Doug Lamborn

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sincere gratitude for Colonel Georgette Goonan's 24 years of service to the U.S. Army and the people of Fountain, Colorado. Before residing in Fountain, Colonel Goonan earned her Doctor of Veterinary Medicine Degree from Iowa State in 1980. She then served in numerous assignments around the globe, including Veterinary Officer, Roving Sands Mission, in Fort Bliss, Texas; Veterinary Food Service Officer, Operation New Horizons, in Belize; Veterinarian in Fort Carson, Colorado; Veterinary Training Officer 993rd Medical Detachment in Denver, Colorado; and Veterinary Officer in Panama. Her most recent active duty assignment was as Commander of the 993rd Medical Detachment in Afghanistan between December 2008 and January 2010. Her Army Reserve assignments include Veterinary Surgical Team Officer in Kuwait supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom and the current Team Chief for the 7305th Medical Training Support Battalion in Sacramento, California. Colonel Goonan is a graduate of the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Officer Basic Course; AMEDD Augmentation Course; Captain Career Course, Intermediate Level Education Course; Defense Support of Civilian Authorities Course; Pre-Command Course; Sanitation Audit Cert Course; and Commanders Safety Course. During her distinguished career, Colonel Goonan has received numerous decorations including the National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Star, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal; Army Achievement Medal; Army Commendation Medal with 2nd Oak Leaf Cluster; Meritorious Service Medal; Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal with 2nd Oak Leaf Cluster; and Unit Meritorious Service Medal. Colonel Goonan has made sizeable civilian contributions to her community in Colorado as well, as both owner of Rocky Mountain Veterinary Service in Fountain and as a Supervisor on the El Paso County Conservation District. As she retires from the U.S. Army, I would like to offer my sincere appreciation for her commitment to defending our country and the invaluable contributions she has made to Colorado.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to my colleague by saying there is a flaw in the New START Treaty, in my opinion, in that it originally called for reductions in U.S. nuclear forces and allowed Russia to increase its nuclear forces. So that right there I think is a problem. But when you have serial violations by the Russian Federation invading Ukraine, in violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, the INF Treaty, and the CFE Treaty, they are not a reliable partner in these treaties. And so to reduce our forces, how can that be in our interest when the other party to the treaty is not someone who is performing on these other treaties? There could be questions on whether they are even fully complying with the New START Treaty. Mr. Chairman, I will enter into the Record an article from The New York Times dated January 29 of this year detailing some of their violations of the INF Treaty. [From the New York Times, Jan. 29, 2014] U.S. Says Russia Tested Missile, Despite Treaty (By Michael R. Gordon) Washington.--The United States informed its NATO allies this month that Russia had tested a new ground-launched cruise missile, raising concerns about Moscow's compliance with a landmark arms control accord. American officials believe Russia began conducting flight tests of the missile as early as 2008. Such tests are prohibited by the treaty banning medium-range missiles that was signed in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan and Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the Soviet leader at the time, and that has long been viewed as one of the bedrock accords that brought an end to the Cold War. Beginning in May, Rose Gottemoeller, the State Department's senior arms control official, has repeatedly raised the missile tests with Russian officials, who have responded that they investigated the matter and consider the case to be closed. But Obama administration officials are not yet ready to formally declare the tests of the missile, which has not been deployed, to be a violation of the 1987 treaty. With President Obama pledging to seek deeper cuts in nuclear arms, the State Department has been trying to find a way to resolve the compliance issue, preserve the treaty and keep the door open to future arms control accords. ``The United States never hesitates to raise treaty compliance concerns with Russia, and this issue is no exception,'' Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said. ``There's an ongoing review process, and we wouldn't want to speculate or prejudge the outcome.'' Other officials, who asked not to be identified because they were discussing internal deliberations, said there was no question the missile tests ran counter to the treaty and the administration had already shown considerable patience with the Russians. And some members of Congress, who have been briefed on the tests on a classified basis for well over a year, have been pressing the White House for a firmer response. A public dispute over the tests could prove to be a major new irritant in the already difficult relationship between the United States and Russia. In recent months, that relationship has been strained by differences over how to end the fighting in Syria; the temporary asylum granted to Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor; and, most recently, the turmoil in Ukraine. The treaty banning the testing, production and possession of medium-range missiles has long been regarded as a major step toward curbing the American and Russian arms race. ``The importance of this treaty transcends numbers,'' Mr. Reagan