[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8771-8783]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014


                             General Leave

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous material on H.R. 1960.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Webster of Florida). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 256 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1960.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1735


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1960) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 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, with Mr. Womack in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1960, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, which overwhelmingly passed the 
Committee on Armed Services. In keeping with the committee's tradition 
of bipartisanship, Ranking Member Smith and I worked collaboratively to 
produce this bill and solicited input from each of our members. We've 
already adopted 169 amendments during markup and look forward to a 
robust debate the remainder of the week on the floor.
  The legislation advances our national security objectives, provides 
support and logistical resources for our warfighters, and helps the 
United States confront the national security challenges of the 21st 
century. The bill authorizes $552.1 billion for national defense in the 
base budget. It also authorizes another $85.8 billion for Overseas 
Contingency Operations, consistent with the House budget, and the bill 
contains no earmarks.
  Of critical importance, the bill takes serious and significant steps 
to end the crisis of sexual assault in our military. This includes 
stripping the commanders of their authority to dismiss a finding by a 
court-martial; prohibiting commanders from reducing guilty findings to 
lesser offenses; establishing minimum sentencing requirements for 
sexual assault; extending whistleblower protections to those who report 
rape, sexual assault, or other sexual misconduct; and other vital 
measures. Based on the years of work and oversight our committee has 
done on this critical issue, I share Senator Levin's reluctance to 
remove the commander from the decision process for crimes under the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice. The only way to change the culture is 
to hold commanders responsible and accountable for their actions and 
decisions.
  Elsewhere in the bill, despite historic cuts to our Armed Forces, we 
prevent military readiness shortfalls from becoming a readiness 
emergency. We restore flying hours for the Army and Air Force 
squadrons, direct money to help reset equipment returning from 
Afghanistan, and relieve some of the military's maintenance backlogs.
  The bill also provides our warfighters with resources and authorities 
they need to win the war in Afghanistan and to pressure al Qaeda and 
its affiliates. We fully fund a series of important authorities that 
support the transition in Afghanistan and U.S. national security 
interests. However, we prohibit the use of the majority of those funds 
until the Secretary of Defense certifies that U.S. priorities have been 
accommodated in a bilateral security agreement.

                              {time}  1740

  We have made controlling costs a top priority. However, the mark 
guards against achieving false, short-term savings at the expense of 
vital, long-term strategic capabilities. For example, we prohibit the 
premature retirement of Navy cruisers and amphibious assault ships, 
critical vessels that are vital to the Pacific-focused strategy. The 
bill also continues investments in oversight for key systems while 
preserving our capacity to meet future challenges.
  The bill continues our care for our warfighters, veterans and their 
families with the support they earned through their service; and it 
mandates fiscal responsibility, transparency, and accountability within 
the Department of Defense.
  The bill reduces the number of general officer billets and works to 
end redundancies in military headquarters and task forces.
  For 51 straight years, the National Defense Authorization Act has 
been passed and signed into law. Congress has no higher responsibility 
than to provide for the common defense. And with that in mind, I look 
forward to passing this bill for the 52nd consecutive year.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  I want to thank Chairman McKeon and the entire committee--and most 
importantly the staff. It's always this time of year when our staff 
never sleeps and does an amazing job of pulling this bill together.
  We, once again, worked in a very bipartisan fashion, worked the bill 
through the process--a series of hearings, the markup last week. I 
thank the chairman for his excellent leadership in continuing that 
bipartisan tradition in the hopes of, for the 52nd straight year, 
getting our bill done. So I appreciate working with him and with all 
the members of the committee and the staff.
  This bill, overall, sets the right priorities, I believe. It makes 
sure that our military is funded and that our troops get the equipment 
and support that they need to carry out the missions that we ask them 
to do. That is something General Dempsey says all the time: We'll do 
whatever you ask us to do; just make sure that you provide us with the 
resources to do it.
  Whatever missions we as policymakers decide the military should 
perform, it's our obligation to make sure that it's funded. I believe 
this bill does

