Mike Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the House's attention to recognize the 80th birthday of Juanita Varnado Pierce. Juanita was born to the late Howard and Maggie Lee Varnado and grew up in McComb, Mississippi. She graduated from Tuskegee Institute, now Tuskegee University, in 1974 with a B.S. in Early Childhood Education and from Auburn University with a Master's in Early Childhood Education in August of 1975. Juanita was married to the late Booker T. Pierce, Sr. and was blessed with three children: Booker T. Pierce, Jr. (Nashville, Tennessee), Vincent B. Pierce (St. Louis, Missouri) and Lisa P. Grant (Alexandria, Virginia). They have two grandsons, Dominque Pierce (Pompano Beach, Florida) and Nicholas B. Grant, who is a third year Mechanical Engineering Student at Georgia Tech. Juanita started teaching 2nd grade at Dean Road Elementary School in Auburn in August of 1975 and continued teaching 2nd grade for 17 years. After completing her Administration Certification from the University of Alabama, she was hired as the Assistant Principal at Dean Road Elementary in Fall of 1992 and became Principal in Fall of 1996. She retired as Principal of Dean Road Elementary School in the Fall of 1998. After joining Washington Chapel A.M.E. Church in 1960, she started teaching the pre-school Sunday School class and remained the teacher for nearly 50 years. She still serves in the Cathedral Choir, as a member of the Stewardess Board and is active in Sunday School. In Summer of 2005, Juanita founded the S.M.A.R.T. (Science, Math, Art, Reading and Technology) Camp. Funded by grants and donations, this free two-week camp was started at Washington Chapel A.M.E. Church with approximately 40 students. Today, it is held at George Washington Carver Elementary School due to size and nearly 100 applications. A surprise Ladies' Luncheon will be held with women who have blessed her life over the years on October 21st at O'Charley's in Opelika, Alabama. Mr. Speaker, please join me in wishing Juanita Varnado Pierce a very happy 80th birthday.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the House's attention to recognize the 500th win of the Piedmont High School Football Team in Piedmont, Alabama. On December 1, 2016, Piedmont High School won the Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) Class 3A football state title for the second year in a row. The team's very first win was over Cave Spring High School in October of 1924 under Coach J.O. Ogle. Piedmont High School's football team has had two All-American players, over 100 All-State players and 215 All-County players with six alumni players who have been inducted into the Calhoun County Hall of Fame. Congratulations to Coach Steve Smith, the football team, Piedmont City Schools and all their loyal fans. Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing the 500th win by the Piedmont High School Football Team. Go Bulldogs.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the House's attention to recognize the 100th Anniversary of Harvest Church of God in Anniston, Alabama. In 1916, J.B. Ellis walked through Gadsden, Alabama, and started the Alabama City Church of God, then moved on to Jacksonville, Alabama, and founded the Jacksonville Church of God. In 1917, in Anniston, Alabama, he put up a tent in Zinn Park and started a revival meeting that resulted in church set in order as Anniston Church of God. Today those humble beginnings have resulted in Harvest Church of God. The church has 1,750 members who worship in a $12 million sanctuary, ministering to all of Northeast Alabama through multiple ministries. The church has also been a global television ministry for 20 of the 100 years. The present pastor, Bishop Jerry Irwin, was appointed Senior Pastor of the church in 1986 and has begun his 32nd year of serving in the position. The 100 year celebration will take place at Harvest Church of God on September 17, 2017. Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing the 100th Anniversary of Harvest Church of God.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the House's attention to recognize the 100th birthday of Alice Lee Thomason Walkup. Alice was born on September 4, 1917 to Dr. James Wiley Thomason and Virginia Land Mizelle Thomason in Bullock County. She had one brother and one sister that she called ``Denny'' and ``Son.'' Alice attended Huntingdon College in Montgomery, Alabama and after Huntingdon attended Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana. When she returned to Alabama, she worked as a social worker in Bibb County, Alabama and married Reverend Bob Walkup in 1943. Bob was a Presbyterian minister in Ozark, Alabama. They were blessed with four children, seven grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. As the wife of a minister, she lived in numerous states including Alabama, Missouri, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas and Tennessee. Alice presently lives in Auburn, Alabama. Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing the 100th birthday of Alice Lee Thomason Walkup.