said during the treaty signing, adding that it underscored the value of ``greater openness in military programs and forces.'' But after President Vladimir V. Putin rose to power and the Russian military began to re-evaluate its strategy, the Kremlin developed second thoughts about the accord. During the administration of President George W. Bush, Sergei B. Ivanov, the Russian defense minister, proposed that the two sides drop the treaty. Though the Cold War was over, he argued that Russia still faced threats from nations on its periphery, including China and potentially Pakistan. But the Bush administration was reluctant to terminate a treaty that NATO nations regarded as a cornerstone of arms control and whose abrogation would have enabled the Russians to increase missile forces directed at the United States' allies in Asia. Since Mr. Obama has been in office, the Russians have insisted they want to keep the agreement. But in the view of American analysts, Russia has also mounted a determined effort to strengthen its nuclear abilities to compensate for the weakness of its conventional, nonnuclear forces. At the same time, in his State of the Union address last year, Mr. Obama vowed to ``seek further reductions in our nuclear arsenals,'' a goal American officials at one point hoped might form part of Mr. Obama's legacy. But administration officials and experts outside government say Congress is highly unlikely to approve an agreement mandating more cuts unless the question of Russian compliance with the medium-range treaty is resolved. ``If the Russian government has made a considered decision to field a prohibited system,'' Franklin C. Miller, a former defense official at the White House and the Pentagon, said, ``then it is the strongest indication to date that they are not interested in pursuing any arms control, at least through the remainder of President Obama's term.'' It took years for American intelligence to gather information on Russia's new missile system, but by the end of 2011, officials say it was clear that there was a compliance concern. There have been repeated rumors over the last year that Russia may have violated some of the provisions of the 1987 treaty. But the nature of that violation has not previously been disclosed, and some news reports have focused on the wrong system: a new two-stage missile called the RS-26. The Russians have flight-tested it at medium range, according to intelligence assessments, and the prevailing view among Western officials is that it is intended to help fill the gap in Russia's medium-range missile capabilities that resulted from the 1987 treaty. The treaty defines medium-range missiles as ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles capable of flying 300 to 3,400 miles. But because Russia has conducted a small number of tests of the RS-26 at intercontinental range, it technically qualifies as a long-range system and will be counted under the treaty known as New Start, which was negotiated by the Obama administration. So it is generally considered by Western officials to be a circumvention, but not a violation, of the 1987 treaty One member of Congress who was said to have raised concerns that the suspected arms control violation might endanger future arms control efforts was John Kerry. As a senator and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he received a classified briefing on the matter in November 2012 that dealt with compliance concerns, according to a report in The Daily Beast. As secretary of state, Mr. Kerry has not raised concerns over the cruise missile tests with his Russian counterpart, Sergey V. Lavrov, but he has emphasized the importance of complying with arms accords, a State Department official said. Republican lawmakers, however, have urged the administration to be more aggressive. ``Briefings provided by your administration have agreed with our assessment that Russian actions are serious and troubling, but have failed to offer any assurance of any concrete action to address these Russian actions,'' Representative Howard McKeon, Republican of California and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Representative Mike Rogers, the Michigan Republican who leads the Intelligence Committee, said in an April letter to Mr. Obama. And Senator Jim Risch, Republican of Idaho, and 16 other Republican senators recently proposed legislation that would require the White House to report to Congress on what intelligence the United States has shared with NATO allies on suspected violations of the 1987 treaty. Republican members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have also cited the issue in holding up Ms. Gottemoeller's confirmation as under secretary of state for arms control and international security. It was against this backdrop that the so-called deputies committee, an interagency panel led by Antony Blinken, Mr. Obama's deputy national security adviser, decided that Ms. Gottemoeller should inform NATO's 28 members about the compliance issue. On Jan. 17, Ms. Gottemoeller discussed the missile tests in a closed-door meeting of NATO's Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Committee that she led in Brussels. The Obama administration, she said, had not given up on diplomacy. There are precedents for working out disputes over arms control complaints, and Ms. Gottemoeller said American officials would continue to engage the Russians to try to resolve the controversy. But even with the best of intentions, establishing what the Russians are doing may not be easy. The elaborate network of verification provisions created under the medium-range missile treaty is no longer in effect, since all the missiles that were believed to be covered by the agreement were long thought to have been destroyed by May 1991.

