[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 76 (Tuesday, May 20, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H4496-H4501]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4660, COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE,
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015; AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4435, HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 585 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 585
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4660) making appropriations for the
Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During
consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the
committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a
recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
4435) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for
military activities of the Department of Defense and for
military construction, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed
Services. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 113-44 shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute
rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No
further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such further amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such further amendments are waived. After
disposition of the further amendments printed in the report
of the Committee on Rules, the Committee of the Whole shall
rise without motion. No further consideration of the bill
shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of
the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
[[Page H4497]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, the reason it is hard to get order down
here on the floor of the House is it is kind of a celebratory
atmosphere down here. We just saw the Water Resources Development Act
pass by a big bipartisan vote.
It has been not a year, not 2 years--it has been years since we have
been able to come together and pass this very important bill that deals
with waterways and water supply all across this district. We do things
together on a regular basis, but the big things are hard, and we have
gotten to do the big things today.
I will brag on my friend from Massachusetts just for a moment, Madam
Speaker. I was at Crews Middle School in my district last Friday, and
Crews Middle School, their eighth grade class, Megan Mendez runs that
class, but they were talking about how it is that they could be
effective, how they could make a difference.
The students came upon Mr. McGovern's bill, I think it is H.R. 1692,
dealing with Sudan and genocide, what we can do to come together to
make a difference in other parts of the world.
Now, I represent Georgia, Madam Speaker. It is a rock-solid hardcore
Republican constituency. Folks can surmise where Mr. McGovern, out of
the great State of Massachusetts, what kind of constituency he
represents there.
His ideas about how we could come together to make a difference for
people resonated all the way down the eastern seaboard into that class
at Crews Middle School, such that Nathan, Madeleine, Keegan, Georgia,
Lauren all put pen to paper and invited me to come and talk about it to
see how it was that we could come together.
Now, we didn't have the entire cosponsorship discussion there in the
classroom on that day. We were trying to talk about making a
difference.
That is what I get to come down and do today, Madam Speaker, with
this rule that the Clerk just read. This is a differencemaking rule. It
covers two bills today.
One is the Commerce-Justice-Science and related agencies bill. It is
H.R. 4660, and the rule provides for an open rule, so that every single
Member, no matter what their political stripe, no matter what their
ideas, no matter where their constituency is located, any Member of
this body can come to the House floor and offer their ideas to make
that deal better.
It is a wonderful part of our process. It is a part of the process
that gets used all too frequently, and I am very fortunate to be able
to come and bring a rule today that does that.
Almost more fascinating, Madam Speaker, is that this rule makes in
order the debate for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015. It
is H.R. 4435, and that bill--I am just going to consult my notes
because it is almost unbelievable. That bill came out of committee 61-
0, 61-0.
Here we are, the bill that is going to authorize our entire national
defense infrastructure, in what constituents back home believe is a
hyperpartisan U.S. House of Representatives, made that way by
incredibly divergent views held by American voters; and when it comes
to national security, we came together at the committee level and
passed out a bill 61-0.
This bill is made in order for debate by the rule that is before us
today. I hope I will be able to get my colleagues' support for that.
It is, again, an open rule for the Commerce-Justice-Science bill and
a rule for debate on a bill that came out of committee 61-0.
Now, what is fascinating about this institution, Madam Speaker, it
never ceases to amaze me. You hear about the arrogance of power in
D.C., that somehow you get elected to Congress and you get inside the
Beltway, suddenly, you think you are the smartest guy in the room and
only your ideas are the good ideas.
This bill that came out of committee 61-0 isn't done with the
legislative process there. This rule that we are debating today makes
in order seven more amendments to that bill, so that we can all have a
voice on that here on the floor of the House.
My great expectation is the Rules Committee is going to continue to
meet this afternoon, making even more amendments in order. Hundreds of
amendments filed to this bill, and the Rules Committee is working
through trying to get through each one of those amendments to determine
what we can make in order.
