Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the House's attention today to recognize Mr. and Mrs. Leonard Bryant who have been married 57 years and serve as clergy in Lee County, Alabama.

Leonard and Mary Bryant met in Sunday School at Green Chapel Missionary Baptist Church. They attended Southern Union and Selma University graduating with a degree in Theology. They were married on October 6, 1957.

The Bryants have lived in Opelika their entire lives and have been pastor at three churches in Waverly, Dadeville and Fort Davis, all in Alabama.

Leonard and Mary raised four daughters including: Lindie Bryant- Payne, Carmella Bryant-McGhee, Dale Bryant-Williams and Janyce Bryant. They have seven grandchildren and six great-grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in thanking Leonard and Mary Bryant for their tireless service in the Lee County community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the House's attention today to recognize Mr. and Mrs. Gerald and Mary Sykes who have been married 59 years and serve as clergy in Lee County, Alabama.

Gerald and Mary Sykes met in Lanett, Alabama, while attending a birthday party in August of 1952. They dated for three years and married June 3, 1955.

Gerald entered the ministry in 1968 in Atlanta, Georgia and has served five churches as the full-time pastor. He retired in 2012 and served three churches as interim pastor and is currently serving as full-time pastor at Waverly Baptist Church in Waverly, Alabama.

The Sykes raised two daughters and have two grandsons and four great- grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in thanking Gerald and Mary Sykes for their tireless service in the Lee County community.

I thank the chairman.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and passage of H.R. 5078, the Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014.

This legislation would stop another unlawful regulatory overreach by the EPA which, in this case, would expand the definition of the waters of the United States. We have all seen that this administration believes it can bypass Congress to create laws through executive rulemaking, and it is flatout wrong.

The administration's proposed rule could have damaging effects on American property rights, particularly those in Alabama's largest economic sector, agriculture. Expanding the role of the EPA, as this proposed rule does, to enforce almost all bodies of water, including puddles, small ponds, and ditches, will have a profound and, I fear, a very negative impact on those who produce our Nation's food and fiber.

As we approach the 227th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, I want to remind my colleagues that the Constitution created three separate but equal branches of government. The Congress writes the laws, not the executive branch.

This is an issue the Congress of elected officials must address, not unelected bureaucrats in Washington. I urge my colleagues to stand for common sense and support H.R. 5078.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the House's attention today to recognize Mr. Leonard Peevy. Mr. Peevy has been a dedicated member of American Legion Post No. 79 for 60 years.

Leonard Peevy is an Alabama Army National Guard Veteran who has served our country through three tours. These tours took him to the Korean War and Berlin. He joined the American Legion after returning for war, and he has served the American Legion in numerous capacities. He has served on local, district and state levels. Mr. Peevy served as the state commander of the American Legion in 1993. He was also awarded a certificate from the national American Legion for his dedication over the past 60 years.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in thanking Mr. Leonard Peevy for his tireless dedication to serving our nation's Veterans. His service to our state and country is an inspiration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the House's attention today to recognize Mrs. Edna Farrell, a resident of Arbor Springs Health and Rehabilitation Center in Opelika. Mrs. Farrell was recently named the 2014 Ms. Alabama Nursing Home.

Edna Farrell is a native of Brooklyn, New York. She is also a Cornell graduate and a retired nurse and was a member of the U.S. Cadet Nurse Corps. When she graduated from the corps, she had three Maltese crosses on her shoulders, a sign of high ranking. Her husband who fought in World War II and Vietnam, took the family from Brooklyn to Fort Benning, Korea and Honolulu.

Mrs. Farrell was named Ms. Arbor Springs Health and Rehab Center in the nursing home's pageant last year. Farrell was named the 2014 Ms. Alabama Nursing Home this July during the pageant, which was held in Birmingham.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Mrs. Edna Farrell on her achievement and wishing her great success during her reign as 2014's Ms. Alabama Nursing Home.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for the House's attention today to recognize Janice Jennings who is graduating with a Bachelor of Science degree in Nursing from the Capstone College of Nursing at the University of Alabama.

Mrs. Jennings was born in Anniston, Alabama. She graduated from Saks High School and went on to attend Gadsden State University, where she got her degree in Nursing. In 1983, Jan married her husband Jeff and soon after in 1987, her only daughter, Jessica, was born. Jan went on to receive her Business degree from Jacksonville State University in 1989. Perhaps most notably, Jan welcomed another addition into the Jennings' household in 2010: a labradoodle named Tully.