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the House's attention to recognize the retirement of Keith Badgett from the Anniston Army Depot on September 30, 2017 after over 39 years of service. Keith has made contributions to four different installations/agencies throughout his 39 year career. He served as Voucher Examiner Vendor Pay at Fort McClellan, Alabama, Voucher Examiner and Accounting Technician at the 81st Regional Support Command, as well as Accounting Technician, Management Accounting Analyst and Budget Analyst at Anniston Army Depot. During his years of service, Keith has served as a role model for his co-workers. He has consistently demonstrated loyalty to his command and the Army during his employment. Keith is dedicated to the mission and displays a sense of duty in all accomplishments. The retirement ceremony will take place on September 26th. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Keith on his retirement.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the House's attention to recognize the 90th birthday of Mr. Neil Koon. Mr. Koon was born on August 08, 1927 in Salem, Alabama and has lived there his whole life. He graduated from Smith Station High School in 1944. He was raised on a dairy farm and continued in the dairy business until the 1950s. He later went in to the timber business and started the Phenix City Realty Business in 1962 and still works there today. He married Grace 67 years ago and was blessed with three children. He and his wife have been members of the Concord Baptist Church in Salem for 57 years. He was ordained a deacon in 1962 and still serves in that role presently. Mr. Koon is a charter member of the Smith Station Ruritan Community Organization and the Bleeker Ruritan Club when it was organized in 1982. He is a member emeritus of the State of Alabama Board of Realtors and Phenix City Board of Realtors. Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing the 90th birthday of Mr. Neil Koon.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the House's attention to recognize the 125th Anniversary of women attending Auburn University. Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama, had its first females attend the school on September 13, 1892. The first three women were: Willie Gertrude Little, Katherine C. Broun and Margaret Kate Teague. Little was the daughter of Auburn's mayor and graduated from Auburn University with a bachelor's degree and honors. A hall in the Upper Quad is named in her honor. Broun was the daughter of Auburn University President William L. Broun (1882 to 1902) and as an inaugural female student had to take tests in English, Latin, history and mathematics. She was most notably Auburn's first graduate student after receiving her bachelor's degree in 1894. Teague moved from Arkansas to Auburn after her mother's death and graduated with honors. She also has a hall named in her honor in the Upper Quad. The 125th Anniversary of Auburn Women campaign recognizes and celebrates the accomplishments of the women who have graduated from Auburn University since 1892. The ground floor of Ralph Brown Draughon Library, located on campus, will have a display of unique artifacts on the history of women at Auburn. During the week of October 23, Auburn's campus will culminate several events in honor of this anniversary. Mr. Speaker, please join me in celebrating this important milestone, 125th Anniversary of Auburn Women. War Eagle.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the House's attention to recognize 100th Anniversary of the Anniston Rotary Club. The Anniston Rotary Club in Anniston, Alabama, was chartered on September 7th, 1917 with 45 charter members including the President, Dr. George Lang. The first meeting was held at the Riser Cafe at 10th and Noble Streets in downtown Anniston. The club has met in various locations since that first meeting. The Anniston Rotary Club has had many projects over its 100 years. The first was a wood yard in West Anniston that furnished work for the unemployed. Later projects included sponsoring the organization of the Choccolocco Council of the Boy Scouts of America in 1919 through 20. The Anniston Rotary Club has also sponsored school programs for purchasing text books, 4-H Clubs and Boys Clubs. They have also helped the Salvation Army, United Way and the Y.M.C.A. Today, the Anniston Rotary Club works to help many local nonprofits and continues to support the Rotary Foundation that guides the international effort to eliminate polio. The Anniston Rotary Club has sponsored at least two other Rotary Clubs including the Anniston Morning Rotary Club and the Oxford Rotary Club. Today, the Anniston Rotary Club meets on Tuesdays at noon at the Anniston Country Club. Recently, 100 percent of the club's members became Paul Harris Fellows in honor of contributions made to significantly better relationships with people around the world, a noteworthy distinction on the club's 100th Anniversary. Mr. Speaker, please join me in celebrating the 100th Anniversary of the Anniston Rotary Club.