[[Page 8772]]

that. It particularly prioritizes Special Operations Forces, 
intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, and the kind of equipment 
that we will need to confront the terrorist asymmetric threats that are 
so central to our challenges right now on national security.
  As the chairman mentioned, it also takes steps on the sexual assault 
problem. I will say that no piece of legislation is going to fix this. 
The military needs to change its culture and prioritize the protection 
of the men and women in our service. This legislation will help, 
certainly; but this is a huge crisis right now that the military has 
not yet stepped up to. I think it is one of the most important 
challenges that we face in national security.
  This piece of legislation also recognizes that we are still at war. 
It funds the ongoing effort in Afghanistan to make sure that our troops 
have the support that they need to carry out that mission.
  However, there are a couple of things in the bill that I am concerned 
about. I believe that we do need to close Guantanamo, and I have an 
amendment before the Rules Committee which hopefully will be made in 
order that will set us on a process to do that. I agree with people who 
say that we can't simply close it tomorrow, we need a plan. My 
amendment would require that the President come up with such a plan in 
60 days and implement it as soon as possible.
  I continue to be concerned that the President has the power to 
indefinitely detain any person captured in the United States who is 
designated to be an enemy combatant. That is a level of executive power 
that I do not think is necessary; And as we have seen in recent weeks, 
people are growing concerned about the amount of power the executive 
branch has. Again, I will have an amendment to try to change that as 
well.
  Lastly, it is worth mentioning--sequestration. This bill is marked to 
a level that assumes sequestration will not happen. I think that's 
appropriate. That's where we're at and what we have to do, but it 
points up the challenge of sequestration. If sequestration happens, 
this bill is going to have to be cut by between $40 billion and $50 
billion. Where would that money come from? How would we make that work? 
Especially the way sequestration works, mindless, across-the-board 
cuts. Because the sad truth is that's the likely outcome. There is no 
pathway out of sequestration that we've seen. I thank the chairman for 
his leadership in continually bringing home how important this is, but 
we haven't gotten there yet. We need to keep emphasizing that.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the vice chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I appreciate the chairman yielding.
  I think the first thing that should be said is that it is a 
tremendous credit to the chairman and the ranking member that we are 
where we are today. It may be true that for 51 straight years a defense 
authorization bill has been signed into law, but that doesn't make it 
easy to do number 52.
  There are still a number of complex and even some controversial 
issues. And so to have this bill before us today coming out of the 
committee on a vote that is so strong I think is truly a credit to the 
leadership of the chairman and the ranking member and the staff who 
have worked very well together.
  I also want to express particular appreciation to the ranking member 
on our subcommittee, Mr. Langevin, because that, too, has been a 
partnership in dealing with a number of complex issues, including 
Special Operations, cybersecurity, science and technology, and military 
intelligence issues.
  One of the key priorities for us on this subcommittee has been 
oversight. If you think back 2 years ago, in this bill we instituted a 
quarterly reporting requirement for certain counterterrorism operations 
involving Special Operations. Last year, we had a quarterly reporting 
requirement on cyber operations. This year, in the full committee mark, 
is a reporting requirement involving sensitive military operations, 
including lethal and capture operations that is designed for oversight 
before, just after, and, in a broader sense, after these events have 
occurred. Oversight is a critically important part of everything the 
committee does, especially in these complex areas.
  There are a number of other provisions, Mr. Chairman, dealing with 
military intelligence, cyber, Special Operations, and science and 
technology that take important steps forward in helping this country to 
be safer.
  I will note I find it strange, the administration seems to oppose 
requiring the Defense Clandestine Service to focus its collection on 
defense priorities. That is what we require in this bill, and for some 
reason that gives the administration heartburn. I hope we can continue 
to have conversations with them about it because it seems to me that's 
exactly what a defense clandestine service should be focused on.
  There are other priorities here dealing with chem/biodefense and the 
Defense Threat Reduction Agency that deal with some of the issues most 
in the news today--think of Syria and other problem spots around the 
world.
  The key point, Mr. Chairman, is it has taken a lot of work to get to 
this point; we have a lot of amendment debate to come. But it is truly 
a credit to the staff, to the chairman, to the ranking member of this 
committee that something so important, so complex has come to the floor 
with such overwhelming bipartisan support. We'll have differences, but 
I hope and trust that it will leave the floor in the same way.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking member on 
the Air and Land Subcommittee.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I want to first begin by 
complimenting the chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces, 
Chairman Mike Turner. He has really been a delight to work with. His 
steady and thoughtful leadership has really allowed us to, I believe, 
make a good mark in this bill.
  Under his leadership, the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 
worked in a very bipartisan fashion. We developed a set of oversight 
legislation and funding recommendations that I think really looks at 
cutting waste, shaping programs, and making sure that our men and women 
in our military are ready to go.
  First, the subcommittee's portion of H.R. 1960 supports many of the 
high-priority recommendations and desires of the President's budget. 
For example, H.R. 1960 provides $8.1 billion for the F-35 Joint Strike 
Fighter program, $5.2 billion for Army aviation upgrades, $3.2 billion 
for 21 EA-18Gs and F-18 upgrades, $1.4 billion for the V-22, and $1.3 
billion for the U.S. Marine Corps ground equipment.
  In addition, the Armed Services Committee increased funding in some 
parts of the DOD budget that came from the President where we felt that 
there were inadequate funds. Specifically, the bill provides an 
additional $400 million for the National Guard and Reserve equipment 
account and adds funding for an additional F-100 engines by $165 
million, and increases advanced procurement funding for 29 Navy F-18 
aircraft by $75 million.