Although she lives in North Carolina now, Jan remains a dedicated fan of the University of Alabama. This dedication to her beloved Crimson Tide has led her to pursue a degree from the University. Through hard work and dedication, she will be achieving a lifelong goal on August 2, when she walks across the stage in Coleman Coliseum to receive her degree.

Mr. Speaker, we join her family and friends in celebrating Jan's accomplishments and congratulating her with a hearty Roll Tide.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for the House's attention today to recognize the congregation of Alexandria Baptist Church, which will be celebrating its 100th anniversary with a celebration on August 3.

The Alexandria Baptist Church was organized the first Sunday in April of 1914. There were 22 members of the original church, and the first pastor was Rev. John W. Stewart. After six years of holding services in the Odd Fellows Hall in Alexandria, plans were made to build a church. Four years later, the present church was built.

Many of the early pastors at Alexandria Baptist Church were students from Howard College. Two passenger trains carried these student pastors back and forth from Birmingham each Sunday.

The people of Alexandria Baptist Church live out the church's mission statement, ``To Love God and To Love Others'' each and every day.

On August 3, 2014, Alexandria Baptist Church members will gather with former pastors, leaders, members and staff to commemorate their successful 100 years. Please join me in celebrating this milestone and wishing them many more years of success.

I thank the chairman.

Madam Chair, yesterday, we received a letter and white paper from the Chief of Naval Operations and the Director of the Naval Reactors program. I will include these documents and statement for the Record that I will be submitting shortly.

This eight-star letter from our Nation's most senior naval officer makes clear that the cuts made to the Naval Reactors' budget request over the last 4 years are endangering the safety and reliability of the Navy's nuclear fleet.

With the 12 percent reduction proposed by the bill before us today, Naval Reactors will have taken over $600 million in cuts over 5 years.

The letter from the admiral is clear:

The persistent cuts have put Naval Reactors in the position

of being unable to provide for a safe and reliable nuclear

fleet, to design and test the nuclear reactor plant for the

Ohio replacement program, and to safely and responsibly

manage the aging infrastructure and the facilities for

processing naval spent nuclear fuel. This approach is no

longer sustainable.

Naval Reactors is a critical defense priority contained in this much larger appropriations bill. I share the admiral's concern that, if sustained, these reductions will endanger national security and the Naval Reactors' unparalleled 60-year record of safe and reliable nuclear operations.

I urge the gentleman from Idaho to review these proposed reductions and their impacts as this bill progresses and to restore the Naval Reactors' funding to the budget request level in a conference or in a potential continuing resolution.

I and my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee stand ready to support these efforts.

Department of the Navy,

Washington, DC, July 7, 2014.

Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: We write today to express our strong

concern over proposed cuts to Naval Reactors' (NR's) portion

of the FY15 National Nuclear Security Administration budget

request.

Our Navy and our national security rely on a nuclear Fleet

of 10 aircraft carriers and 73 submarines, including our 14

Ohio-Class ballistic missile submarines--over 40 percent of

our major combatants. These warships form the backbone of our

Navy, enabled by the 93 reactors that power them--reactors

provided, operated, and regulated solely by NR. NR has been

doing this for our nation for over 60 years, compiling over

166 million miles safely steamed on nuclear power--it is an

unmatched record of safety and effectiveness.

The funding level proposed in H.R. 4923, the Energy and

Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,

2015, proposes reducing NR's funding below the request by

$162 million which places operation of that nuclear Fleet

including sustained carrier operations and the nation's

security at risk. If enacted, this would be the fifth

consecutive year of significant marks to NR's requests for

funding. To date, these reductions below requested levels

have totaled over $450 million; this bill would bring that

total to well over $600 million. These shortfalls have

resulted in delaying the construction of needed facilities,

effectively halting research and development, and deferring

procurement of equipment needed to address emergent fleet

issues. The persistent cuts have put NR in the position of

being unable to provide for a safe and reliable nuclear

fleet, design and test the reactor plant for the OHIO

Replacement Program, and safely and responsibly manage aging

infrastructure and the facilities for processing naval spent

nuclear fuel. This approach is no longer sustainable.

Moreover, the bill includes a number of provisions on the

use of funds, continuing a trend that reduces NR's ability to

manage the Program consistent with the priorities of safe and

reliable operation of the fleet.

