, has applied his unmatched scientific skills and personal energy to develop innovative technologies to support U.S. warfighters, and has been at the forefront of efforts to reduce and respond to the threats of terrorism, cyber attacks, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

During his nearly 40 years of service to the nation at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Dr. Miller's greatest contributions came in his efforts to ensure the U.S. nuclear arsenal is safe, secure, and reliable. Early on in his career, Dr. Miller was a leader in the design of the B83 gravity bomb, which was a tour-de-force in nuclear weapons engineering. The requirements placed by the military on the B83 design were incredibly demanding: the bomb had to hold a variety of targets at risk, be capable of being released from low-flying aircraft to avoid air defenses, and must survive impacts with any sort of irregular ground feature or structure at speeds up to 75 miles per hour.

Dr. Miller also led development of the W84 nuclear warhead, which was deployed on an Air Force ground-launched cruise missile during the 1980s. Intended for NATO deployment, the W84 included many advanced safety and security features that are still considered ``best practices'' in the nuclear weapons arena. These features include insensitive high explosives that will not detonate in an accident, a fire-resistant nuclear ``pit'' that mitigate the dispersal of radioactive fissile materials in the event of a fire, and advanced surety features to prevent unauthorized use of the weapon. Even today, the W84 is one of the safest and most secure nuclear warheads ever made. The deployment of the W84 on its ground-launched cruise missile helped foster the Soviet Union's willingness to sign the Intermediate- Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which dramatically lowered the number of--and threat from--nuclear warheads in Europe.

During his career, Dr. Miller initiated several programs to better understand nuclear weapon system performance at a more fundamental level. Motivated by intimate knowledge of nuclear weapon design issues gained through his experience as a design physicist for 16 nuclear explosive tests at the Nevada Test Site, Dr. Miller pioneered complementary above ground non-nuclear experiments to gain deeper insights into weapons physics phenomena.

Driving for greater scientific understanding of the physics underpinning the nuclear deterrent, Dr. Miller shepherded initiatives probing weapons physics using high powered lasers. By challenging the Lab's workforce to take advantage of laser capabilities coupled with advanced diagnostic techniques, he developed a new and highly stimulating training ground for weapons designers. Dr. Miller's innovation laid the groundwork for the highly successful program of high energy density physics experiments that continue to provide key data and understanding for the annual assessment and certification of the nuclear stockpile. Almost two decades after the first laser-driven weapons physics experiments, experiments on the National Ignition Facility (NIF) provided the final data needed to resolve ``energy balance,'' a problem originally identified during the era of nuclear explosive testing that had remained an anomaly to weapons physicists for nearly 40 years.

As one of the architects of the Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), Dr. Miller has provided national leadership and critical personal insight into defining and structuring a cohesive and multi- decadal national program to maintain the nuclear deterrent without nuclear testing. SSP brings together advances in experimental capabilities like NIF with tremendous computational capabilities to provide better understanding of the nation's nuclear stockpile. Since the 1990s, SSP has provided the foundation needed to ensure high confidence in the safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear weapons in the absence of integrated nuclear explosive testing. Dr. Miller's proven personal commitment to fundamental science in the service of national security has allowed the nation to maintain the deterrent without nuclear testing and enabled

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to meet an expanding range of national security challenges. The tools and highly skilled workforce enabled by SSP allows the Lab to support efforts to counter terrorism and nuclear proliferation, conduct in-depth analysis of foreign nuclear weapons programs, manage and respond to nuclear accidents and events, and contribute to the broader defense, energy, and health arenas.

In 2000, Dr. Miller was put in charge of the NIF construction project, which at that point was well behind schedule and over budget. Dr. Miller assembled a new management team with a new project execution plan, and put NIF on track for completion in 2009. As a result of his leadership, this NIF earned a project of the year award from the prestigious Project Management Institute, continues to meet its scientific and operational milestones, is now performing crucial experiments for SSP, and is enabling the U.S. to maintain global leadership in inertial confinement fusion research.

The nation is incredibly fortunate to have had Dr. George Miller's leadership, focus, and dedication to applying state-of-the-art science and technology to the nuclear security challenges of our time. His contributions will ensure the nation's next generation of nuclear scientists and engineers--already hard at work in the Lab and programs he helped shape--are ready to meet the challenges of the future.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 1380.

Mr. Speaker, trade agreements have the potential to increase export opportunities for U.S. businesses by removing market access barriers. However, U.S. companies' ability to take advantage of opportunities created by these, and existing, U.S. trade pacts depends on their government's willingness to enforce its trade agreements. Currently, U.S. companies face many non-tariff barriers (NTBs) that violate existing trade agreements. This bill offers an additional way for U.S. companies to get the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to act on market access barriers that are unlawful under any U.S. trade agreement.