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for offering this amendment. A provision nearly identical to this has been in the final version of the last two NDAAs, and it should be in the final version of this year's NDAA. As chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I understand that the responsiveness and distributive nature of our ICBMs are the most critical features. Without ICBMs, an adversary would need to strike less than 10 targets to disarm our nuclear forces. But with ICBMs, an adversary needs to strike hundreds of hardened targets deep in America's homeland. That is a much more difficult proposition and is at the very heart of our deterrence. During his confirmation hearing, Secretary of Defense Mattis agreed with this assessment, noting: ``The ICBM force provides a cost-imposing strategy on our adversaries.'' We should confirm this policy once more. It is vital that our ICBM force remain robust and responsive. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his amendment. This committee has been trying to seek out and remove impediments to speedy acquisition for years. Section 1662 of fiscal year 2015 NDAA is just such an impediment. I don't understand why Congress believed it was prudent to let DOD's testers prevent the Secretary of Defense from deploying military capability. Further, I do not agree with the contention that this amendment will further reduce oversight of the testing of missile defense capabilities. In fact, the plain language of the amendment inserts ballistic missile defense systems into the existing title 10 DOD OT&E testing requirement, just like every other DOD acquisition program. This is literally where the so-called ``fly before you buy'' term comes from. Every year, we already receive another report from DOD OT&E on the testing of ballistic missile defense, and then there is the Integrated Master Test Program that MDA and DOD OT&E collaborate on. And then, finally, the GAO does a report, also, that helps Congress oversee BMD programs. How many reports do we need to do the same thing? Especially when North Korea is making unprecedented progress on its ballistic missile capability, we should be making MDA more efficient and nimble, and I think removing redundant reporting requirements and impediments on the deployment of proven capabilities is a commonsense step. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment, but it is not just me. The Armed Services Committee considered nearly the same amendment during markup, and it was soundly defeated. It is not just the committee that opposed this amendment. It is also our country's senior-most military officers. They repeatedly described the urgent need for the LRSO and the declining reliability of the NACMs. They have testified before our committee in March on this exact issue. Here is the Nation's second highest ranking military officer, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Selva: ALCMs were designed and built in the 1970s with a 10-year lifespan. We know today they remain relevant, but we can't continue to maintain them. A decade from now, those weapons will not be able to penetrate Russian air defenses, and therefore there is an urgency for their replacement. In the same year, STRATCOM Commander General Hyten said: The LRSO is the first missile system developed in unison with a nuclear warhead in mind for many decades. Limiting resources or funding of either component will disrupt the entire concept-to-capability timeline. Here is President Obama's Assistant Secretary of Defense, Bob Scher, testifying before my committee last year: The Obama administration's decision to field a modern ALCM replacement is essential to maintain the ALCM's unique contribution to stable and effective deterrence. Finally, let me briefly address this nonsense argument that LRSO is destabilizing. Here is President Obama's Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Rose Gottemoeller testifying before the Senate last year: First, the LRSO is consistent with our arms control commitments and President Obama's Prague agenda. Second, the LRSO supports strategic stability and does not undermine it. Third, it is important in the eyes of our allies. There is no evidence that the LRSO or our nuclear modernization program are prompting an action-reaction cycle or catalyzing these arms races. The LRSO is valuable in maintaining strategic stability. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. We don't want to be mushrooms, but we also don't want bad data. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this and urge people to support Rogers amendment No. 88, which will allow the Secretary to go beyond 10 years to 25 or 30 if the Secretary believes it would yield valuable data. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, as I said a few minutes ago, I submitted this amendment as a hopeful compromise with my colleague from California who offered amendment Nos. 10 and 12 on this same issue. I will keep this very brief because we have discussed this thoroughly tonight. But going down a path of a 30-year cost estimate for nuclear weapons is a bad idea and will result in bad data. As we debated this for the past 5 years now, the Obama administration didn't want to do it, the Trump administration doesn't want to do it, and the HASC and the House have voted against it every year. I urge my colleagues to consider voting for my reasonable commonsense amendment, commonsense way to get this issue resolved with amendment No. 88. My amendment allows the Secretary of Defense to provide information beyond 10 years if he thinks it would be accurate and useful in the information it yielded. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment and ``no'' on amendment Nos. 10 and 12. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith for their leadership in bringing this years's NDAA. I would also like to thank my friend and colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Jim Cooper, the ranking member on our subcommittee, for being such a great partner as we worked on this important bill. Now, I would like to focus on some key provisions in the bill. First, space reform. This bill takes two monumental steps to reform national security space. First, the bill provides for the creation of a space core within the Air Force to fix the fragmented space acquisition process. Second, it provides for the establishment of a subordinate, unified command for space under U.S. Strategic Command to ensure integration of the joint command of all space operations. I can't stress enough the urgent necessity of these reforms. Our society and our military are enormously dependent on space. Meanwhile, our adversaries continue to grow their counterspace capabilities. These adversaries have already reorganized their space forces toward the goal of neutralizing our advantage in space. Multiple studies going back almost two decades have recommended a space force to fix our space acquisition and management problems. Regardless, the DOD and the Air Force have yet to fix the problem. Decisionmaking authorities for space acquisitions remain fragmented across over 60 organizations. This bill would consolidate acquisition authority and improve our ability to jointly operate in space. Earlier this week, I returned from Asia where I got to meet with our troops on the Korean Peninsula. I was in theater when North Korea conducted their intercontinental ballistic missile. We must be vigilant when it comes to our missile defenses, and this year's NDAA does that. Noteworthy initiatives in the bill include the authorization of approximately $2 billion in additional funds for the Missile Defense Agency. It also accelerates our efforts to develop a space-based sensor and interceptor capabilities. Lastly, the bill supports our nuclear deterrence and includes provisions to improve the oversight of our nuclear command, control, and communications. Mr. Chair, I urge support of this important legislation.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, again, I want to remind the gentleman that nobody has indicated that Russia has any intention--they see no signs that Russia has any intention of coming back into compliance. I think this is poorly thought out. We need to go forward and not be giving vetoes to other people about what weapon systems we can start developing. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman, Mr. Blumenauer, for his amendment, although I urge its defeat. I start off with pointing out that both the Obama administration and the Trump administration have decided the fact that Russia is in violation of the INF Treaty, and neither of those administrations have indicated any belief that Russia will come back into compliance. But having said that, I want to say I am troubled that the gentleman would want to provide a veto on the development of a system that hasn't been developed, much less deployed. The gentleman is worried about deployment of a system that we still don't have developed yet. And hopefully it won't be deployed when it is completed. That is really the function of whether Russia comes back into compliance. General Selva, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the HASC in March: ``They do not intend to return to compliance absent some pressure from the international community and the United States as a cosigner of that same agreement. There is no trajectory in what they are doing that would indicate otherwise.'' The development of this system that we are talking about here today is that very pressure that General Selva was referencing. This kind of development got the Russians to the table on the INF Treaty anyway, but they are violating the treaty. And that doesn't just matter to Europe. It matters to Asia, which is completely ignored by the gentleman's amendment. And Asia matters on INF. Why? Because 95 percent of China's missiles are in INF range. The commander of PACOM has testified that he has requirements for