It is just a--I call it a festival of democracy, Madam Speaker. It is
a festival of democracy that we are having right here on the House
floor, where you not only have open rules, where every Member's voice
is able to be heard, where every constituent back home is able to give
that advice and counsel to their Member, and they bring those ideas to
the floor, but it is on issues as difficult as national security,
issues that do bring us together, but that have components that pull us
apart, and we are able to work through that.
Over 300 amendments have been filed for this National Defense
Authorization Act, and the committee is working through them even as we
speak.
{time} 1415
I know that every Member of this body has a contribution that their
constituency has asked them to make, a voice that their constituency
has asked them to come and bring. Madam Speaker, there are times where
all of those voices, whether it be because of a clock, whether it be
because of timing, whatever the reason may be, where folks don't feel
like those voices have been able to be heard. This day is not that day.
This is a day where we have an opportunity to make sure that each and
every idea is heard and heard fully. And I am proud that the Rules
Committee has produced this product today.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, this is not a normal rule, but it is a
fair one. It is unusual because it combines two bills into one rule and
makes in order several amendments for one of the bills. What might be
unusual for my Republican friends is that I will support it.
The rule makes in order the fiscal year 2015 Commerce-Justice-Science
appropriations bill under an open rule. And although I wish the funding
levels were higher, I believe it is a good thing to bring this bill to
the floor under an open rule.
This rule also makes in order general debate on the annual defense
authorization bill along with seven amendments. That is a little
unusual. Normally, the Rules Committee reports two rules: one for
general debate and one for consideration of amendments. Now, I don't
have any problem with these amendments being made in order, but I will
voice my strong concerns tomorrow if the Rules Committee fails to make
in order many of the amendments submitted for consideration.
I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues, the chairman, Mr.
McKeon, and the ranking member, Mr. Smith, of the Armed Services
Committee for their leadership and their hard work in crafting this
bill each year and for coming to a bipartisan agreement on so many of
the serious matters contained in this bill.
This is a massive undertaking that touches on so many aspects of our
defense and national security priorities and the health and the well-
being of our military personnel and their families. But there are
serious and substantive matters in this bill that we must debate over
the next few days because they merit the attention of every single
Member of this House.
First and foremost, H.R. 4435 fails to make many of the difficult
choices required by our current budgetary constraints and fiscal
reality. This is a half-trillion-dollar bill. That is trillion, with a
t, Madam Speaker. It provides $513.4 billion in discretionary budget
authority. $495.8 billion of that is for the Department of Defense base
budget; another $17.6 billion for defense-related activities, mainly
nuclear, within the Department of Energy; and another whopping $79.4
billion for the so-called
[[Page H4498]]
overseas contingency operations, or OCO.
But according to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 4435 decreases
direct spending by just $1 million in FY 2015. In a $500 billion bill,
we can only find savings of $1 million? There is probably $1 million in
the couch cushions at the Pentagon.
Madam Speaker, this Congress just cut $8 billion in the farm bill for
the SNAP program. That is an $8 billion cut to help hungry families put
food on their table. But we couldn't find more than $1 million next
year from the Pentagon budget? Give me a break.
And if sequestration remains the law of the land, these funding
levels simply will not stand, and another round of arbitrary reductions
will harm our troops, our military civilian workforce, their families,
and our military readiness. That is also unacceptable.
So I oppose, and I have always opposed, sequestration for both
defense and nondefense programs. But putting forward a bill that fails
to make any hard decisions on reducing spending authority is not a
solution. In fact, it compounds the problem.
This brings me to Afghanistan, Madam Speaker, where we continue to
squander lives and waste money. Since 2001, over 2,300 U.S. troops have
been killed in Afghanistan. Nearly 20,000 have been wounded. We lost
127 brave soldiers just last year alone. Estimates are that around
30,000 Afghan civilians have been killed since 2001. And the VA
estimates that approximately 22 veterans will die by suicide every day.