NTBs are devices other than tariffs that are used to restrict the flow of imports into an economy. Under current law, the USTR has the ability to retaliate against a wide variety of unfair trade practices, including market access problems caused by NTBs. Sections 301 through 310 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, (Section 301), give USTR a mandate to take retaliatory action when the rights of the United States under any trade agreement are being denied. USTR starts this process by initiating an investigation that includes formal negotiations with the country suspected of being in breach of an agreement. Should the issue not be resolved through negotiation, at the end of the investigation, USTR issues a determination as to whether the trade practice at issue is denying U.S. rights under an agreement. If the determination is affirmative, the USTR enters the formal dispute settlement process.

While U.S. producers can petition the USTR to take action under Section 301, they seldom do. During 2010 USTR initiated only one Section 301 investigation in response to a petition. To put together a petition that has even a chance of passing USTR's scrutiny, companies have to hire an expensive Washington law firm to compile a copious amount of information and advocate for them before the USTR. Tens of thousands of dollars later, there is no guarantee that their petition will be accepted, or that the trade practices in question will be addressed in a timely fashion. This is not a realistic option for a small or medium-sized company, especially one that is losing business due to unfair trade practices.

My bill will use a market access complaint process that the Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration (ITA) already has in place a starting point for possible action under Section 301. ITA will have 180 days to resolve interested party complaints that a foreign country is engaging in an act, policy or practice that acts as a non-tariff barrier; if ITA is unable to resolve the issue, the bill mandates that the Secretary of Commerce issue an opinion as to whether the reported NTB meets the criteria for mandatory USTR action under Section 301. If Commerce issues an affirmative opinion, the bill mandates that USTR initiate a Section 301 investigation. Further, the bill clarifies that subsections of the law giving USTR discretion not to start an investigation do not apply and gives interested parties the opportunity to request a hearing.

Only the U.S. government can ensure that U.S. trade agreements are enforced. U.S. companies should have every opportunity to have their complaints investigated and acted on. Even if only one small company makes a complaint about a specific NTB, it is highly probable that the NTB affects multiple companies in multiple sectors. Without strong enforcement of its agreements, the United States cannot get the full benefits from free trade. Given the opportunity, U.S. companies can compete with the best in the world and can grow and create good private sector jobs. This bill is one step towards ensuring that U.S. companies have the opportunity to achieve their full potential competing in the global marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Ranking Member McKeon for his leadership on our committee and certainly for his support for our men and women in uniform in what has been this long year of trying to get a bill passed for the National Defense Authorization Act.

I would also like to thank our chairman, Ike Skelton. Ike is leaving us with an incredibly distinguished career. He has led the Armed Services Committee in an incredibly bipartisan way. I know that on both sides of the aisle, people have appreciated his leadership, his counsel, and his dedication to what is a strong national defense.

But I must rise to point out that this bill really shouldn't be the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act; this should be the Nancy Pelosi National Defense Authorization Act. It is just a shame that this House and our committee labored for a year to put together a bill. The Senate never passed a bill. What we have before us is not what came out of our committee. It is not what came out of the subcommittees. It is not what was passed here on the House floor. In the Nancy Pelosi fashion of running this House, this bill was drafted somewhere in a back room in the Capitol and then brought forward for everyone to read.

This is not the way that we should be doing a bill.

One of the things that has been left on the table that should be in here is protection of our men and women in uniform and their custody rights. We had a provision in the bill that passed this House that would have prevented family law courts from across this country taking custody away from our men and women in uniform when they returned from deployment, based upon their absence.

There are a number of provisions that were in the bill that was passed by this House that should have remained in it. Instead, we get this truncated process and a bill that was drafted in a back room. Unfortunately, this does not serve our men and women in uniform, and it doesn't serve our national security. We are going to pass a truncated bill that is going to do limited things when we had an opportunity to take the year-long process of the deliberations of this body and really improve the circumstances for our men and women and our national defense.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise in strong opposition to this CR, specifically because of section 2412.

The Democrats are holding hostage the funding necessary to sustain our nuclear weapons and our nuclear facilities until the Senate ratifies the New START Treaty. The administration opposes this provision and, in fact, has offered its ``unequivocal commitment to recapitalizing and modernizing the nuclear enterprise.''

There are significant national security issues related to the New START Treaty that must be resolved, Russian intentions, missile defense limitations and a nuclear modernization.