                              {time}  1750

  Beyond these funding increases, I want to point out that we made 
reductions--over $463 million worth of reductions--in this funding 
bill. It's never easy to reduce or to cut programs, but I think we did 
a very good job in making sure that as we move forward we will have the 
systems that we need.
  Finally, H.R. 1960 includes important oversight legislation, 
especially for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, for the ground combat 
vehicle, for the individual carbine, the Stryker vehicle, and for body 
armor for our men and women of our military.
  All of these provisions are good government, and I look forward to 
voting for this bill.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague,

[[Page 8773]]

the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman 
McKeon for his leadership and Ranking Member Smith for the 
extraordinary job that both of you gentlemen have done in bringing this 
bill together--bringing people together to make this happen. I also 
want to thank the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee. 
Madeleine Bordallo, thank you so much for your leadership and for your 
cooperation to make our effort on the Readiness Subcommittee as 
successful as it was.
  Today, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1960, the fiscal year 2014 
National Defense Authorization Act. While this bill will not fix all of 
the Nation's readiness challenges, it does go far in addressing 
depleted force readiness levels and associated levels of assumed risk.
  Specifically, the bill prohibits the Department from proposing, 
planning, or initiating another round of base realignment and closure 
commission elements--a measure that's critical, in my view, given the 
fiscal uncertainties we face as a Nation.
  This bill helps our military members by restoring vital readiness 
accounts, such as the Army and Air Force flying programs; increasing 
funding for facility sustainment; increasing funding for Army depot 
maintenance and rest; increasing funding for ship depot maintenance; 
and prohibiting the retirement of amphibs and cruisers the Navy 
proposed to retire 10 to 15 years early.
  With successive rounds of budget cuts and the disastrous effects of 
sequestration, readiness rates remain at historic levels, and these 
levels are unacceptably low. Our warfighters are at risk, and we owe it 
to them to make sure that we put dollars back to make sure that the 
readiness of our Armed Forces does not in any way suffer. We want to 
make sure that our men and women have what they need, making sure that 
they continue to have overwhelming superiority on the battlefield. 
That's what this Nation has always done. It is our obligation to make 
sure that that continues.
  While we have restored the Air Force and Army flying hours programs 
and bolstered facilities sustainment and depot maintenance, we will 
need to remain focused on readiness challenges in the months and years 
to come. Those readiness challenges will continue. Especially as we 
retrograde from Afghanistan and reset our force, we cannot forget the 
need to maintain readiness.
  As I close, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the members of the 
subcommittee and the staff for their unyielding support for the men and 
women of our military. Our Nation faces many challenges, as this bill 
makes clear.
  I want to remind this Chamber that we owe a debt of gratitude to 
those who selflessly serve our Nation--those who volunteer to put 
themselves in harm's way. That's what makes our Nation great. We owe 
them the highest amount of respect in getting this bill done in their 
best interest.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina, the ranking member on the Seapower 
Subcommittee, Mr. McIntyre.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the National Defense 
Authorization bill, which the Armed Services Committee passed last week 
with overwhelming support, and thank my colleagues, Chairman McKeon and 
Ranking Member Smith, for their hard work in making sure this 
bipartisan measure would be done the right way, and to help our men and 
women in uniform.