Since 2001, we have spent over $700 billion on this war. In this
current year, fiscal year 2014, we are spending $7.1 billion every
month in Afghanistan.
The President is committed to bringing most of our troops home by the
end of the year, and I trust him to keep his word to America's
families. But he has also said that he wants to keep some level of
forces remaining there, 5,000, maybe 10,000. And he wants to keep them
in Afghanistan for an extended period of time.
Whether you support keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014 or
whether you oppose it, as I do, I would hope that we can all agree that
Congress should have a say in whether or not the longest war in
American history continues. At a minimum, we owe the thousands of U.S.
servicemen and -women who will be called upon to serve for years to
come in Afghanistan a vote, and we owe it to their families, and we owe
it to the American people.
Now, Congressmen Walter Jones and Adam Smith and I have an amendment
pending before the Rules Committee that would call for such a vote, and
I hope the Rules Committee makes it in order so that one of the most
important matters facing the American people can be debated and voted
on.
Last year, 305 Members of this House voted in support of an amendment
that we three offered, calling for just such a vote on any post-2014
deployment of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. If that vote is to have any
meaning whatsoever, then those same Members and this House must support
the McGovern-Jones-Smith amendment once again this year.
And this brings me to the overseas contingency operations, the OCO
account. Madam Speaker, this bill authorized $79.4 billion for the OCO
account for fiscal year 2015. Now, the last time I looked, the war in
Iraq was over; the war in Afghanistan is winding down, with nearly all
our troops heading home by the end of the year; and only a much smaller
residual force for training operations and some special operations
might remain deployed in Afghanistan, depending on what the President
asks for. But the OCO funds don't ever seem to go down. The OCO is just
$5 billion less than the current fiscal year. It certainly doesn't
reflect the changing circumstances on the ground in Afghanistan.
Where is all the money going? A February 28th Pentagon report
concludes that the United States Government and its money ``created an
environment that fostered corruption'' in Afghanistan. Maybe there are
some lessons we need to learn here.
Many assert that the OCO account is nothing more than a slush fund
for the Pentagon. If we want to save some money, one of the first
places we should look is getting rid of the OCO, putting everything
back into the Pentagon base budget, and then taking a long and clear-
eyed look at where spending needs to be reduced.
Madam Speaker, there are many other problems with H.R. 4435: it
continues to place restrictions on the transfer of inmates in
Guantanamo; it undermines our nuclear security cooperation with Russia;
it attempts to derail the multiparty negotiations with Iran; and it
coddles the nuclear weapons budget. Foolish choices, wasteful spending,
and wars without end.
I urge my colleagues to vote to change course, to end the war in
Afghanistan, to cut the nuclear arsenal, face reality, and make the
tough choices in overall defense spending.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my great pleasure to
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), a member of
both the Rules Committee and the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Georgia
(Mr. Woodall). We came in to this Congress together a couple of years
back, and I have had the great opportunity to serve with him on the
Rules Committee. And being placed on Armed Services last year was a
great opportunity for me to be in the process of crafting how our
military establishment moves forward.
Madam Speaker, in addition to providing an open rule for the
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, H.
Res. 585 provides for 1 hour of general debate on this year's National
Defense Authorization Act. It also makes in order the first of many
amendments that are going to be coming forward in the debate over the
next couple of days.
Because the Rules Committee traditionally does two rules, one for the
underlying legislation and the second for the amendments, which I am
going to bring forward tomorrow--as we have heard, we have had over 300
amendments come forward on the NDAA this year. My understanding is that
is a record. Typically, it is around 200-and-some. This year, it was
over 300.
So we are going to have the opportunity to hear arguments on both
sides as to why an amendment should pass or why an amendment should
fail, and that is a good thing. That is what this body is designed to
do, to have a dialogue and a discussion back and forth about the merits
of a particular issue.
