Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Maybe we can even the time out.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), a gentleman who joined the Marine Corps right after 9/11, had two deployments to Iraq, one in Afghanistan in combat situations. We are very proud of this young man.

Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The Speaker has decided once more to subvert regular order in the waning moments of this Congress and bring to the floor, without consideration by the House Armed Services Committee, a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Now, anyone who was listening earlier to the Clerk read the bill that we're discussing, it is titled: To amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program. Now, if you're confused, what they have done is taken this bill that has passed, stripped out what is in it, and put in Don't Ask, Don't Tell. So today, we will debate this standalone measure as a priority when we don't even have a National Defense Authorization Act for 2011. The other body cannot get its work done on that bill because the leadership there placed a higher priority on repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to satisfy a Democratic liberal agenda than on passing a bill designed to meet the broad needs and requirements of our national defense, as well as those men and women serving in harm's way. Where are the Democrat priorities? Certainly not with overall national security. So now we are here to consider the bill by Representative Murphy. It comes to the floor without the committee of jurisdiction being able to formally examine the issues raised by the recent DOD report and without the ability to question witnesses who would have to implement the repeal. Essentially, the high-handed actions of the Speaker forcing this bill to the floor deny the House an ability to assess the conflicting testimony and conclusions that have been rendered by the report. So I rise in strong opposition to Mr. Murphy's bill. He and the House leadership behind him bring it to the floor in complete disregard for the testimony of three of the four service chiefs and their warning that implementing repeal now will have a negative impact on combat readiness. Let me repeat that: three of the four service chiefs warn that implementing repeal now will have a negative impact on combat readiness. This is something we all ought to pay serious attention to when we are fighting two wars. Beyond that, Mr. Murphy brings this bill to the floor in complete disregard for the concerns of those actually in the combat arms. As we now know: ``The percentage of the overall U.S. military that predicts negative or very negative effects on their units' ability to `work together to get the job done' is 30 percent; the percentage for the Marine Corps is 43 percent, 48 percent within Army combat units, and 58 percent within Marine combat units.'' If there is any doubt about where the service chiefs stand, here is what they told the other body. General Casey, the Army Chief of Staff said, ``I think it's important that we're clear about the military risks. Implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell would be a major cultural and policy change in the middle of a war. It would be implemented by a force and leaders that are already stretched by the cumulative effects of almost a decade of war and by a force in which substantial numbers of soldiers perceive that repeal will have a negative impact on unit effectiveness and morale, and that implementation will be difficult. ``I believe that the implementation of repeal in the near term will: one, add another level of stress to an already stretched force; two, be more difficult in our combat arms units; and, three, be more difficult for the Army than the report suggests. ``My recommendation would be that implementation begins when our singular focus is no longer on combat operations or preparing units for combat. I would not recommend going forward at this time given everything that the Army has on its plate.'' The commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Amos, said, ``If the law is changed, it has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level as it will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus on preparing units for combat. ``Based on what I know about the very tough fight in Afghanistan, the almost singular focus of our combat forces as they train up and deploy to the theater, the necessary tightly woven culture of those combat forces that we are asking so much of at this time and, finally, the direct feedback from the survey, my recommendation is that we should not implement repeal at this time. ``What I would want to have with regards to implementation would be a period of time where our marines are no longer focused primarily on combat. All I am asking is for the opportunity to implement repeal at a time and choosing when my marines are not singularly, tightly focused on what they're doing in a very deadly environment.'' Just yesterday, General Amos made clear just how strongly he feels about the threat that repeal poses to marines in combat, warning ``that a change in current policy could pose a deadly distraction on the Afghanistan battlefield. I don't want to lose any marines to a distraction,'' Amos said in a roundtable discussion with journalists at the Pentagon. Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norman Schwartz, said, ``I do not agree with the study assessment that the short-term risk to military effectiveness is low. Our officer and NCO leaders in Afghanistan in particular are carrying a heavy load. I remain concerned with the study assessment that the risk of repeal of military effectiveness in Afghanistan is low. That assessment is too optimistic. I suggested that perhaps full implementation could occur in 2012, but I do not think it prudent to seek full implementation in the near term. I think that is too risky.'' These are three of our four Chiefs of Staff. I strongly believe that we ought to listen closely to the concerns of the service chiefs if for no other reason than they are closer to the sense and pulse of their services than are the Secretary of Defense or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Moreover, I also believe that we should do nothing at this time to threaten the readiness of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are at the tip of the spear, fighting America's two wars. So I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the Murphy bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

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

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana, who just recently retired after 30 years of service as a colonel in the Army, Mr. Buyer. He also serves as ranking member on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have left?

