Doug Lamborn

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call for an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, for their unethical and potentially criminal actions in Ukraine. In 2014, after being discharged from the Navy for cocaine use, Hunter Biden was named a board member of Burisma Holdings. Burisma is a natural gas company that was being investigated by the Ukrainian Government for corruption. This strange hire for a million dollars a year was around the same period that Vice President Joe Biden was the primary American liaison to Ukraine, supposedly assisting their new government in combating corruption. Just last year, Joe Biden bragged to the Council on Foreign Relations that he threatened the Ukrainian Government while vice president with the loss of a billion dollars unless they fired the prosecutor general leading the ethics probe into Hunter Biden, or America would cut off that foreign aid. Talk about quid pro quo. It is clear: Democrats would rather smear President Trump than investigate Biden's corrupt bullying of the Ukrainian Government.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to honor the 25th Anniversary of Charis Bible College. It is nothing short of miraculous to observe the growth that has taken place within the past quarter- century. Charis was founded as Colorado Bible College in 1994 and was originally located in Colorado Springs. Charis has grown from its first graduating class of 33 people in 1996, to include 26 campuses in the United States and 22 international locations. Charis's main campus has moved from the Springs to Woodland Park and is located on a beautiful piece of property overlooking Pikes Peak. In my district, the Charis campus provides multiple programs of Bible-based education including a practical government degree. It also hosts faith-based events throughout the year with discussions on Christian art, culture, and politics. Charis Bible College was created by Andrew Wommack, who has been a pioneer in Christian education and ministry. His vision to have men and women steeped in scripture has changed countless lives in my district and around the world. It was not Andrew's original plan to create a college, but he was inspired by 2 Timothy 2:2 which says ``And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.'' 25 years after receiving an answer to his prayer, Andrew is continuing to innovate and inspire new students. Charis students and graduates have invested themselves in our nation through prison ministry, care for the homeless, church planting, healing of the sick, relief from addiction, service in our schools, establishment of Christian businesses, and practicing grace-touched citizenship that transforms culture, in the tradition of William Wilberforce. It is my hope and prayer that as Charis continues to grow, it will continue its mission in Woodland Park for many years to come.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize our newest combatant command: U.S. Space Command, which was stood up on Monday in Colorado Springs. President Trump's decision to stand up SPACECOM could not be more timely. In recent years, Russia and China have reorganized their militaries and pursued capabilities to threaten our space assets. Fortunately, our Nation has no shortage of innovative and brilliant men and women in uniform. Our newest combatant command will harness the creative dynamo of these space warfighters. Congress will give them the authorities and funding they need to triumph in this newest contest of arms. With the infrastructure, industrial base, and personnel already located at Peterson and Schriever Air Force Bases in Colorado Springs, SPACECOM can seamlessly transition into a fully functioning combatant command immediately. This is a great and exciting milestone for our Nation.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, environmentally responsible development of ANWR will increase America's energy security and independence, create jobs, and provide affordable, reliable energy for consumers while providing much-needed revenue to both the State of Alaska and the Federal Government. While congressional authorization is required by law for any leasing in ANWR, I, along with my Republican colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee, believe that Alaska Natives should be able to exercise their right to develop minerals on their lands if they so choose. As the gentleman from Alaska has pointed out, Native Alaskans who actually live within ANWR fully support responsible development of their local energy resources. Who do we listen to? The people who actually live there or extreme environmental activists here in Washington? The oil and gas sector has historically served as a significant source of employment, revenue, and reliable energy for Alaska and Alaska Natives, and supports over 110,000 direct and indirect jobs. Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this legislation, which, fortunately, will never become law.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, Sergeant First Class (SFC) Elliott J. Robbins died on June 30, 2019, in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, while conducting operations in support of Operation Freedom's Sentinel. SFC Robbins was born in San Diego, California on August 18, 1987, and spent most of his life in North Ogden, Utah. He was 31 years of age. SFC Robbins joined the Army in June 2006, and after years of training completed the Special Forces Qualification course in 2016 and was assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado. SFC Robbins was part of a unique brand of our nation's elite warrior class called the Green Berets. The Green Beret motto is ``De Oppresso Liber''--to free the oppressed. He was assigned as a Medical Sergeant with the 2nd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne). Robbins deployed three times in support of the United States: first to Iraq in 2007, then to Afghanistan in 2017 and again in January 2019. His third and last tour would have been over only three weeks after Robbins passed away. SFC Robbins' decorations and awards are too numerous to list here, but include: the Army Commendation Medal with Combat Device and one Oak Leaf Cluster, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Campaign Star, the Expert Infantryman Badge, the Military Freefall Parachutist Badge, and the Parachutist Badge, to name a few. SFC Robbins' service epitomized the best of the American soul: courageous and selfless. He was buried with full military honors on July 19, 2019. Our hearts go out to his family and friends, especially the bereaved wife and infant son of this great patriot.