I have three sons who currently serve this Nation. One is in the
National Guard, and two are in the Active Duty Army. So when we craft
an NDAA, it is extremely important to me to make sure that our men and
women have all the resources they need if they are called to go into
harm's way. It is not their call to go. It is the President's call, the
Commander in Chief's call in regards to whether or not our servicemen
and -women go off to fight.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) mentioned earlier about all
the partisanship in this place. The NDAA, when it passed through
committee, had over 100 amendments within committee that passed and
were attached to the NDAA, amendments from both sides of the aisle,
Democrat and Republican alike, because there was great discussion
within the committee about those amendments. Some didn't pass, but the
vast majority, over 100, did pass, and you see it in the body of the
National Defense Authorization Act today. That says an awful lot.
The National Defense Authorization Act has passed 52 times, 52
consecutive times, and we are hoping that this is the 53rd consecutive
time that it passes in this body. Mr. Woodall was correct. It passed
out of committee 61-0. I would suggest to you, I don't think I have
heard that number before in other committees.
While there are disagreements on how things should work in the NDAA,
disagreements about priorities and how things should be moved around
and where our money should be spent, at the end of the day, we came
together as Democrats and Republicans and put forward a piece of
legislation that we can be proud of, that was actually named after the
chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Chairman Buck McKeon.
Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to help craft the NDAA. I
believe that it is a good step in the right direction. We have heard a
lot of things
[[Page H4499]]
about sequestration in the coming year, and we need to be very
cognizant of what that will do to our military, our readiness, and our
ability to meet the demands that this country could call upon our
military to meet.
This legislation takes care of that 1 percent of Americans who step
forward and raise their hand and say: If you need me, I am there; if
you need me to fight your fight, I am there. That is why this
legislation is so important. It protects the members of our military,
the 1 percent of America, Americans who stand up and say: I am there to
protect you. That is why this legislation is so important.
The benefit of this is that we have a strong, well-run military, that
we have a military that is trained and equipped for the battles to
come. And I will suggest to you that we have not done a very good job
of figuring out what our next battle will be. As a matter of fact, we
have had members of the military, flag officers, high-ranking folks
that have been involved in the military for 30-plus years say we have
never gotten it right once; not one time have we gotten it right in
regards to what our future conflicts are going to look like. So I would
suggest to you that we need to make sure that we are on top of it now.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, Sheriff Nugent is the expert on these
issues on the Rules Committee. I am proud to yield him an additional 3
minutes.
Mr. NUGENT. Well, I appreciate that. I don't know that I am expert,
but I certainly have the heart. I have the heart to make sure that
America is safe.
{time} 1430
It is a constitutional responsibility that this body make sure that
we have a strong defense for our homeland. It is a huge responsibility,
and it is not one that is taken lightly. As you can see in the vote
that was taken in the House Armed Services Committee--61-0--it is one
that is shared by all Members.
We have seen the threats. Unfortunately, not everybody knows what the
threats are. But if you look at and read the news, whether it is Russia
today resurging its influence within Europe, whether it is China, or
whether it is Iran or North Korea, there are so many players out there
that have ill intentions to our people, to this Nation.
We have Africa, a continent that has seen a huge increase in violence
that is associated with al Qaeda. We have threats around this world. To
those who would say this world is safer than it was before, I would
suggest to you it is not. So I will do anything that I can do to lend
credence to our military fighting force to make sure we have the
strongest, most-equipped, and best-trained force. It is what gave my
wife and me solace when our older son was deployed to Afghanistan. It
gave us solace when our two sons were deployed to Iraq, that we knew
they were the best fighting force out there. That gave them the
greatest opportunity to come home safe to us.