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

Mr. LAMBORN. At this point I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), my colleague.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I can't see how it would be in our interest to keep complying with a treaty when the other party to that treaty is not in compliance with so many other things it is supposed to be doing. This amendment merely calls for a halt in the spending until such time as they come into compliance with all of these other treaties. We are talking about reducing our nuclear forces. That is a guarantee against the main and only existential threat against the United States: a devastating nuclear attack, God forbid. But why in the world would we want to give up further nuclear forces when the party that is supposed to be working with us on this is not reliable? I do not understand that. I would ask adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. The United States should not be spending money to disarm ourselves--to dramatically cut our strategic nuclear deterrent under the New START Treaty--if the other party to the treaty is not trustworthy. At the moment, the Russian Federation is clearly not trustworthy. Let me remind us all of Russia's current record on observing treaties and agreements. In 1994, Russia, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States signed the Budapest Memorandum. This agreement included a commitment to ``respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.'' But this agreement did not keep Putin from invading Ukrainian territory. Strike one. In January, The New York Times revealed that the Russian Federation was cheating on another treaty--the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF Treaty. According to the story, our State Department has been raising the INF cheating issue with the Russians for about a year now, with no response. Strike two. In 2007, President Putin announced that he was suspending Russian participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, or CFE. This came after years of Russian violations of the CFE Treaty. Strike three. Is the Russian government trustworthy? The answer is clearly no. The question for us tonight under my amendment is whether it makes sense for us to spend money on reducing our nuclear deterrent when the other party to the New START Treaty is not trustworthy. If you trust Vladimir Putin and the Russian government, vote against this amendment. But if you, like me, don't want to put our national security in the hands of a serial treaty violator, please vote for this amendment. We should not be spending money implementing the New START Treaty, which reduces our nuclear forces, unless and until Russia makes it clear that they are a responsible actor and will abide by the agreements they make. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, religious freedom and defending freedom should not be mutually exclusive. America was founded on religious liberty, and it is part of what makes our country so great. The men and women in uniform who have volunteered to keep our country safe and to protect our Constitution should not see their own liberties violated. My amendment ensures that all servicemembers--no matter their religion or rank or leadership--are afforded their constitutional right to free exercise of religion. One of the driving factors behind recent violations of religious freedom in the military is simply bad rules. My amendment requires the Pentagon to rewrite their rules on free exercise of religion, both for the whole Department of Defense, and particularly for the Air Force. I would like to thank Chairman McKeon for supporting this amendment, as well as Mr. Forbes and Mr. Fleming, who are cosponsors.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents and veterans who are alarmed at recent reports of preventable deaths, manipulated records, and secret waiting lists within the VA health care system. These allegations span the country and have recently arisen in Colorado at the Fort Collins VA clinic. If these allegations are found to be true, the responsible individuals must be held accountable. It is unacceptable for individuals who have presided over negligence and mismanagement to go unscathed. Astonishingly, past instances of similar failures have not only seen responsible individuals remain employed by the VA, but they have even been rewarded for their leadership failures in the form of bonuses and positive performance reviews. This only promotes the continuation of poor management, negligence, and possible preventable deaths. This bill would help ensure that these trends do not continue by giving the Secretary of the VA the authority to remove or transfer senior executives of the VA. I ask for support of this bill.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would just say that there are balancing interests and that there are competing interests that should be, many times, debated and weighed. That is, actually, what the Army at Fort Carson does. They have entered into the permitting agreements with the Forest Service and with the Bureau of Land Management, agreeing with the concerns raised by those two bureaucracies, so they have worked together in a cooperative fashion. What I am addressing, though, is when the Forest Service comes out and says that Congress has never addressed this issue. I think that that is wrong. Now is the time to set the record straight, and this amendment does set the record straight. We are expressing that national security is a priority. That is what the Constitution says, and that is what we are stating right here. I ask for an ``aye'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, to summarize, these are legitimate questions that the ranking member has raised. I appreciate his comments, and there are valid issues in that it is not a clean or perfect situation. But the trouble is a billion dollars is a lot of money to our defense contractors, and to not try to address it would do a really big disservice to them. So I think it is worth tackling the difficulty that might be entailed in getting the paperwork done properly because the goal is worth doing. A billion dollars is a lot of money. Some of these companies might be big contractors; some of them might be small contractors. So I would urge the adoption of this amendment, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I thank the subcommittee chairman for yielding, and I do want to applaud my friend and colleague from California for her desire to fund nonproliferation. That is a worthy goal that we all agree with, but right now, NNSA is going to be spending in the bill that we are debating $1.6 billion for that worthy goal, and to allow the Department of Defense to go in that direction also would dilute the money that they need so badly for readiness and training, paying our men and women in uniform, providing them the food and weapons that they need. So for that reason, I, too, oppose this amendment and ask for a ``no'' vote. Nuclear nonproliferation efforts simply don't need more money, and if you don't believe me, believe General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At our March 16 hearing, he said, in response to a question of my colleague from California, Ms. Sanchez: I speak in this regard on behalf of the Joint Chiefs because, of course, we have discussed and debated this among ourselves, and I think we have allocated an appropriate and adequate amount of money into nonproliferation in our budget. So simply put, our senior military officials agree that the nonproliferation budget is already sufficient, and therefore, this amendment is unnecessary. This is the fourth year in a row we have debated it, and I would just ask that we stop the debate on this amendment and vote ``no.''