As the Committee moves forward with H.R. 4923, we

respectfully ask that you consider full funding for NR at the

FY15 budget request and removal of restrictive provisions on

the expenditure of funds. This is essential for continued

operation of the nation's nuclear-powered fleet now and into

the future.

An identical letter has been sent to Representatives

Rogers, Frelinghuysen, and Simpson; and Senators Mikulski and

Levin.

Sincerely,

John M. Richardson,

Admiral, U.S. Navy, Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion

Program.

Jonathan W. Greenert,

Admiral, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois.

As chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I am deeply familiar with our nuclear forces. In this case, we are talking about the long-range standoff weapon, LRSO, which is the follow-on replacement for the existing air-launched cruise missile, or ALCM.

The fleet of existing ALCMs are old and their reliability is declining. We have heard directly from the U.S. Strategic Command that they are well past their service life and have military effectiveness concerns. Projected adversary air defense improvements will impact its effectiveness even more. And this is a weapons system we are planning to sustain until 2030.

We need to start development of the nuclear warhead for the LRSO next year to meet the 2030 deployment date. The funding that this amendment seeks to eliminate is critical to getting this effort started and on- track.

The disarm-America crowd will say there is no military requirement for this weapon. On the contrary, I have here a letter from the Under Secretary of Defense for acquisitions, technology, and logistics, stating: ``The Department of Defense has established a military requirement for a nuclear capable standoff cruise missile for the bomber leg of the U.S. triad.''

There is a clear military requirement for LRSO. Preserving long-range cruise missile capability is a critical component of the U.S. strategic and extended deterrence strategies. Gravity bombs and conventional weapons cannot provide the same deterrence and defense effects. There is a clear national security imperative for LRSO.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the House's attention today to recognize Ralph Preston Bolt, a constituent of mine from Anniston, Alabama. Mr. Bolt will be celebrating his 90th birthday on July 4th.

Mr. Bolt was born on July 4, 1924, in Randolph County, Alabama. He graduated from Randolph County High School and after World War II, graduated from Auburn University in 1950. By the end of World War II, Mr. Bolt was a Staff Sergeant with the 94th Infantry Division. He was in the 302nd Battalion, Company K. With his division, he landed on Utah Beach 94 days after D-Day and ended up in Germany in 1945. His division spent just under a year in France and Germany.

In 1947, Mr. Bolt married Betty Wright and had two sons, Ralph Preston, Jr. and James Andrew. He also has four grandchildren. Weathers Preston Bolt, Edward Morrissette Bolt, Sarah Sage Bolt and Anne Jacobs Bolt.

Mr. and Mrs. Bolt reside in Anniston where he has been very involved in the community. Over the years, he has served on the Calhoun County Chamber of Commerce Military Affairs Committee and served as past Chairman of both the Chamber and YMCA Board. He was president of the Anniston Jaycees and is still a member of the Kiwanis Club of Anniston. He served on the Board of the Boys and Girls Club of Anniston and was recipient of the Silver Beaver award from the Choccolocco Council of the Boy Scouts of America following many years of service. He has also served on numerous boards and committees for the First United Methodist Church of Anniston where he is still an active member.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in thanking Mr. Bolt for his brave service to our country and join me in wishing him a very happy 90th birthday.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge Members to support my amendment and to support the underlying bill by my friend from New Jersey. I regret I have to bring this amendment today. It deals with a very arcane issue, the Treaty on Open Skies.

In the FY15 NDAA, H.R. 4435, we included a bipartisan provision to require certification of the national security implications for Russian Federation proposals to implement new sensors on their Open Skies aircraft.

These aircraft are allowed to fly over the United States to conduct surveillance flights. They are not supposed to supplement Russian intelligence collection on the U.S., yet not long after this body passed the NDAA on a 325-98 vote, the administration opted to ignore this body's concerns, ignore the concerns of a bipartisan group of Senators on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and approve a Russian request to improve its sensor platform.

The administration did this without regard to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and illegal seizure of Crimea. The administration did this without regard to Russia's violation of the INF treaty. The administration did this without regard to Russia's compliance failings in the New START Treaty.

The administration did this without regard to the fact that Russia is cheating on the Open Skies Treaty itself--just look at the State Department Web site. The administration did this without regard to the concerns of the Department of Defense and other government agencies.

How did Russia respond to this decision by the administration to accede to Putin's wishes? The New York Times this past weekend answered that question this way:

Rebels also claim to have shot down a Ukrainian AN-30

surveillance plane on June 6, 2014. The June 6 episode was of

particular concern because it involved the destruction of one

of the two planes that Ukraine used to monitor the Open Skies

Treaty.