Last night in the Rules Committee, we had a young man, a double
amputee, who is a proud, proud member of the 82nd Airborne's 4th Combat
Brigade. Specialist Stefan LeRoy was in our midst last night as we
talked about the NDAA in the Rules Committee. There is not a more
powerful statement than that young man sitting right in front of me at
the dais looking at us to make sure that we provide for them, for that
1 percent I talked about earlier. That is what makes this all
worthwhile, in my estimation, that we do the right thing.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for his leadership and as well the manager, the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia, both distinguished members of the
Rules Committee.
This is always a tough bill because many of us are aware of the
extensive amendment process that occurred during the markup. But let me
speak to one or two points that I think are very important. Our men and
women in the United States military deserve our keenest support.
This is, in fact, Military Appreciation Month, and we want them to
know that we truly appreciate them. We also know that they are fact-
finders, and they are sometimes the front-line support on behalf of the
United States without weapons to be helpful to countries that are in
need.
I am introducing an amendment cosponsored by Congresswoman Frederica
Wilson and Congresswoman Barbara Lee to ask for a report on the status
of the Boko Haram and the resources that our defense persons are using
to help with respect to the girls that have been kidnapped, and as well
report to the extent of the crimes against humanity with respect to
Boko Haram in Nigeria. I just got through meeting with African
ambassadors, and they have mentioned that this is a regional issue.
We have also introduced an amendment to make sure that the
contractors that are utilized for intelligence gathering have
oversight, to avoid some of the catastrophes that we saw in recent
years of contractors not appropriately, for some, handling important
information that they had and doing this through contractors.
As we support our military, every day we see soldiers coming home
from places far away and the need for posttraumatic stress disorder
treatment. And my amendment, as I have done, asked for an increase of
$5 million to be able to help those individuals. It is not throwing any
bad money after good. It is recognizing that these symptoms and
psychological problems may cause difficulty in providing provider-
patient communication.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. They may appear later in time and not mostly at the
time that these individuals will come home. So I think it is important
that we have the opportunity for diagnosing at a later period of time.
These numbers are going to grow. There are over 200,000 veterans of
military service who live and work in Houston, more than 13,000 of whom
are veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom.
Let me finally say that we must stand with the repair of the Veterans
Administration health system. I know that it tracks this bill, but it
is not this bill per se, but we want to support our troops. And then I
want to make sure that we heighten again the Iran negotiations and that
we have no gap in the time that Iran is to report on what they are
doing to not have war nuclear weapons as opposed to civilian use.
Let us also get re-engaged in the discussions on the Palestinian
peace discussions, with the discussions going forward with Israel and
Palestine, in spite of the fact that there are some very difficult
things that we have to overcome. I believe it is important that we
stand ready and are ready, that our negotiations are going forward to
secure this Nation.
Finally, Madam Speaker, if I might just indicate that we hope to keep
at Ellington Field--keep our helicopter units in Texas, and we hope
that the legislation provides that opportunity without closing out the
National Guard without a further review. I think that is extremely
important.
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak during House consideration of the rule
for the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015.
I thank Chairman McKeon, and want to express my appreciation for his
years of service to our nation as chair of the House Committee on Armed
Services. This year's appropriation bill's title reflects the
dedication you have shown to our men and women in uniform in defense of
our nation.
I also thank Ranking Member Smith of the Armed Services Committee for
his work on this bill.
Thank you, Chairman Woodall and Ranking Member McGovern I appreciate
for allowing me the opportunity to speak on the Rule for H.R. 4435.
This is the 53rd consecutive National Defense Authorization Act,
which speaks to the long-term commitment of the Congress and successive
Administrations to provide for National Defense. This bill encompasses
a number of initiatives designed to modernize our nation's military to
combat threats defined by the last decade of war in Afghanistan and
Iraq, while dealing with dramatic cuts in funding; along with
sequestration; and the federal government shutdown last year.
The National Defense Authorization Act's purpose is to address the
threats our nation
[[Page H4500]]
must deal with not just today, but in the future. This makes our work
vital to our national interest and it should reflect our strong
commitment to ensure that the men and women of our Armed Services
receive the benefits and support that they deserve for their faithful
service.
