National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I offer a simple amendment to defend congressional prerogatives and ensure Congress is getting full information from the administration regarding one of our Nation's highest priority defense missions: nuclear deterrence.

Several years ago the Secretary of Energy tasked the Nation's nuclear weapons labs to produce a study on the future of nuclear deterrence. That study was finalized in August of 2014, almost 2 years ago.

The Secretary made a personal commitment to senior members of the Armed Services Committee that he would send over the report resulting from that study. Now, 2 years later, we still have not received that report.

This amendment will ensure DOE acts to fulfill the Secretary's commitment to provide this report to Congress, ensure Congress can conduct appropriate oversight and has visibility into matters as important as the future of nuclear deterrence, which the Secretary of Defense has called the Nation's highest priority defense mission, and it fences only a couple million dollars in administrative funds within the Office of the Secretary. This will be enough to ensure we receive this report and will not impact the DOE's mission at all.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend's remarks, and I agree. I like Mr. Moniz. I think the Secretary is a fine man and he is trying to do the right thing.

I have had a conversation with the ranking member earlier today, but I haven't had a chance to follow up with him. I have been on the floor doing a lot.

The only problem I have with withdrawing the amendment is we need this report between now and the time we go to conference to take what is yielded from it and visit with the appropriators.

Just me reading the report with you in private would not give me the documentation to take what it says--what I believe it says--and produce some policy that will deal with what the report says is a threat to our country.

For that reason, I would like to urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment, and reassure my friend and the Secretary that if, in fact, the report is forthcoming, and we are going to have a few months between now and the time we go to conference, I will be happy, in conference, to ask that this provision be withdrawn.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Tennessee, and I urge my friends in the House to vote ``yes.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I am as frustrated as anybody that we are having to be here today.

Secretary Carter has often said, and I agree with him completely, that the nuclear deterrent priority is our number one national security mission. But, unfortunately, that rhetoric has not matched up with the decision on this issue coming from the Secretary's office.

The UH-1N fleet that is used by the Air Force Security Forces for the ICBM field security consist of Vietnam-era helos.

The UH-1N program is a case study in a failed DOD acquisition process:

The first move to replace the helos was in 2004. The Joint Staff validated a military requirement in 2010;

The Air Force canceled the replacement program in 2011;

And the SecDef recently overruled the SecAF in conducting a sole source replacement program, proposing instead a competition in 2018.

Admiral Haney, Commander, USSTRATCOM, stated in February, 2016: ``Maintaining the security of our nuclear weapons requires a modern helicopter with sufficient capabilities to counter both today's and future threats. The UH-1N does not fully meet the current ICBM complex security requirements as outlined by DOD and USSTRATCOM.''

We have been warned, colleagues. Let me be clear. This is the security of nuclear weapons here at home. There is no higher priority. If we are going down the path of competition, that is fine; but we have no more time to waste.

I want to urge the gentleman's amendment be adopted.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source