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize American Legion Post 5 in downtown Colorado Springs on their 100th Anniversary. Since its founding, Post 5 has been a consistent advocate for our incredible military community in Colorado Springs. Post 5 helped the ``Pikes Peak or Bust'' Rodeo become a huge success. Their group led a campaign to elevate Medal of Honor recipient Floyd K. Lindstrom's memory which led to a VA outpatient clinic being named after him. American Legion Post 5 is a steadfast advocate for veterans and their families. The group hosts memorial services, supports homeless and impoverished veterans by sponsoring food and toy drives, and is a place for the veterans community to join together in fellowship to discuss important issues pertaining to their lives. As we celebrate our veterans' service to our great nation, we must thank this inspiring organization for their tremendously important service to our veterans in Colorado's 5th Congressional District. Please join me in wishing American Legion Post 5 a happy centennial anniversary.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Acting Chair. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a dangerous amendment. The Trump administration withdrew from the INF Treaty because Russia had been cheating on this treaty for years. The only country that was in compliance with the INF Treaty was the United States, and we were handcuffing ourselves by putting limitations on our ability to respond to threats from Russia or China since we were the only country in the world complying with it. China was not a signatory to the INF Treaty. This was, like was said, signed 32 years ago. China was not the military power that it is today. It was not a party to this treaty. Going forward, I would love to see some kind of treaty between the U.S. and Russia and China, but that is not in the works if this amendment is passed. This ignores China. China has more missiles in the Pacific region than anyone else in the world. They have more, certainly, than the United States. So that is another flaw with this amendment. Russia has been cheating on this, and to say we are going to comply with the terms of the treaty regardless of what Russia does is to reward them for their cheating. One other key point that makes this a dangerous amendment is because it would prevent the testing necessary for the growth of our missile defense program. The INF Treaty that this would put us back into--in a backdoor kind of way--prohibits testing or deployment of missiles with the range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. Those are the kinds of tests that we need to be able to do to test our missile defense systems. The Department of Defense stated, just a couple of days ago: Land-based missiles required to support ballistic missile defense system flight testing also have ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. Loss of target missile capability would likely prohibit upcoming missile defense flight tests requiring such target missiles. And they go on to say: This will limit the warfighter. It will limit our missile defense capabilities. That is a dangerous thing. There is some dispute over whether allies like Israel would be included in this ban of test vehicles. I will leave that for another discussion, but it is a serious issue. It would certainly prohibit our testing of our missile defense systems between the range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. That would cripple our growth of missile defense for the future. That doesn't make the world a safer place. It certainly doesn't make the United States a safer place. So, for all of those reasons, Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment, and I would urge that we reject it and vote ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I would like to inquire how much time both sides have remaining.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I am going to make a brief statement and then yield to the gentleman from Ohio. First, let me say that this doesn't just put us back in the INF, which would be bad enough. This puts us in a worse posture than the INF. This amendment is more stringent on our ability to develop our defensive capabilities than the INF would be. Specifically, the INF has an exemption for interceptors; this does not. So we can't do interceptor tests. We could have under INF, but we can't under this amendment. And, also, there is an exception for ballistic missiles without warheads for testing our defenses. That is in INF; it is not in this amendment. This is worse than the INF, which is bad enough. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have had this discussion on emoluments, and I hope that my colleague saw the newspaper today. Here is the newspaper, The Washington Times, front page: ``Court rejects lawsuit over Trump business. Maryland, D.C. slammed down.'' So, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has said one of the lawsuits out there is baseless. But there is actually more going on here. This is kind of an embarrassing amendment. I am sorry that we are even debating this. This is a blatantly political amendment. We are supposed to be here talking about providing the equipment and the training for our men and women in uniform, so they can preserve and save and keep our country secure, and this is just an attempt to embarrass the President. It is a political amendment. It is really not worthy of discussion in the National Defense Authorization Act, and I don't think we should be wasting our time on this. It is really not worthy of the American people either. Let me give an example on how silly and how ridiculous this amendment is. According to the language of this amendment, if the President goes to one of these properties and stays, like Mar-a-Lago down in Florida, I guess he could have Secret Service. They are not paid out of DOD dollars. They are paid out of Homeland Security dollars. But he couldn't take the people with him who carry the nuclear football or the communications people who keep him in touch with the command and control of our nuclear enterprise if, God forbid, there was some kind of crisis or emergency. This has not been thought out. It is totally ridiculous. Who would want to put a President of the United States through that kind of jumping through hoops and obstacles to fulfill his duties as Commander in Chief? I think it is ridiculous. It is not worthy of us. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I will make one brief comment and then yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Ohio. The President isn't in this to get rich. He has given up his salary. Mr. Chair, with that, I would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