Our men and women in uniform are ending the longest military conflict
in the history of our nation. The lessons learned are hard, but
solutions to improve our ability to provide the tools our troops will
need to protect themselves were developed based on their experiences.
Now it is our obligation to be sure that these new tools for the
defense of our troops are available for their use when and where they
are needed.
The bill will provide for resources to address the threats posed by
improvised explosive devices, chemical agents, drug interdiction and
dangerous drugs entering our nation.
The military needs the funding in the bill that would address
munitions destruction, support the Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund
and support our work with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
to make more efficient the work of protecting America and our interest.
We do live in a dangerous world, where threats are not always easily
identifiable, and our enemies are not bound by borders. The Boston
Terrorist Attack last year reminds us of how fragile our nation's
security could be without a well-trained and -equipped military.
The definition of war has changed and with it our understanding about
what is needed to combat a unique type of enemy that fights under no
flag or for any nation.
U.S. Special Operations Command, a vital part of our military,
provides much of the special skills needed to defend our nation. This
legislation continues to build on previous efforts to support their
important work.
There are several Jackson Lee amendments before the Rules Committee
for consideration. These amendments are simple, straightforward, and
are intended to improve the underlying bill. I believe they would
command the support of a majority of the House, and I urge the Rules
Committee to make them in order.
JACKSON LEE-WILSON-LEE AMENDMENT (#65)
This amendment (#65), co-sponsored jointly by Congresswoman Barbara
Lee of California and Congresswoman Frederica Wilson of Florida, and
Congresswoman Kelly of Illinois have joined efforts to make three
important contributions to the bill): strongly condemns the ongoing
violence and the systemic gross human rights violations against the
people of Nigeria carried out by the militant organization Boko Haram,
includes the cowardly kidnapping of the more than 200 young
schoolgirls; expresses support for the people of Nigeria; and the
Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the nature and extent of
the crimes against humanity committed by Boko Haram in Nigeria.
Since 2013, more than 4,400 men, women, and children have been
slaughtered by Boko Haram.
JACKSON LEE-WILSON-LEE AMENDMENT (#186)
The second Jackson Lee Amendment (#186) directs the Secretary of
Defense to conduct a study to ascertain the extent to which civilian
contractors are used in the conduct of intelligence activities and the
type of information to which such contractors are exposed or have
access.
The amendment also requires the Secretary to submit to Congress a
plan for reducing by 25 percent the number of civilian contractors with
top secret security clearances that are engaged in intelligence
gathering and analysis activities.
The disclosure of leaked and highly sensitive classified information
to the Washington Post and the Guardian by a contract worker with a
security clearance raises several very important and disturbing issues.
Something went very wrong in the conduct of this individual's
security clearance background investigation, which is troubling enough
in itself but particularly alarming given that more than 3.5 million
persons hold a Confidential or Secret clearance.
The cost of government security classification in 2005 was $7.66
billion and in 2011 the total was $11.36 billion.
According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence 2012
Report on Security Clearance Determinations there were 483,263
contractors with Top Secret security clearances.
In the previous year 133,493 contractors receive approval for Top
Secret security clearances. At the time of the report over 1.4 million
Federal government employees and private sector contractors held Top
Secret security clearances.
These costs are not all encompassing, but were generated by 41
executive branch agencies including the Department of Defense.
Another consequence of contracting out national security work is the
power it may extent to a private company over the most sensitive
information our nation may hold.
For example, only the person with the Top Secret classification
authority may classify information. Only original classifiers are
authorized to decide what information if made public could cause harm
to national security.
Between 2003 and 2004 original classification authorities increased
the number of classified documents from 234,052 to 351,150. In 2011,
the Department of Defense original classification activity generated
62,753 classifications.
The consequences for making more and more information Top Secret
could lead to the government's need for more persons working for
contactors receiving classifications to do this type of work. At some
point the ability to manage the work absent contractors can become very
difficult.
