Doug Lamborn

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. I thank my colleague for pointing that out. I appreciate her coming to the floor. I know we are joined in this effort by Representative Steve Daines of Montana and by Representative Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, and they wholeheartedly support this amendment as well. A strong nuclear deterrent is what we need in the face of uncertainty, not any kind of unilateral disarmament. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to my colleague from Kansas, Representative Jenkins.

Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman. I now yield 1 minute to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, across this country tonight, 600,000 Defense Department civilian employees are struggling with a 20 percent pay cut due to civilian furloughs, and these are scheduled to go through the end of September. These are hardworking American patriots who work hard to keep our Nation secure. They are supporting our warfighters. They are doing essential work. They are working side by side, shoulder to shoulder, with Active Duty personnel who, because of the language of the Budget Control Act, are exempt from any kind of furloughs. I approve of that, but it's sad that the civilians are singled out for this treatment. Mr. Chairman, I talked today to someone from the administration who came to a hearing for Armed Services. He said that the savings are estimated to be about $2 billion for the rest of the year. That may sound like a lot of money except when you look at the entire DOD budget of $500 billion. $2 billion is four-tenths of 1 percent--less than half a percent--of the total defense budget for this year. This is a savings that is a false economy. It is demoralizing, and it is hard on the families that are suffering this. We should adopt this amendment, which says that the Defense Department can find other savings but not take it out of the hides of the civilians who are supporting our warfighters. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke).

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

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

Mr. LAMBORN. I inquire of the balance of my time remaining.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have to take issue with what was just stated as far as maintaining a credible deterrent even with massive unilateral further reductions. We've already reduced our nuclear forces under New START to 1,550 weapons, and when you reduce beyond that, it becomes less credible to our allies that we will have a credible deterrent. We have a nuclear umbrella right now with about 30 countries relying on us. If we start unilaterally reducing the number of our nuclear warheads, they will become less certain about our deterrent. They will be incentivized to go out and start their own nuclear programs. I'm talking about countries like Japan and South Korea, which have a neighbor, North Korea, that is threatening to them. If we want to see more nuclear weapons in the world, we should reduce ours. Other countries are simply not going to follow our example, and it will lead to more nuclear weapons worldwide. So I would urge the adoption of this amendment. I disagree with my colleague from Indiana, and I would ask for a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It prohibits funds in this bill from being used to do an environmental impact study on our intercontinental ballistic missiles. You might think that an environmental impact statement, or an EIS, sounds innocuous, but let me lay out the facts that we have. First, the Obama administration has made it clear that it believes in nuclear zero--the idea that we can achieve a world without nuclear weapons. This sounds like a wonderful idea, but our competitors and adversaries will almost certainly never give up their nuclear weapons. So, until there is a change of heart on the part of our adversaries, this could be a dangerous idea. We've had reductions in our nuclear forces to date, and it hasn't stopped our potential adversaries--or hostile countries for that matter--from reducing their nuclear programs. As a matter of fact, they've been increasing. I'm talking about countries like Iran and North Korea. In President Obama's second Berlin speech just a few weeks ago, he announced a desire to reduce America's nuclear arsenal by one- third regardless of what the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Iranians, the Pakistanis or anyone else, for that matter, does. It is in this context that we see in this budget the President's requesting an environmental impact statement for our current ICBM forces. We decisively rejected an amendment not just a few minutes ago here on this House floor that would have defunded one-third of our ICBM forces. I am proud to be joined in this effort to protect our ICBMs by the three Members who represent States in which bases are located at which we find our ICBMs. At this point, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Wyoming, Representative Lummis.