  Specifically, I am pleased that this bill strengthens our national 
defense, supports North Carolina military bases with a $355 million 
investment in military construction, and makes key investments across 
the Nation to help make sure that our servicemen and -women have the 
tools they need to do their job.
  This measure authorizes $552 billion for national defense spending 
and $85.8 billion for overseas contingency operations.
  It also supports current law, which mandates an automatic 1.8 percent 
annual increase in troop pay, and it rejects proposals to increase some 
TRICARE fees or establish new TRICARE fees, which many servicemembers 
and veterans have long been concerned about.
  I am also pleased that the committee made sexual assault prevention 
and prosecution a cornerstone of this legislation. And I am 
particularly pleased that this bill includes an amendment authored by 
my good friend and colleague across the aisle, Representative Walter 
Jones, a fellow North Carolinian, to protect the religious freedom of 
military chaplains to be able to close a prayer according to the 
dictates of their conscience, faith, and training.
  The committee also included an important provision that 
Representative Jones and I both worked together on to require periodic 
audits of Berry Amendment contracting compliance by the DOD inspector 
general.
  I can tell you, as the ranking member of the Seapower and Projection 
Forces Subcommittee, I would like to thank my colleague, Chairman Randy 
Forbes, for his work on our section of this bill. The Seapower portion 
of the bill carefully cuts waste in some programs while also improving 
Congress' ability to oversee the DOD. It includes provisions for the 
Gerald Ford class aircraft carrier, multiyear procurement language for 
E-2D and C-130J aircraft, and several other provisions that provide 
additional oversight of important programs, including two of the Navy's 
largest unmanned aircraft programs.
  It also gives the DOD permission to begin retirement of some old KC-
135 refueling aircraft that have been in storage for many years. With 
the new tanker program--the KC-46A--coming on line, it is ``on cost'' 
and ``on schedule,'' two phrases that we love to hear, not only in the 
committee but also on behalf of our taxpayers. I am glad we are giving 
DOD more flexibility in these tough budget times to manage its 
inventory of aircraft.
  Also, the Seapower portion has $14.3 billion for shipbuilding that 
would authorize a total of eight new ships. It authorizes $934 million 
of ship construction funding to ensure that the Virginia-class 
submarine DDG-1000 class destroyer, DDG-51 class destroyer, and joint 
high-speed vessel programs stay on schedule.
  With regard to the aircraft programs, this bill fully funds the 
administration's request for all major aircraft programs in our 
jurisdiction, including the Air Force's new bomber program.
  The Seapower portion of this, being on budget and on time, is 
something I know that we all can support. It is clear this entire bill 
is one that has strong bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the military personnel 
provisions of H.R. 1960 are the product of an open, bipartisan process.
  H.R. 1960 provides our warfighters, veterans, and military families 
the care and support they need, deserve, and have earned. Specifically, 
this year's proposal reforms the way the Department of Defense must 
address sexual assault in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and 
provides significant additional support, especially in the form of 
dedicated legal assistance and whistleblower protection to victims of 
this terrible crime.
  In addition, the mark would support the services' requested end 
strength while ensuring the Army and the Marine Corps adhere to the 
limitation on reductions mandated in the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
  It reaffirms the committee's commitment to the operational reserves 
by requiring minimum notification before deployment or cancellation of 
deployment and provides authority to improve the personnel readiness of 
the National Guard.
  It also requires the Secretary of Defense to review and make 
improvements to the Integrated Disability