My amendment simply directs the Secretary of Defense to study the
feasibility of implementing a modest reduction in that number
consistent without jeopardizing the nation's security.
JACKSON LEE-WILSON-LEE AMENDMENT (#68)
The third and final Jackson Lee Amendment (#68) increases post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) funding by $5,000,000.
Last year, the Rules Committee made in order the identical amendment
to the FY14 NDAA, which was approved by the full House. I ask the
Committee to make this amendment in order again this year.
Post traumatic stress disorder is one of the most prevalent and
devastating psychological wounds suffered by the brave men and women
fighting in far off lands to defend the values and freedom we hold
dear.
PTSD symptoms and other psychosocial problems may cause difficulty in
provider-patient communication, reduce patients' active collaboration
in evaluation and treatment, increase the likelihood of somatization,
and reduce patient adherence to medical regimens.
As with other anxiety disorders and depression, most patients with
PTSD are not properly identified and are not offered education,
counseling, or referrals for mental-health evaluation.
A suicide bomber, an IED, or an insurgent can obliterate their close
friend instantaneously and right in front of their face.
Yet, as American soldiers, they are trained to suppress the agonizing
grief associated with those horrible experiences and are expected to
continue with their mission. And carry on they do, with courage and
with patriotism.
According to surveys conducted of troops in Iraq, 15-20% of Army
soldiers suffer PTSD symptoms, including nightmares, flashbacks,
emotional detachment, dissociation, insomnia, loss of appetite, memory
loss, clinical depression, and anxiety.
Approximately 35% of soldiers seeking some kind of mental health
treatment within a year of returning from combat.
I am reminded of the continuing need to treat PTSD every time I
return to my district because Houston is home to one of the largest
populations of military service members and their families in the
nation.
There are over 200,000 veterans of military service who live and work
in Houston; more than 13,000 of whom are veterans of Operation Enduring
Freedom (Afghanistan); and Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq).
Although some of a soldier's wounds are invisible to the naked eye
they are still wounds that should be properly treated. One of the best
ways to increase access to treatment is to increase the number of
medical facilities and mental health professionals who are available to
serve the needs of men and women currently serving and those who have
become veterans.
We must continue to direct our efforts as a body to ensure that our
troops remain the best equipped and prepared military force in the
world. They are not just soldiers they are sons and daughters, husbands
and wives, brothers and sisters--they are some of the people we
represent as members of Congress. Support of them is a sacred
obligation of Congress both to those who are at risk on battle fields
and serving as the guard against threats around the world, but they are
also those who have returned home from war.
I thank Chairman Woodall and Ranking Member McGovern for their work;
to manage the debate on the rule for the NDAA Fiscal Year 2015 bill.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I would advise you and my friend from
Massachusetts that I do not have any further speakers remaining, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Madam Speaker, as I indicated at the beginning of this debate, we
have no objection to this rule. We are glad that the 2015 Commerce-
Justice-Science appropriations bill is coming to the floor under an
open rule. We have no problem with moving ahead on general debate or
the amendments made in order on the Department of Defense authorization
bill, and so we support this rule.
[[Page H4501]]
It is my hope, as I said earlier, that when the next rule in the
defense bill comes to the floor that it will allow for there to be
debate on a number of the important issues that Members of this House
feel deserve that debate.
I have nothing but the highest regard for all those who serve on the
House Armed Services Committee, but I have to say that this bill is too
big. It is too big. We have not done a very good job, I don't believe,
in this Congress of getting rid of the bloat, the waste, and the
duplication within the Pentagon budget. For some reason, we have
Members who think that the way you show you are tough in terms of the
defense of our country is by supporting bills that add more and more
and more money to the Pentagon's budget.
The bottom line is that strong defense doesn't mean wasteful defense.
It doesn't mean weapons systems that are obsolete or that are not
practical or that are not needed anymore. It doesn't mean a bloated
bureaucracy.