Mr. Chairman, when will we learn that we can't respond to Russian aggression with concession?

Putin responded, as he always does, by taking our concession and having his shock troops in Ukraine shoot down an airplane.

We cannot continue like this. We cannot continue to ignore Russia cheating when it comes to our treaties. We cannot continue to allow Russia to misuse arms control treaties like the Open Skies Treaty. We cannot continue to allow Russia to foment violence on NATO's borders.

We cannot continue to ignore the concerns of our military and other national security agencies just to make Russia feel good.

I urge support of my amendment to send a message to Russia and safeguard our national security.

With that, I would urge my colleagues to accept the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a very special occasion today--the 50th wedding anniversary of Mayfield and Faye Robertson.

Mayfield Robertson and Faye Bowling met on September 8, 1963. Mayfield Robertson, who had returned home from serving in Germany just two years earlier, was playing baseball that day, and Faye Bowling was in attendance.

On June 11, 1964, Mayfield and Faye got married. Together, Mayfield and Faye Robertson raised three children, Ryan, Lana, and Chad. They have six grandchildren and four great grandchildren.

Mayfield is now retired from the Anniston Army Depot, and Faye is retired from Sewell Manufacturing. The Robertsons have been very blessed.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating the Robertsons on 50 years together.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for the House's attention today to recognize Byron Pigg who is retiring from the position of Public Safety Director with the East Alabama Water, Sewer and Fire Protection District.

Mr. Pigg is retiring after 33 years and 10 months of service. Prior to his service as a full-time employee, Byron served as a volunteer firefighter. He served as fire chief for 25 years of his full-time employment.

During his tenure as fire chief, Byron worked to significantly upgrade the fire department. In 2005, he oversaw the construction of a new headquarters fire station. He received over $1 million in grant money to help improve the fire department. He also has served in numerous local, regional and statewide organizations.

Mr. Speaker, we join his family and friends in celebrating Mr. Pigg's retirement and wish him the very best.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to his amendment.

Madam Chair, the Blumenauer amendment is a continuation of the gentleman's efforts to suggest that this Nation cannot afford its nuclear deterrence requirements, which are actually the Obama administration's requirements based on the President's personal promises.

The gentleman, notwithstanding the views of the Obama administration, the military leadership, and the senior civilian leadership, wants to unilaterally cut our nuclear forces. He has earlier offered a proposal to try to put Members of this body at odds with the National Guard in an attempt to cut nuclear weapons funding. He has offered the REIN-IN Act to gut the U.S. nuclear deterrent, which is relied upon by 31 American allies, despite the expanding nuclear weapons programs of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and others.

It is as if the gentleman missed Vladimir Putin's massive and unplanned nuclear weapons exercise just over a week ago and his invasion of Ukraine and his violation of the INF Treaty and his questionable implementation of the New START Treaty.

Perhaps the gentleman should have heard Secretary Hagel's testimony before the Armed Services Committee this March when he said: ``Most everybody agrees that our ability to possess nuclear weapons and the capability that has brought us has probably done as much to deter aggression--nuclear deterrence and the start of World War III as any one thing.''

Or Chairman Dempsey's testimony when he was asked if, despite the disarmament echo chamber in this town, the debate about the U.S. nuclear posture and our strategic triad is over, he said: ``For the record, I can speak for myself and the Joint Chiefs, and you are correct.''

But here we are again today and again this year with a new effort to disarm this country's deterrent. It looks harmless: Let's ask for a CBO report.

Has the gentleman asked the CBO if it can do this annual report? I did. They don't have the resources to do such a report.

Is the gentleman aware of the current annual reports we receive? We have the Obama administration submit an annual report detailing these costs. It is called the section 1043 report. We get it every year. We then have the GAO audit that report each and every year.

These are hundreds and thousands of man-hours to produce and at great expense each and every year. Yet let's add a third report, the gentleman says. Why? Because maybe this report will tell us something different than the other two reports?

What have they all shown us? They have all shown us that, by any reasonable and informed estimate, we are spending less than 5 percent of the defense budget on our nuclear forces--less than 5 percent. It is a historical low.

We will spend approximately $6 trillion on defense spending over the next 10 years. We will spend over $30 trillion, including the whole Federal Government. How much on our nuclear forces? According to these reports, approximately $300 billion.