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I just don't want it to happen again that the Forest Service or any other bureaucracy can tell the men and women who are training to protect our country that they can't train and that Congress has never even addressed this situation. I at least want to have a resolution on record expressing the sense of Congress that national defense is a priority. That is the way our Constitution is written. I think this makes all kinds of sense, and I would urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, most Americans do not realize that 28 percent of the land across our great country is owned by the Federal Government. In the 11 most western States, the Federal Government owns a staggering 47 percent of all land. In my State of Colorado, the Federal Government owns 36 percent of the land. Over one-third of all land in Colorado is owned and operated here, out of Washington, D.C. The management of these lands is often controversial, particularly when the Federal Government owns such a significant portion of the land of a State or of a locality. There are often situations where there are competing and conflicting uses of this publicly-owned land. This Federal ownership of public land is administered through a variety of Federal agencies and bureaus, making things potentially even more difficult for States and localities. This public land serves many functions, including, in some cases, as a prime training ground for the U.S. military. In Colorado, for example, the new Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Carson flies their helicopters up into the mountains around Colorado Springs for training. To practice high altitude landings in rugged terrain, which is a crucial skill for combat in countries like Afghanistan, the Army must get permission from the various parts of the Federal Government that own the land. Over the last few years, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies have reduced the number of landing sites that are permissible. In the latest permit, they told the Army that Congress has not made national security a priority for public lands. Unfortunately, this is not just isolated to Colorado. Across the country, military bases are continually fighting with other government agencies to maintain their access to public lands. Today, my amendment will help set the record straight. National security should be the top priority for our government, and that most certainly includes the ownership of public land--land owned and operated by the Federal Government. We should apply the rule of common sense. Unless there is an obvious reason not to, public land should, of course, be available so that men and women in uniform can receive realistic, effective training that will save lives in combat. As we stand here tonight, we must remember that the first job of the Federal Government is to protect our Nation. I urge support for my amendment, resolving that national security should be a top priority for public lands. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, when our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and Defense civilians deploy overseas, the Department of Defense enters into agreements with the host nation to prohibit the taxation of the assistance provided by U.S. companies to support their missions. We have entered into such agreements with Afghanistan, but in the last 6 years, the Afghan Government has chosen to ignore these agreements. It has levied more than $1 billion in illegal taxes against our U.S. businesses which are supporting our warfighters. Last year we took action to withhold assistance funding in response to this illegal taxation, yet the Afghan Government continues to submit tax bills to our companies. If the firms refuse to pay, Afghan officials threaten to deny them permits and visas, to arrest company workers, and to prohibit them from moving mission essential equipment into and throughout the country. Though our committee has now increased the amount of funding to be withheld, I propose this amendment to hopefully end this wrong practice altogether. This amendment would require two important steps forward: first the Secretary of Defense would take a full account of illegal taxes levied by the Afghan Government against American companies; second, the Secretary will establish a plan for the Afghan Government to reimburse the illegally levied taxes. In short, no U.S. company should be threatened or financially punished for supporting our troops and Department of Defense civilians in Afghanistan. This amendment strikes at the root of the problem, and I urge its adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, in response, and I appreciate the gentleman's comments, the bookkeeping trouble that this would involve is first put on the Afghan Government in an attempt to save the trouble to our own Department of Defense folks. On your second point, I don't believe U.S. taxpayer dollars would be at risk because this would only be money withheld that would otherwise go to the Afghan Government and is committed for that purpose is my understanding. So you raise good questions, but I think both of those objections are satisfied by this amendment. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California, Representative McKeon, the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, how much time is left on our side of the issue?

Mr. LAMBORN. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Well, I thank the chairman, and I look forward to working with him. I appreciate the hard work he does for our military and for our veterans, including this particular important project. I pledge to work with him on these and other matters as we seek to honor our Nation's veterans. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Chairman, I believe we can all agree that honoring our Nation's veterans is of vital importance. They sacrifice so much for us and ask for so little in return. One thing that means so much to so many veterans in the Fifth Congressional District of Colorado is the establishment of a Southern Colorado National VA Cemetery. Would the chairman agree that it is critical to provide dignified final resting places for our heroes and that it is important to conveniently locate them near large veterans populations?