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), Republican Conference chair. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), the ranking member on the Seapower Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the ranking member on the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire of the time left on both sides.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of outgoing Victorville City Councilmember, and nine- time Mayor, Terry E. Caldwell. Terry was first appointed to the Victorville City Council on April 20, 1972, and completed eight consecutive terms. Born in Riverside, California, Terry graduated from Barstow High School in 1956 and went on to study at Taft College, San Jose State University, did MBA work at the University of Southern California, and obtained his law degree from the Southern California School of Law. Terry's distinguished career in public service spans nearly forty years. He helped grow Victorville from a small town into a sprawling community, greatly improving the quality of life of families throughout the valley. Never shying away from new challenges, Terry took on responsibilities with the State Regional Water Quality Control Board, served over 10 years as Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Victor Valley Economic Development Authority, worked on the Victorville Planning Commission, Victorville Sanitary District, and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee. Terry also played a vital role in the acquisition of the former George Air Force Base--now the Southern California Logistics Airport-- from the U.S. Air Force. This included the purchase of 5,000 acres and the development of a long-range economic development plan. Other major accomplishments for the Victor Valley under Terry's leadership include: Construction of the Bear Valley Road Interchange, bringing Victorville the Mall of Victor Valley, growth of the Bear Valley Redevelopment Area, and development of the Auto Park at Valley Center. All of these accomplishments brought jobs, economic development, and a growing number of residents to Victorville. Terry leaves behind a remarkable legacy of public service and lasting impact on the residents of Victorville. I want to congratulate Terry, his wife Pat, and his three children, Christie, Carrie, and Leon for helping create a vibrant future for the Victor Valley.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, for the time to speak in favor of my legislation, H.R. 5194, to name a peak in the Eastern Sierra in honor of Andrea Mead Lawrence. Let me also express my appreciation to the leaders of the Committee on Natural Resources, Chairmen Rahall and Grijalva, and Ranking Members Hastings and Bishop who worked to help bring this legislation to the floor today. Andrea Mead Lawrence was a remarkable woman. I was honored to know and work with her for the protection of the Eastern Sierra, a cause she championed for much of her life. Born in Rutland County, Vermont, on April 19, 1932, she developed a life-long love of winter sports and appreciation for the environment. A skilled skier, she competed in the 1948 Winter Olympics in St. Moritz, Switzerland as well as the 1956 Winter Olympics in Cortina d'Ampezzo Italy. She also served as the torch lighter at the 1960 Winter Olympics in Squaw Valley, California. In the 1952 Winter Olympics in Oslo Norway, she won two Gold Medals in the Olympic special and giant slalom races. To this day, she remains the only United States double-gold medalist in alpine skiing. For her significant accomplishments, she was inducted into the U.S. National Ski Hall of Fame in 1958, at the age of 25. These remarkable achievements at a young age, however, were just the beginning of a life of service to her community and environmental preservation. In 1968, Andrea moved to Mammoth Lakes in the spectacularly beautiful Eastern Sierra of California. It was in this special region she spent the rest of her life working to protect the area's natural treasures. Never one to rest on her accomplishments, she founded the Friends of Mammoth to maintain the beauty and serenity of Mammoth Lakes and the Eastern Sierra. She served for 16 years on the Mono County Board of Supervisors, where she worked tirelessly to protect and restore Mono Lake, Bodie State Historic Park, and other important natural and cultural landscapes of the Eastern Sierra. As a member of the Great Basin Air Pollution Control District, she worked to reduce air pollution caused by the dewatering of Owens Lake. In 2003, she founded the Andrea Lawrence Institute for Mountains and Rivers to protect the environment and the economic vitality of this important region. In 2008, she testified before the Mono County Board of Supervisors in favor of the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act, a bill enacted the day before she died on March 31, 2009 at the age of 76. Andrea left a rich legacy of a family of five children and four grandchildren, as well as a distinguished record in skiing. Her tireless efforts have left a better legacy for the people who live and recreate in the Eastern Sierra. Andrea Mead Lawrence's life philosophy is summed up in her quote ``Your life doesn't stop by winning medals. It's only the beginning. And if you have the true Olympic spirit, you have to put it back into the world in meaningful ways.'' Mr. Speaker, it is very fitting to name Peak 12,240 ``Mt. Andrea Lawrence''; both in her honor, and as a visible point of inspiration for future generations.