Just yesterday, myself and incoming Armed Services Committee Chairman McKeon and 14 other committee members sent a letter to the Senate urging them not to vote on the New START Treaty until these concerns are addressed. Unfortunately, this provision would ignore these security concerns and hold hostage the funding necessary to ensure our Nation's nuclear deterrent remains safe, secure and reliable.

Section 2142 is irresponsible, dangerous and must be opposed.

House Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of

Representatives

Washington, DC, December 7, 2010.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Reid and McConnell: We are troubled by the

Administration's push to ratify the New START Treaty amid

outstanding concerns regarding Russian intentions, missile

defense limitations, and nuclear modernization. Given the

security implications associated with this treaty and the

importance of such a treaty enjoying bipartisan support, we

believe the Senate should not be rushed in its deliberations.

Therefore, we urge the Senate not to vote on the New START

Treaty in the lame duck congressional session and certainly

not until these important security issues are resolved.

There remains a significant divide between Russia and the

U.S. on whether New START affects our ability to deploy

missiles defenses, particularly long-range missile defenses

in Europe. Despite testimony from Administration officials

that New START does not limit U.S. missile defenses, Moscow

seems to believe it will. Russian officials have declared

they would withdraw from the treaty if U.S. missile defense

systems are upgraded quantitatively or qualitatively.

Russia also warns that it will build up offensive forces

should its ``terms'' for a missile defense agreement not be

met; all while the Administration seeks to reduce our nuclear

forces. We have no insight on what these terms are, nor do we

know the exact nature and scope of the missile defense

negotiations reportedly occurring between Undersecretary of

State Ellen Tauscher and her Russian counterpart, Deputy

Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov.

We reject the notion that Russia can set terms for our

missile defenses. Iranian and North Korean missile and

nuclear programs continue unabated as highlighted by recent

events. Given these threats, upgrades to our homeland missile

defense capabilities and funding for missile defenses in

Europe will remain top priorities for the House Armed

Services Committee.

However, our principal concern is that the Administration

might cede to Russian demands and allow Moscow to shape U.S.

missile defense plans in exchange for its adherence to New

START. This concern is exacerbated by a lack of transparency

by the Administration in providing information on the nature

of these secretive missile defense discussions. One way to

alleviate this concern is for the Administration to provide

Congress with the treaty negotiating record--which Senators

have requested on numerous occasions--so that members can see

firsthand how missile defense was discussed within the

context of the treaty, as well as documents related to the

Tauscher-Ryabkov discussions. In the meantime, we think it

unwise to vote on New START until the Congress gains this

additional insight and better understands how the impasse on

missile defense will affect our long-term security.

We are also deeply concerned about the state of our

nation's nuclear enterprise, and whether the Administration

will remain committed to nuclear modernization and our

nation's nuclear triad. Reversing the erosion of our nation's

nuclear infrastructure--which the bipartisan U.S. Strategic

Posture Commission called ``decrepit''--will require a

comprehensive plan and long-term political and financial

support from the Administration and both chambers of

Congress.

Our committee recently received an updated ``1251 Report''

on nuclear modernization. The report provides glimpses of the

Administration's revised funding requirements based on its

Nuclear Posture Review released last spring. However, it is

unclear exactly how these additional funds contribute to

modernization. For example, over one-third of these funds

appear to go towards employee pension plans--not

modernization of the infrastructure or stockpile. Members of

the House have yet to be briefed on the updated 1251 Report,

and therefore we cannot assess the adequacy of these revised

plans and funding requirements. We would hope the Senate

would allow for the same due diligence in its oversight of

this matter prior to a vote on New START.

As members of the House we will not have the opportunity to

vote on the New START Treaty. However, the outcome of the

treaty will undoubtedly impact national security policy and

investment decisions within our jurisdiction as authorizers

of the annual defense bill, and we will be responsible for

overseeing its implementation. Because of these roles, we

feel compelled to express our concerns.

We are in complete agreement with Senator Kerry who

recently told the press, ``The American people want to see

Republicans and Democrats working together on behalf of

national security.'' We believe bipartisanship is possible

with good faith and sufficient cooperation among both

political parties and the executive and legislative branches

of the federal government. The security concerns associated

with the New START Treaty are significant and must be

addressed. This requires thorough and thoughtful

deliberation. The American people expect this of their

government and we owe them nothing less.

Sincerely,

Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,

Ranking Member.

Michael Turner,

Ranking Member,

Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, today I speak in favor of H.R. 2378, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, which seeks to level the playing field for American companies, some of whom have found themselves unable to compete with foreign companies who are unfairly subsidized by foreign governments.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take my time to recognize the work of former Congressman Phil English, who represented the 3rd District of Pennsylvania until the 111th Congress. Congressman English was a long- time supporter of American manufacturers and was a champion of raising awareness and solving the problem of illegal trade practices.

