Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. 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 NNSA.
Mr. Chairman, in taking a look at the amendments that were filed with the Rules Committee, it is clear to me that plenty of our colleagues are not happy with the tough choices made by the 2-year budget deal reached last year, and I join them.
As we debate these amendments over the next couple of days, I think Members will see what those of us on the Armed Services Committee have been warning for about a year. There are no more easy choices. We are not just cutting into the muscle and bone; we are amputating vital limbs.
I have a warning for every Member of this body. If you think the choices that we made were tough this year, wait till next year, when sequestration returns.
I wish to thank the ranking member, the gentleman, and my friend from Tennessee, for his outstanding leadership on this subcommittee.
I wish to thank Chairman McKeon for all he has done over his long career for the men and women of our armed services. They may never know all he has done for them, but I know. If he had to do it here again, he would.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your service, and I look forward to working with you to see that the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act is signed into law later this year.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. 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 gen tle lady's amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source