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Today I rise in opposition to this measure, which will increase domestic spending at the expense of national security. Specifically, the Federal Government will spend $10 billion for this teacher bailout, paid in part with a $3.3 billion cut in defense programs. As the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, I can assure you that the Department of Defense has need of these funds, including unfunded requirements related to our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I say this fully aware of the needs of our educational system as the former chairman and ranking member of Education and Labor. Those in favor of this bill will say that this money was previously identified by the Department of Defense as unspent and available for higher priorities, but this arguments misses two larger points. First, as yesterday's Military Times observed, diverting money from the defense budget to education programs would eliminate any opportunity for the Defense Department or Congress to take unobligated money from one defense program to spend on another defense program. Second, rescissions to the defense budget this late in the fiscal year are problematic and disruptive to operations. As the Department of Defense Comptroller has told the Armed Services Committee, this rescission will require that Defense restructure or postpone programs, and in some cases the money is no longer available in these accounts. Finally, I remain concerned that this is the beginning of a slippery slope. The Secretary of Defense has initiated an ongoing effort to generate $100 billion in savings within the Department of Defense over the next 5 years, the only secretary that has been asked to do this. My ultimate concern is these savings will not be reinvested into America's defense requirements, but will be harvested by congressional Democrats for new domestic spending and entitlement programs. We see today that this is already happening. Congressional Democrats, with the full support of the White House, are taking critical defense funding to pay for another State bailout. Madam Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this measure, which will increase domestic spending at the expense of national security. Specifically, the Federal Government will spend $10 billion for this teacher bailout, paid for in part with a $3.3 billion cut in defense programs. As the Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I can assure you that the Department of Defense has need for these funds, including unfunded requirements related to our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I say this fully aware of the needs of our educational system, as the former Chairman and Ranking Member of Education and Labor. Those in favor of this bill will say that this money was previously identified by the Department of Defense as unspent and available for higher priorities. This includes $683.5 million unspent from last year's economic stimulus package and $325 million for military construction projects. They will use this argument to convince members that these cuts will not harm the Department and to assure you that this next bailout is fully paid for. But this argument misses two larger points. First, as yesterday's Military Times observed, ``. . . diverting money from the defense budget to education programs would eliminate any opportunity for the Defense Department or Congress to take unobligated money from one defense program to spend on another defense program.'' For example, in the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, we used the unobligated balances for military construction projects to fund other more pressing infrastructure needs, such as barracks and armories, and many of the services' unfunded requirements. Now these funds will no longer be available for these purposes and the services will have outstanding needs go unmet. Second, rescissions to the DoD budget this late in the fiscal year are problematic and disruptive to operations. As the Department of Defense Comptroller has told the Armed Services Committee, this rescission will require that DoD restructure or postpone programs. I am confident the Department will try to avoid adverse effects on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but when this nation is fighting two wars, Congress should not be pulling the financial rug out from under DoD at the end of the year. Moreover, while these funds were identified as ``unspent'' earlier this year, some of these ``unspent'' dollars have already been diverted to other defense programs. When we cut the original accounts now, it will mean that some of these accounts no longer have enough money in them. Think about your own checking account--at the beginning of the year, you see that you have $1000 more than your budget says you'll need. So you move $800 into another account or give it to one of your children. If the government comes and takes $1000 from you at the end of the year, your remaining account balance may not be sufficient and you find yourself in an overdraft situation. In the case of government agencies it is against the law to overdraft an account. We have been told that the Department of Defense may find itself in violation of the Antideficiency Act in some accounts. Finally, I remain concerned that this is the beginning of a slippery slope. The Secretary of Defense has initiated an ongoing effort to generate $100 billion in savings within the Department of Defense over the next five years. Yesterday he announced a series of spending freezes and closures of organizations within his office and combatant commands. Secretary Gates plans on plowing these savings back into force structure and modernization accounts. As elected officials, Members of Congress have a responsibility to ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars are not wasted on inefficient, wasteful or redundant programs. All of us support efforts to identify and curb such programs. Yet, as Members of the House Armed Services Committee, we are also tasked with the unique responsibility of providing for America's national defense and meeting the needs of our military services, which is why we will need to receive more information from the Department of Defense so we fully understand the rationale behind each decision and potential impact of every cut. My ultimate concern is that these savings will not be reinvested into America's defense requirements, but will be harvested by Congressional Democrats for new domestic spending and entitlement programs. We see today that this is already happening. Congressional Democrats--with the full support of the White House--are taking critical defense funding to pay for another state bailout. What's to stop them from taking this money, too? At his press conference yesterday Secretary Gates stated, ``. . . my greatest fear is that in economic tough times that people will see the defense budget as the place to solve the Nation's deficit problems, to find money for other parts of the government . . . And as I look around the world and see . . . more failed and failing states, countries that are investing heavily in their militaries . . . as I look at the new kinds of threats emerging from cyber to precision ballistic and cruise missiles and so on--my greatest worry is that we will do to the defense budget what we have done four times before. And that is, slash it in an effort to find some kind of a dividend to put the money someplace else. I think that would be disastrous in the world environment we see today and what we're likely to see in the years to come.'' I urge my colleagues to heed the advice of the Secretary in this matter and vote no to a cut in defense spending. Instead of another Federal bailout, let's make sure our men and women in uniform have the resources and equipment they need. Leave this money in the Department of Defense where it belongs.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to COL Jeff ``Tank'' Koch on the occasion of his retirement from the United States Air Force. I have had the pleasure of working with Colonel Koch on a number of occasions during his tenure here in the House, and have greatly appreciated his professionalism, knowledge, and dedication, which I know has benefited me personally, as well as numerous other members, and countless staff. So it goes without saying that Colonel Koch's professional achievements are numerous, but I know would be the first to state that none of them would have been possible without the love and support of his wife and family. Throughout Colonel Koch's service to our country, his wife, Tracey, has been his mainstay and a selfless partner. Her balance and calm has seen their family through multiple moves to military bases within the U.S. and overseas. Together with their children, Caleb and Abby, the Koch family has endured the challenges and sacrifice of family separation and relocations. Each member of the Koch family has made a significant contribution to the U.S. Air Force and our great Nation. Colonel Koch has led an enviable career. After receiving his commission through the Reserve Officers Training Corps at Troy State University in 1987, Colonel Koch proceeded to numerous distinguished assignments. With his new pilot wings and assignment to the A-10 Thunderbolt fighter jet, Colonel Koch served in the 92nd Tactical Fighter Squadron at RAF Bentwaters, UK flying 37 operational combat missions over Northern Iraq in direct support of Operation PROVIDE COMFORT. With help from the 92nd's armed reconnaissance and close air support missions, thousands of starving Kurdish refugees received life- sustaining food and supplies. After this, Colonel Koch served as an instructor pilot at the U.S. Air Force Academy, returned to the A-10 to fly missions in Korea, and instructed at the same Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training program he completed earlier in his career. Colonel Koch also served as flight commander in the 358th Fighter Squadron, executive officer for two commanders of the 12th Air Force, and Chief of Offensive Operations at the AFSOUTH Combined Air and Space Operations Center. He also served as a Presidential Advance Team Agent--and a Capitol Hill Fellow for Congressman Jim Gibbons of Nevada. This successful arc continued with a stint in the Air Force's Programs directorate as the Chief of the Joint Strike Fighter Programming office and command of the 557th Flying Training Squadron. These successful milestones were recognized with assignment to one of DoD's most challenging senior developmental education opportunities, the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. Following ICAF, Colonel Koch received a follow-on assignment back to the Pentagon as a Senior Readiness Analyst for the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Readiness. Perhaps the most challenging assignment was his final one as Chief of the Air Force House Legislative Liaison Office. This seasoned aviator and Command Pilot with more than 3,000 flight hours in five different aircraft has been a trusted and articulate voice for the Air Force on Capitol Hill. Colonel Koch has excelled throughout his distinguished career and I am honored to pay tribute to this Airman. Madam Speaker, on behalf of Congress and the United States of America, I thank COL Jeff Koch, his wife Tracey and their children, Caleb and Abbey, for their service to our country. I wish them Godspeed, and continued happiness as they start a new chapter in their lives.