[[Page 8774]]

Evaluation System for members of the Reserve components.
  Further, it authorizes transitional compensation and other benefits 
for dependents of a servicemember who is separated from the Armed 
Forces because of a court-martial and forfeits all pay and benefits.
  This bill does not include the request for military retirees to pay 
more for health care.
  In conclusion, I want to thank Mrs. Davis and her staff for their 
contributions and support in this process. I particularly appreciate 
the active, informed, and dedicated subcommittee members, supported by 
the professional staff. Their recommendations and priorities are 
clearly reflected in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2014.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis), the ranking member of the 
Military Personnel Subcommittee.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. I want to thank my colleagues on the 
committee for working together to bring forward a good bill. My thanks, 
of course, to Chairman Wilson and to the committee staff for working in 
a bipartisan manner.
  The bill contains a multitude of provisions to address the issue of 
sexual assault; and while it may seem that this year Congress focused 
on sexual assault in the military, the reality is that this committee 
and its members have been working hard to address this issue, which 
demands our attention, for the last several years. This committee has, 
once again, put forward a number of proposals; but as much as we would 
wish that legislation alone will stop someone from committing a sexual 
act, we know that is not the case. It will also not stop the fear of 
retaliation, which prevents a number of servicemembers from reporting a 
sexual assault.
  This problem and how we deal with it has to start and end with those 
who wear the uniform, but it is important that we provide them the 
tools they need to effectively change the system and, ultimately, the 
culture by holding perpetrators accountable and commanders and 
prosecutors to the highest standard. Whether through bystander 
intervention, command climates that do not tolerate or condone sexual 
harassment and innuendo, and appropriate prosecutions and command 
actions, our servicemembers are ultimately the change agents who need 
to step forward.
  This bill also focuses on the dependents and families who have 
sacrificed so much as well and who have been the backbone of support 
for our servicemembers through over a decade of war. Military families 
also bear the scars of war, and many need help as well. I am pleased 
that the bill includes a number of provisions to support families, 
including a provision that seeks to track the number of dependents who 
have taken their own lives by suicide. While the number of suicides for 
Active Duty members has increased, we have heard anecdotal evidence 
that the same holds true for dependents, and the bill seeks to 
determine if the Services can begin to track these individuals as well 
so that we can determine the best course of action to also address this 
critical problem.
  Included are several provisions to address issues within the Reserve 
components, including a requirement that members of the Reserve be 
provided at least 120 days' notification of their deployments. We have 
been in conflict for more than a decade, and it's time that the 
Services ensure that, when individuals and units are called to deploy 
or if their orders are canceled, they have adequate time to prepare.
  I would like to mention, though, Mr. Chairman, that there is one 
provision which, I think, could adversely impact the morale, well-
being, good order, and discipline of the force. It is a provision that 
extends protections to the actions and speech of servicemembers. In 
essence, this provision protects an individual who engages in hateful 
or discriminatory speech or action, and a commander may take action 
only when actual harm occurs.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The time of the 
gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. So if this language becomes law, a 
servicemember could engage in such speech and action for as long as and 
as much as desired, and a commander could only act against the 
individual when, say, the first shot was taken. I don't believe that 
was the author's intent, but I do believe that the language as 
currently written could be made to be understood in that fashion.
  While I have some concerns with the provisions in the bill, the 
overall bill provides many benefits to our troops and their families, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to speak in favor of the 
National Defense Authorization Act, and I am very privileged to serve 
as the chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.
  I first want to begin by thanking Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member 
Smith for their support for the provisions in the bill that go to 
address the important issue of sexual assault in the military.
  Ms. Tsongas and I were tasked by the ranking member and the chairman 
to come up with a bipartisan solution. We worked directly with the 
staffs of both the ranking member and the chair, and we believe that we 
have put provisions in this bill with the full bipartisan support of 
the committee, which will end the re-victimization of the victim. We 
have a problem of sexual assault in the military, and that problem is 
that the perpetrators feel safe and that the victims feel insecure and 
re-victimized. This bill includes provisions of the Turner-Tsongas BE 
SAFE Act. It also includes provisions from Representatives Heck, 
Walorski, Noem, Castro, Sanchez, and Duckworth.
  Basically, this bill will strip commanders of their authority to 
dismiss a conviction for a serious offense by a court-martial, and it 
significantly limits the commander's ability to modify or dismiss the 
sentence determined by a court-martial, but we go even beyond that.
  This bill says if you commit a sexual assault, you are out. If you 
have an inappropriate relationship between a trainer and a trainee, you 
are out. No longer will it be tolerated for someone to commit a sexual 
assault and stay in the military. No longer will victims ever have to 
passionately tell in a hearing before Congress that they were forced to 
salute someone who had committed a sexual assault against them.
  We ask for the Department of Defense to convene an independent panel 
to review all of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as it applies to 
sexual assault so that we can see if there are additional provisions 
and reforms that need to be enacted.
  I want to thank my ranking member, Loretta Sanchez, on the Tactical 
Air and Land Forces Subcommittee. We have worked together to make our 
priority that of serving our men and women in uniform in the area of 
Afghanistan. Also, we've added over $1.3 billion in the President's 
budget that was requested to be authorized to address urgent 
operational needs for the warfighter, including counter-improvised 
explosive device requirements.
  The bill includes support for the production in our Nation's heavy 
armored vehicle industrial base by maintaining the minimum sustained 
production of upgrade modifications for the Abrams tanks and heavy 
improved recovery vehicles.
  The committee bill retains the Air Force's Global Hawk Block 30 
unmanned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft to 
support the deployed warfighter rather than placing these aircraft in 
storage as the Air Force plans to do.