intermediate-range missile capability in Asia, ``the aspects of the INF Treaty that limit our ability to counter Chinese and other countries' land-based missiles, I think is problematic. `` We didn't conjure the idea of a ground-launched cruise missile out of thin air. The U.S. Army reported that introducing intermediate-range ground-launched missiles into the land domain provides military value across the range of the joint military operations and provides a land-based counter to our adversaries' anti-access area denial capabilities. This report was required by the HASC last year as a part of our multiyear oversight on how to respond to Russia's violations of the INF Treaty, which the prior administration did nothing to challenge. I appreciate the gentleman's interest. I will gladly work with him on ways to counter Russia's violations of the treaty, but I must urge defeat of this well-intentioned but poorly conceived amendment. Mr. Chair, I urge support of the bipartisan approach taken by the House Armed Services Committee in sections 1244 and 1245, and I urge a vote ``no'' on the Blumenauer amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for offering this important amendment. This is a simple and straightforward amendment that would help us set priorities in spending taxpayer dollars in a small but meaningful way. The U.S. signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, back in 1996, but the Senate voted against that ratification in 1999. We are talking about two decades ago. In the meantime, the U.S. has abided by a unilateral pledge to refrain from nuclear explosive tests of any size or kind, but other nations, including Russia and China, have not. They continue to conduct very low-yield nuclear tests that the U.S. does not. Why? Two reasons: one, the CTBT has not entered into force, and the CTBT doesn't even define what it bans. So while we keep a very stringent policy against testing, other nuclear powers do not. Twenty years later, it is time to ask ourselves why we continue to fund the organization for a treaty that is not going anywhere. This amendment wisely funds the International Monitoring System which provides us some benefits but prohibits the approximately $2 million in payments to the CTBT organization itself that is included in the FY18 budget request for the State Department. Let's set this small commonsense priority and let's reinforce the Obama administration's own position that the U.N. resolution from last year is not legally binding on the United States. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, my friend from California is correct about one thing: I will say a 30-year cost estimate is not worth the paper it is written on. I oppose this amendment, just as I opposed a similar amendment by my friend from California, number 12. I submitted amendment No. 88 that we will consider shortly. My amendment was a hopeful compromise with my colleagues from California, who are offering amendment Nos. 10 and 12 on this same issue. Unfortunately, we have not been able to reach a compromise, so we will put them all before our colleagues here on the floor for consideration. The bottom line is that my colleagues are asking DOD and CBO to create a 25- and 30-year cost estimate for how much our nuclear forces cost. That would triple the current requirement of 10-year cost estimates. Unfortunately, these type of multidecade cost estimates won't be worth the paper they are written on. As evidence for that, Assistant Secretary of Defense Tom Hopkins, who would be responsible for creating the DOD report, has called a 25-year report on this ``burdensome.'' He explained it to us this way during a hearing: ``Right now we submit a 10-year report that does have programs and cost on it. . . . As you would expect, looking out that far, 25 years, the credibility of the numbers would be very, very suspect. . . . ``Forecasting DOD costs over a 25-year period with any useful accuracy is extremely difficult given the challenges of predicting developments in the international security environment and ongoing technological advancements.'' The Armed Services Committee and this House have considered these types of 30-year cost estimate amendments for DOD or CBO in the NDAAs for the last 5 years. Each time, for 5 years in a row, these amendments have been defeated. That is because these types of amendments would not result in good, effective oversight and transparency. It would result in false and unreliable data entering the public debate. If any of my colleagues are interested in a reasonable, commonsense way to try and shed a little more light on these very long- term plans and costs, I encourage them to vote for my amendment No. 88. My amendment allows the Secretary of Defense to provide for information beyond 10 years if he thinks it is accurate and would be useful in understanding the nuclear modernization programs. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this current amendment and ``yes'' on my amendment No. 88, and I reserve the balance of my time.