Again, as I said earlier, this bill fails to make any of the tough
choices. I want to make sure our troops get all the equipment and all
the support that they need. I want to make sure that we are prepared
for anything that might come at us in the future.
But wasteful defense spending doesn't help us at all. And so there
are some significant problems with the underlying bill. In addition to
being too big, this bill also fails to cut our nuclear arsenal. We are
spending billions and billions and billions of dollars maintaining an
arsenal way bigger than anybody believes that we need to, but we don't
deal with that issue.
This bill continues to place restrictions on the transfer of inmates
from Guantanamo, which is problematic. Again, this bill fails to face
reality and make any of the tough choices in terms of overall defense
spending.
Again, I will appeal to my colleagues on the Rules Committee to
please make sure that we have the opportunity to debate the issue of
Afghanistan on this floor. We are at war, and we very rarely discuss it
in this Chamber. To those who say, well, it is up to the President to
decide whether we stay or go, I will remind my colleagues that we have
a role in that, too. Our indifference and our silence over the last
several years means we are complicit in this war's continuing, the
longest war in the history of our country.
As I said, I will offer an amendment, along with Mr. Jones of North
Carolina and Mr. Smith, the ranking member of the Armed Services
Committee, to make it clear that if the President wants to continue the
deployment of U.S. forces beyond 2014, which was his stated policy last
year, then we ought to vote on it. We ought to vote on it. And if you
believe we should stay longer, you can vote ``yes.'' If you believe
that enough is enough, then you can vote ``no.'' But after that time,
after all this time, we have an obligation in this Congress to speak up
and speak out and make sure that our constituents know what we are
doing. We cannot allow this war to go on forever on autopilot. We have
a responsibility here.
I have heard the arguments of my friends who want to stay. They are
compelling arguments. Make them on the House floor, and have the next
Congress decide whether or not we should continue the war there.
I will just close with this. When people say to me that there is no
place to cut in the Pentagon's budget, I would urge them to talk to
some of the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces or some of the
men and women who serve in the Pentagon who, over the years, I have met
with who talk freely of places where we could cut without sacrificing
any of our national security, places we could cut, quite frankly, that
will enhance our security, because they believe that wasteful defense
spending has no place in our budget, especially during these tough
fiscal times.
But I also believe when we talk about national defense it also means
the quality of life in our country and whether or not people have a
job, whether or not people have adequate health care, whether or not
people have access to good education, and whether or not we end hunger
and poverty in our country. All those things matter, as well.
So, again, I urge my colleagues to support the rule because, quite
frankly, there is no reason to oppose it. And I would urge my friends
on the Rules Committee to please be generous in offering and allowing
Members to offer many amendments on this bill. This is an important
bill not just for people on the Armed Services Committee but for all
Members.
With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, it would be easy to close debate just by reminding my
colleagues that the gentleman from Massachusetts plans to support this
rule. That is reason enough when we can find agreement in the Rules
Committee on moving forward. But I hate to stop it there just because
it is worth celebrating. It is absolutely worth celebrating.
The gentleman from Massachusetts is absolutely certain we are
spending too much on the Department of Defense. I am absolutely certain
we are spending too little. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
absolutely certain that waste has no place in the Department of
Defense. I, too, am absolutely certain that waste has no place in the
Department of Defense.
Madam Speaker, just because this bill came out of the Armed Services
Committee 61-0 does not mean that we do not have differences in this
Chamber. We do. But this rule provides us an opportunity to debate
those differences and then provides an opportunity for the Members of
this body to have their will done.
Whether you are talking about the National Defense Authorization Act,
or whether you are talking about the Commerce-Justice-Science
appropriations bill, these bills did not come down from on high
dictated by a Speaker or dictated by a minority leader. These bills
were both crafted by the membership of this body, and this rule allows
them to be perfected by the membership of this body should it pass this
afternoon.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________