[[Page 8775]]

  The committee bill also addresses the critical need to reduce the 
weight of individual warfighter equipment, improve acquisition 
practices used for this gear, and it requires the Secretary of Defense 
to assess options for providing personnel protection equipment 
specifically fitted for the female warfighter.
  Our subcommittee is very proud to look at all of the aspects and ways 
that we can support the warfighter. Again, I want to thank the chair 
and the ranking member for their steadfast support in addressing the 
epidemic issue that we have of sexual assault in the military.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), who is the ranking member on the Strategic 
Forces Subcommittee.
  Mr. COOPER. I thank my friend and colleague from Washington State for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the work of the Strategic Forces 
Subcommittee. I would particularly like to thank Chairman Rogers for 
his friendship and bipartisan leadership, as well as to thank all of 
the members of the subcommittee.
  I support the many provisions in the bill that strengthen our 
national security.
  The bill, for example, maintains a safe, secure and reliable nuclear 
arsenal while improving the effective oversight of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration's cost assessments, efforts and planning.
  The bill supports nuclear nonproliferation efforts, including an 
increase of $23 million to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism and the 
spread of nuclear weapons.
  The bill increases funding for regional missile defense assets to 
protect our deployed forces and allies, including important cooperation 
with Israel against short- and medium-range missile threats.
  The bill authorizes defense environmental cleanup activities; and, 
finally, the bill supports investments in military and space assets.
  However, I also should report that I do have reservations about 
several provisions in the bill that, in my opinion, undermine national 
security and waste taxpayer dollars.
  For example, the bill blocks prudent nuclear weapons reductions, 
including New START reductions, which would strengthen strategic 
stability.
  The bill increases funding for nuclear weapons by $220 million over 
the President's already generous budget request.
  The bill accelerates the funding of the Ground-Based Midcourse 
Defense program spending by nearly $250 million, and it jumps to 
conclusions about east coast missile defense sites against the best 
military advice of our generals.
  Finally, the bill changes NNSA health and safety oversight, 
undermining the independent oversight of defense nuclear sites related 
to worker and public protection as well as increasing the Secretary of 
Energy's authority to fire employees without due process.
  I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to debating the merits of these and 
other provisions of the bill.

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Strategic 
Forces Subcommittee, I rise in support of H.R. 1960, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014.
  It's important to understand what this bill does and why it deserves 
our support. For example:
  It streamlines the acquisition of 14 ground-based interceptors 
announced by the Secretary of Defense on March 15, saving the taxpayer 
hundreds of millions of dollars;
  It ensures that strategic competitors do not gain inadvertent access 
to vital systems or information because of reliance on commercial 
sitcom providers;
  It prohibits the transfer of some missile defense technology to 
Russia and strengthens congressional oversight of administration 
efforts with regards to U.S.-Russia missile defense cooperation 
generally;
  It invests in proven and vital systems like the Iron Dome and short-
range rocket defense systems;
  It provides significant resources above the President's request for 
other Israeli cooperative missile defense programs like Arrow 2, Arrow 
3, and the David's Sling weapons system;
  It forces efficiencies and prioritization of critical nuclear 
modernization programs in the budget of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration; and
  It implements several initiatives to improve security at the National 
Nuclear Security Administration and NSA, and streamlines the process to 
terminate DOE employees negligent in their duties at category 1 nuclear 
material sites like the Y-12 site.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the full committee chairman, Buck 
McKeon, for his leadership this year. Without him, this process would 
not have worked nearly as well. And I also want to thank my friend and 
colleague, the ranking member from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), who has been 
a great partner in this process.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), who is the ranking member on the 
Readiness Subcommittee.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I want to say at the onset that I've 
enjoyed very much working in a bipartisan manner with the chairman of 
the Readiness Subcommittee, Mr. Rob Wittman, also the chair of the full 
committee, Mr. McKeon, and the ranking member of the full committee, 
Mr. Adam Smith. I want to thank also the committee and professional 
staff for the many long hours that they've put into getting this bill 
ready.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 1960. This bill works to ensure that 
our men and women in uniform are well trained and equipped to defend 
our Nation and its allies.
  Although this bill represents the hard work and efforts of both the 
majority and the minority, I want to highlight the need to resolve 
sequestration. I hope that this Congress undertakes serious efforts to 
finally fix sequestration with a comprehensive solution. We can avoid 
this problem.
  I would like to highlight a few important readiness issues.
  The bill provides a 1-year extension of authority for certain pay and 
benefits to civilian personnel who are forward deployed, performing 
critical operations overseas and in combat zones. We are also requiring 
GAO to look into how the furloughs of civilian employees are being 
implemented by the Department of Defense to ensure they are implemented 
in a fair and equitable manner and to understand the impact on mission 
execution.
  The bill addresses sustainment issues for two important procurement 
programs: the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the LCS. We must understand 
the costs associated with the sustainment of these programs over the 
long term to make informed decisions about the future of these 
programs. The bill also contains a provision that will close loopholes 
that allow MSC and Navy to repair an increasing number of ships 
overseas.
  I am especially pleased to note that this bill puts real resources 
into the rebalance of our military toward the Asia-Pacific region. The 
bill takes a commonsense approach and rolls back restrictive language 
that hampers the obligation and the expenditure of Government of Japan 
funds, which is positive for our bilateral relationship with the 
Government of Japan. The bill continues the House's consistent position 
of support of the realignment of forces in this region.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 
minute.
  Ms. BORDALLO. We also provide funding for the LCS, continued 
development of the next generation long-range strike bomber, and robust 
procurement of Virginia class submarines,