Congressman English raised these issues when he introduced H. Res. 414 in the 108th Congress. The resolution, which encouraged China to engage fair currency valuation, passed nearly unanimously (411-1) in October 2003.

In the 109th Congress, Representative English introduced the first China currency bill in the House--H.R. 3004, the Currency Harmonization through Neutralizing Action, CHINA, Act. The bill directed the Treasury Department to analyze the exchange rate policies of the People's Republic of China, and to impose additional tariffs, if necessary, to equalize any currency manipulations.

He also helped advocate for the Department of Commerce to consider countervailing duty cases for nonmarket economies, such as China. First introducing this legislation in the 106th Congress, H.R. 3198, he pushed to clarify the countervailing duty statute to ensure these cases against China could proceed.

In the 109th Congress, the House passed H.R. 3283, English's bill to apply the countervailing duty law to nonmarket economies. It was after this bill passed the House that the Department of Commerce ultimately reversed its own policy and started accepting countervailing duty cases against China.

Mr. Speaker, as we look to help our domestic industry compete against unfair competition abroad, H.R. 2378 is an important step.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a real American hero, United States Marine Cpl. Larry A. Draughn Jr. of Dayton, Ohio. On May 30th, 2009, while out on patrol in Afghanistan, Cpl. Draught lost both legs and nearly lost his life during an IED explosion. I would like to thank him for his service to his country and place this poem, penned in honor of him by Albert Carey Caswell, in the Congressional Record.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to acknowledge a hardworking community leader from Ohio's Third Congressional District.

Ms. Madie Tillman was recently honored as a recipient of the ``Living Witness for Christ'' Award at the 64th Annual Convention of the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church, Third District Lay Organization. This year's convention was held in Washington, Pennsylvania on July 29-31, 2010.

Each year, the Living Witness for Christ Award recognizes a Lay person for their work in response to God's call for Christian service. It is the highest award given to a Lay person. The award was presented by Bishop C. Garnett Henning, Sr., Presiding Prelate of the Third Episcopal District and Dr. Willie C. Glover, International Lay President.

Ms. Tillman is an active member of the Greater Allen AME Church, located at 1620 West Fifth Street in Dayton, Ohio. She serves on the Trustee Board, the Finance Committee, and is Treasurer of the Lay Organization. She holds positions on the conference and district levels of the Lay Organization of the AME Church. Ms. Tillman is also an active member of the Dayton Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority.

As the widow of a veteran, Ms. Tillman has been a dedicated advocate for veterans and their families through her volunteer work at the Dayton VA Medical Center, and as a member of the General Daniel ``Chappie'' James American Legion Auxiliary, Unit 776, in Riverside, Ohio. She serves as President of both the Midwest Region and the Miami Valley Chapter of the Gold Star Wives of America.

I appreciate this opportunity to recognize a good and compassionate citizen, Ms. Madie Tillman, for her devotion to our community and our Nation's veterans, and I congratulate her on receiving this prestigious award.

Mr. Speaker, last March I voted against ObamaCare, the government takeover of health care, in part because it imposed over half a trillion dollars of additional taxes, fees, and costs on an already struggling U.S. economy. Throughout the year-long debate, small business owners in my district and across the country expressed concerns that the bill would increase their health care-related costs.

While back in my district this August, I encountered businesses already preparing to face the consequences of the over 2,000-page health care bill. Ferno-Washington, Inc., is an emergency and medical equipment manufacturing company that is based in Wilmington, Ohio, in my district. The company is preparing for the health care bill's new 2.3 percent excise tax on the sale of medical devices.

The business leaders at Ferno estimate the cost of the tax puts at risk 23 jobs. Also, they are concerned that this tax will reduce their ability to fund research and development to produce cutting-edge advanced products.

In Clinton County, the unemployment rate hovers around 17 percent. We cannot afford the impact of ObamaCare's tax increases upon businesses like Ferno. We need to replace ObamaCare.

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

I want to thank the Rules Committee for ruling my amendment in order and for providing this opportunity to assist low- income seniors and our Nation's veterans with obtaining safe and quality housing.

This amendment is a narrowly tailored, pro-veteran amendment which allows the VA to maintain its requirement of a veteran's preference on HUD-financed housing on VA campuses. Unfortunately, HUD has rules that don't allow for a veteran's preference for people who live in facilities built with HUD funds, even if they are built on VA property. My amendment simply says that no funds in this bill could go toward enforcing these rules against a facility that is built on a VA campus or is utilizing a VA-enhanced use lease.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I would greatly appreciate that. It certainly goes to help our veterans and our low-income seniors.

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