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from Colorado. Mr. Chairman, the House has rejected these amendments--this and a following amendment by the gentleman from Colorado--on the National Defense Authorization Act already this year. This amendment would strike the funding provided in this bill to provide for multi-year procurement authority of booster motors for the ground-based interceptors, GBIs, that Secretary Hagel announced the United States would deploy this past March. This amendment, if it were adopted, and perhaps this is unintentional, but it would actually cost the United States as much as $200 million. Perhaps the gentleman is opposed to the Obama administration's missile defense policy as articulated by Secretary of Defense Hagel. If so, that is a separate issue. But when you look at North Korea, you look at Iran, I think it would be unwise to oppose the decision to add ground-based interceptors. All that this amendment is doing is raising the price that taxpayers have to pay for the GBIs that the President and the Secretary of Defense have said we should buy. This isn't just my position. It is what the Missile Defense Agency and the CBO have already said: multi- year procurement will save the taxpayer money. Now, the reliability issues that the gentleman brought up have nothing to do with this funding, because this funding talks about booster motors. Of the 26 tests that involve the GMD system, Ground- based Missile Defense, 18 of those were 100 percent successful. Of the remaining eight that had problems, none of them involved the booster motor. That is the subject of this amendment. So this amendment is misdirected if it is concerned about the stated concern of reliability. I can't understand why we would oppose multi-year procurement and advance procurement of the 14 GBIs that the Defense Department says we will buy. Mr. Chairman, I would urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, the record is clear--ObamaCare has been a train wreck since its inception. This latest delay is a testament to the poor planning and widespread mismanagement by President Obama and his administration. President Obama's decision to delay the employer mandate comes after months of promises from the Obama administration claiming that implementation was on schedule and that the law was working the way it was supposed to. Every day, I hear from constituents who remain strongly opposed to the government's takeover of their health care. Delaying the employer mandate for 1 year is a step in the right direction, but individuals need relief also. We must protect all Americans from the unworkable mandates of the President's health care plan by voting to delay both the individual and employer mandates. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2668, and I urge its swift adoption.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with what the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman of the subcommittee, has just said, and I rise in opposition to this amendment. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, we have debated similar concepts recently and we rejected them. This would be harmful to our national security. The reason, besides what the chairman from New Jersey has already said, these weapons are forward deployed in Europe to support NATO and are employed also by U.S. strategic forces in the continental United States. If we do not extend the life of the B61, here is what the Department of Defense has said: Failure to fully fund the B61 Life Extension Program will be viewed by NATO and other allies as a weakening in the overall U.S.-extended deterrence commitment, potentially prompting certain allies to pursue their own nuclear program. Unless you want other countries in the world to start their own nuclear programs from scratch to develop their own weapons systems, increasing proliferation, then you want to reject this amendment, because that will potentially be the result if the U.S. deterrence is weakened. That's what this amendment does. It is important that we do the Life Extension Program also because under New START, which this country entered into recently with Russia, it was determined that we would be upgrading the remaining weapons. We are making dramatic reductions in the amount of the nuclear weapons in our stockpile, so those that remain have to be more reliable or we made a bad deal. To make sure that those remaining weapons are more reliable we do the Life Extension Programs. The B61 weapons we are talking about are 30 years or more old. They are degrading. They are using sometimes obsolescent parts, so they are not as secure as they could be. We need to do the Life Extension Program for that reason as well. For all these reasons, I would ask that we strongly oppose and reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I object to where this money is being cut. The amendment would take another $50 million away from already low amounts for modernizing our nuclear stockpile. The President agreed several years ago that he would modernize our nuclear stockpile in order to secure ratification of the New START Treaty. Under that treaty, both Russian and U.S. forces are being reduced; but we have to modernize the force so that we maintain a credible deterrent with the remaining weapons after the reductions take place. The President is not fully funding that obligation. That's troubling enough. This committee has lowered what the President recommended to an even lower level, and that's even more troubling. If we take this amendment for a further reduction, we're really getting into serious cuts. The trouble with not modernizing our nuclear capability is that we will no longer have an effective deterrent. These weapons degrade over time. They lose their effectiveness and reliability. If we have allies who can't depend on our nuclear deterrent, what are they going to want to do? They're going to want to go out and start their own nuclear programs. Countries like Korea and Japan are already talking about that, by the way. Unless you want more nuclear proliferation in the world, you want the U.S. to maintain a serious and credible deterrent and have an effective nuclear arsenal. So this amendment takes us in the wrong direction. It's not good strategically for the United States. It's not a good savings of money, and I would urge strong rejection of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LAMBORN. I object.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained due to a flight delay and was unable to vote on rollcall No. 305, rollcall No. 306 and rollcall No. 307. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 305, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 306 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 307.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the chairman of the full committee, Representative Hastings. And I'll just reinforce the last point he was making. And I don't believe that the gentleman from Florida intended his language to do this. But it says it is the right and power of each State to prohibit management, leasing, developing of the natural resources within such lands within its boundaries. I don't believe it was intended, but this could have the dangerous consequence of trampling on private property rights. It's been tried in the Fifth Amendment, and that is a vital core principle in our Bill of Rights. And I know that you didn't intend that, but this language could lead to that. For that reason alone, we should reject this amendment. This could have dangerous consequences. So I agree with the full chairman, the gentleman from Washington. Let's reject this amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, this straightforward amendment ensures that the Interior Department will not allow leases under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to go to any person currently subject to sanctions by the U.S. Government under existing Federal laws. This amendment will ensure that no company can benefit from today's legislation if it helps prop up oppressive and destabilizing regimes, such as Iran or Syria. With the threat from Iran continuing to grow, it is vital that Congress respond with prudent and effective action. We must continue to isolate Iran, promote stability in the Middle East, and protect Israel. Growing our own domestic energy resources is an important part of further isolating Iran. My amendment ensures that we do not inadvertently or indirectly support the Iranian regime while opening American sources of energy. Iran is an existential threat to our best ally in the region, Israel; and it is a state sponsor of terrorism in addition to Iran's relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons and the abuse it directs to its own citizens. With regard to Syria, existing sanctions are already helping increase the pressure on President Assad's regime. Thanks to the sanctions, Syrian oil production has decreased as companies have cut ties with the government and exited the country. Despite this pressure, more action is needed. This amendment is a responsible next step to ensure that nothing in this bill will empower President Assad's continuing war against the Syrian people. The United States should not be rewarding companies that are currently subject to sanctions by the U.S. Government. We must ensure that none of the profit derived from today's legislation will prop up nations that would harm our national security interests or those of our ally, Israel. Israel has a hard enough time surviving in a dangerous neighborhood without letting it get any worse. With both the Iranian and Syrian regimes threatening our allies in the Middle East and with Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, now directly involved in the fighting in Syria, I believe that Congress must show its unity in the protection of our good friend Israel and with the people of Syria.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to receiving the vote of the ranking member. I suppose that means he is in favor of this amendment, so I appreciate and applaud that. This is very similar to the amendment last year, though it is not identical as you stated. It is very similar, and this is an example that we can work together in a bipartisan way to commonly work together on good ideas. Motions to recommit, as I will remind you, do sometimes throw up a procedural roadblock that delay the progress of a bill.

Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the chairman for that and for his leadership on the entire bill. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this simple amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. LAMBORN. As I reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.