[[Page 8776]]

which are all assets that are important to our rebalance to the Asia-
Pacific region.
  However, I am concerned about section 233 in the underlying bill. I 
appreciate the intent of this provision. We do need to ensure the 
defense of our allies in East Asia. Yet this provision unduly restricts 
our combatant commanders from providing support to emerging threats or 
supporting other allies in other areas. The provision is unnecessary, 
and it negatively impacts our military's readiness. I hope that the 
Rules Committee will make my amendment in order to improve the 
provision.
  Again, I thank my colleagues, and I urge all my colleagues to support 
this vitally important bill.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
  With Chairman McKeon's and Ranking Member Smith's leadership, I 
believe that this bill provides the right authorities and sufficient 
resources to demonstrate our resounding and unequivocal support for the 
men and women who place their service to country above all things. I 
think we could all learn from their service and devotion.
  As to the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee mark, I 
continue to be concerned about both the size and composition of our 
Navy's fleet. In the 30-year shipbuilding plan, the administration has 
indicated a requirement of 306 ships. The 2010 QDR independent panel 
indicated a requirement of 346 ships. Unfortunately, the Navy has 
proposed a reduction of the fleet to 270 ships in just the next year. 
Various outside experts have indicated that if we continue to support 
our current level of shipbuilding investments, the fleet could be 
reduced further to just 240 ships. This path is simply unacceptable.
  Given the budget cuts of the past 4 years, which I opposed, I think 
this bill does a good job of reversing some of these negative trends 
and takes a step in the right direction by authorizing eight combat 
ships and ensuring that we retain and modernize our current fleet to 
the end of their service life.
  I remain very pleased with the direction of our projection forces. 
This bill provides strategic Air Force investments in terms of both the 
KC-46A tanker program and the Long-Range Strike Bomber. These are 
critical capabilities that need to be nurtured carefully.
  This mark also includes important cost-saving initiatives that 
provide the Navy and Air Force with the ability to procure E-2D Hawkeye 
and C-130H Super Hercules aircraft using multiyear procurement 
authority. These legislative provisions alone are projected to save 
taxpayers over $1 billion.
  As I look to the future, I believe that it's essential to ensure 
strategy drives our debate.
  Mr. Chairman, we've gone a long ways to reverse some of these 
negative trends. I think this bill does a good job of supporting our 
forces, and I would urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  I thank my colleague and friend, Mike McIntyre, my ranking member, 
and our hardworking staff for their efforts in producing this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, could you please let us know 
how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 12\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), who is the ranking member 
on the Oversight Investigation Committee and also has done fabulous 
work on the sexual assault legislation contained in this bill.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, this year's NDAA takes unprecedented steps 
to address a disturbing prevalence of sexual assault in the military, 
and I want to thank Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, Congressman 
Wilson, and Congresswoman Davis for including these provisions in the 
bill. I'd also like to thank my cochair of the Military Sexual Assault 
Prevention Caucus, Congressman Mike Turner.
  In recent months, we have seen reports rise, military commanders and 
supervisors abuse their authority, and officers in charge of sexual 
assault prevention efforts allegedly commit the crimes they were sworn 
to stop. This is a systemic problem, and the NDAA takes real 
consequential actions in response.
  This NDAA begins to reform the power of a military commander, the 
first major bipartisan effort in decades to make such a significant 
change on the command structure.