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

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just like the last amendment, this is not worthy of us as a body. We should be here debating the National Defense Authorization Act; how to equip and train our men and women in uniform so they can protect our country. This is a blatant, cheap shot against the President. It is just a political potshot, and it is really not worthy of us as a body. This is a very poorly-written amendment, on top of all that. I think we would all agree, we shouldn't have political displays by a Commander-in-Chief, or anyone in the government, for that matter, where public dollars are involved. But what about patriotic displays? Is there anything wrong with that? Let me give you a couple of examples of things that would be prohibited by this poorly-written amendment. Every year, you have the Army, Navy, and Air Force playing football against each other for the Commander's Cup. And especially when the Air Force and Navy play each other, they have these flyovers. They each have wonderful aviation capabilities, and they will do a flyover of the stadium, whether it is in Annapolis, or in my district in Colorado Springs. This is written so broadly, you couldn't have any kind of authorized--any kind of--where's the word--exhibition. You could have no exhibition of military arms. So if the President was attending that football game, you couldn't have the flyover. How silly is that? Or if a President goes to a change of command down at Fort Bragg, something like that, you couldn't have the military vehicles present there that would be present normally at a change of command. Mr. Chairman, those are just a couple of examples of how poorly written this amendment is. So I would say, let's reject it. Let's get serious. Let's get back to the business of talking about what our men and women in uniform need, and not take these silly potshots against the President. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who is a member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

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

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, if you care about our warfighters who are in theater tonight, this is the worst possible cut that we could give the Department of Defense. This says that overseas operations, where they are actually in places like Afghanistan or Syria or Iraq, we are going to take the dollars they are using to operate and stay safe and get the job done, and we are whacking one-third off of that budget. We are taking a meat-cleaver approach, not a scalpel. This is a meat-cleaver approach. Besides the things that the chairman mentioned that would be cut working with allies, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance would be cut, ISR. When our commanders have forces going out on a patrol, those patrols want overhead observation before them, over them, behind them. That is the kind of thing directly cut by this amendment. When the troops come back, and the equipment has to be refurbished and reset, that is cut by this amendment. Mr. Chair, this is a very poorly thought out amendment, and I would urge everyone to vote ``no.''

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this important issue. Just so everyone will know, HAATS stands for the High-Altitude Army Aviation Training Site. There is only one such site in the United States, and that is in the mountains of western Colorado, and it happens to be in Representative Tipton's district. A lot of the people who train there with rotary aircraft come from Fort Carson, which is in my district. I know there is interest from other members of the Colorado delegation. They have had legislation that would designate nearby areas, or even that area, as a wilderness site. But I want to talk about the importance of this to the Army. This is high-altitude training. So, for rotary wing pilots who are going to be going to places like Afghanistan, this is a unique training opportunity. The high altitude, the change of weather, the mountainous conditions, and the valleys and hills and mountain peaks really make for an amazing training experience. And it has saved lives. I know Representative Tipton is going to have one story. I will give another. Just in this last couple of months, a couple of skiers from Vail were lost, and there was a search and rescue effort that was undertaken. With the help of helicopter pilots who had been trained, who were in the Army National Guard, I believe, they were able to find those skiers and rescue them without loss of life or injury, even, and it was a great success story. That high-altitude training site has led to many lives being saved, so it is an asset for our country. It is a gem; it is a jewel; and it must be protected at all costs. Madam Chair, I appreciate Representative Tipton's leadership on this issue.