I am happy to debate the gentleman on the merits of our nuclear forces. What I am not prepared to accept is wasteful, unnecessary annual reports just so the nuclear disarmament crowd can throw another argument against the wall in hopes that maybe something will finally stick that supports its lonely position that we should be unilaterally reducing U.S. nuclear forces without regard to this Nation's security interests or those of our allies. I urge the defeat of this amendment and the return to common sense.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BEN RAY LUJAAN of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman from New Mexico. I agree with the importance of the national labs. I look forward to working with you to find ways to strengthen their capabilities and meet their important missions. I expect we will be able to find a way to ensure nonprofits have access to our national laboratories without using defense funding to subsidize such work.

Mr. BEN RAY LUJAAN of New Mexico. Madam Chairman, I appreciate all the staff's time on this.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.

This is an important annual bill, not just because, as you have heard, it is the 53rd in a row; it is what is in the bill for our men and women in uniform and our national security that counts.

For example, we fully support the Israeli Cooperative programs, including Iron Dome, while also continuing to make progress on U.S.- based coproduction to strengthen our ally, Israel.

We include increased resources for our GMD system, which is our only homeland missile defense capability.

We support critical nuclear weapons capabilities, including programs the President promised to support as a part of the deal to ratify the New START treaty, which are $2 billion short of what was promised with several key programs years behind schedule.

We have initiated in this bill the development of a competitively sourced next-generation rocket engine. We will not permit the kleptocrats in charge of Russia to hold our national security space programs hostage. It is past time that we reinvigorate our rocket motor industrial base.

I am pleased that we also are able to begin a pilot program for a new and more commonsense public-private partnership acquisition approach for the procurement of commercial satellite communication services.

We also begin the same public-private partnership process to deal with the scores of obsolete, decrepit, nonnuclear facilities in the

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is part of a long running effort to reduce funding for an already chronically underfunded nuclear deterrent. Advocates of unilateral U.S. disarmament try unsuccessfully each year to cut nuclear weapons funding. We see it on the NDAA, we see it on the appropriations bills, and we see it in stand-alone bills.

For instance, in February, the gentleman from Oregon introduced H.R. 4107, the REIN-IN Act. The bill would devastate our nuclear deterrent by mandating the following: reducing the number of ICBMs from 450 to 150 and delay development of follow-on systems, cutting the number of ballistic missile submarines from 12 to eight, delaying development of the nuclear-capable, long-range bomber, prohibiting the F-35 from being nuclear capable, and terminating several nuclear infrastructure modernization construction projects.

The amendment we are considering today is part of the broader effort that you will see reflected in that bill. It is part of the Disarm- America agenda that is so dangerous to U.S. nuclear security and our international stability. Let's call this amendment what it is: a sly attempt to undercut and undermine our nuclear deterrent by pitting us against the Air National Guard. It is a unilateral disarmament, and I stand here in firm opposition.

The offset of this amendment is also bad policy. Over the last 3 years, the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons program is already a total of $2 billion short of the funding the administration committed in 2010. The administration committed to this funding to win ratification of the New START treaty. Now that it is a treaty, it is unwilling to request the money the nuclear deterrent needs.

We must hold the administration to its commitment, provide the money, and oppose this amendment. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner) to respond.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, this is the fourth year in a row this amendment or something similar to it has been offered. Once again, I am going to ask that this be rejected.

The DOD has asked for the authority to transfer funds to NNSA's nuclear weapons activities and Naval Reactors. It has not asked to move limited resources to pay for NNSA nonproliferation activities.

The Navy may need to utilize authority in FY 2015 to support Naval Reactors, which has taken major funding cuts in recent years, including 23 percent in FY 2014.

As Admiral Richardson, director of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Programs at NNSA said at our hearing on April 8:

A 23 percent shortfall in my operations and infrastructure

requirements resulted in insufficient funds to do required

maintenance on one of my land-based prototypes, and without

relief, I will have no choice but to shut down that reactor,

resulting in 450 nuclear-trained operators not reporting to

the fleet, putting a greater burden on sailors and families

that are already sustaining 9- to 10-month deployments.

Keeping the underlying language sends a clear message to NNSA that nuclear weapons activities and Naval Reactors are the NNSA's primary mission and that it must prioritize those missions and deliver what the military needs.

Any defense funds transferred out of DOD should only be used for activities in line with DOD priorities, so I urge opposition to the gentlelady's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I respect my friend from California. She is very knowledgeable on the subject, but she is wrong on this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

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