                              {time}  1820

  Commanders will no longer have the authority to dismiss court-martial 
convictions for serious offenses, including sexual assault, and are 
prohibited from reducing guilty findings for serious offenses. It makes 
sure that those who are convicted of sexual assault will, at a minimum, 
be dishonorably discharged or dismissed. And this bill continues our 
push to provide victims of sexual assault with access to legal counsel, 
which is a critical step in the process of creating an environment that 
encourages victims to report these crimes and in bringing those 
responsible to justice.
  These, and others, are significant reforms that offer considerable 
momentum toward changing the deeply rooted and flawed culture that has 
allowed these crimes to pervade our Armed Forces. We are making 
progress, but there is a long way to go.
  Last year's bill established a nine-member independent review panel 
to evaluate the systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate 
sexual assault crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The 
members of this panel are just getting to work now, and their input, 1 
year from now, will be invaluable in making sure that Congress 
continues its work to make the best reforms possible and end the 
scourge of sexual assault.
  I look forward to continuing to work with many Members in both 
Chambers, the victims who have bravely come forward, and the committed 
military leaders who are all meaningfully contributing to this debate 
to ensure that this issue can never again be disregarded or ignored.
  I also want to take a moment to highlight the important work that 
this bill advances to develop superior, lightweight body armor for our 
servicemembers. While the ceramic plates which our servicemembers 
insert into their tactical vests have always provided the requisite 
level of protection in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are unfortunately 
still too heavy and are causing an epidemic of musculoskeletal injuries 
among servicemembers, which the VA will be paying for over decades to 
come.
  Last year, the NDAA contained language requiring the continued 
development of body armor systems for female servicemembers, as the 
legacy systems fit poorly.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlelady.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Lightweight body armor that hadn't been designed for 
female members put female soldiers at greater risk in the field. This 
year's bill requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a comprehensive 
R&D strategy for lightweight body armor to Congress. I believe this is 
an important step, and I thank Air and Land Subcommittee Chair Turner 
and Ranking Member Sanchez for their work on this matter.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Alabama (Mrs. Roby), my friend and colleague, the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 1960, 
and I would like to thank my chairman and the ranking member and all of 
the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members for all of the hard work 
that has gone into this bill. This is a strong,

[[Page 8777]]

bipartisan bill that properly funds our military. It provides for our 
men and women in uniform and their families, while ensuring that our 
warfighters have the necessary equipment and provisions to continue to 
ensure our Nation's security.
  I am honored to chair the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 
of the House Armed Services Committee. I am pleased to have as my 
colleague and ranking member Ms. Tsongas of Massachusetts.
  The world has changed tremendously in the past decade. It remains a 
dangerous place, but in new and challenging ways. For this reason, H.R. 
1960 takes into account the threats this Nation faces today and the 
forces that we must maintain in response. The members of the House 
Armed Services Committee are united in the belief that we must not 
return to the days of a ``hollow'' military decried by General Edward 
``Shy'' Meyer 33 years ago.
  Indeed, H.R. 1960 addresses part of our military's current readiness 
crisis. It restores funding so planes can take flight, ships can sail, 
and our military can train at the pace and scope that's necessary. This 
bill responsibly responds to the global conditions, but does so within 
this Nation's fiscal constraints.
  H.R. 1960 also ensures that, as Afghan forces assume an incredibly 
large role in Afghanistan's defense, preserving the safety and security 
of Afghan women will be among our priorities. It includes important 
provisions so that the Department of Defense understands the lessons of 
Benghazi and organizes its forces to preclude or better respond to a 
similar attack. This year's National Defense Authorization Act 
maintains that the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay is being 
funded, operated, and managed properly; and it also provides the 
necessary guidance relating to Iran, North Korea, and Syria.
  I'm proud to represent two distinguished military installations, 
Maxwell Air Force Base and Fort Rucker, and I'm mindful of the 
important role these and all other installations around the world play 
in ensuring the defense of this great Nation.
  In light of the strong provisions included in H.R. 1960 and the 
collaborative, bipartisan sentiments upon which it rests, I join my 
colleagues in urging support for the National Defense Authorization 
Act.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and I 
would like to thank and congratulate him and Chairman McKeon and their 
outstanding staffs for first-rate work and leadership on this issue.
  This bill is an example of a properly resourced and properly thought-
out plan that would serve the interests of those who serve us. As we 
meet tonight, there are America's best sons and daughters stationed 
around the world in dangerous and often lonely places who are defending 
our freedom and doing us proud every single day. I do believe this 
budget plan is one that gives them the tools and the support that they 
need. It has many good things to recommend it.
  But I wish it were actually going to take effect, because the fact of 
the matter is unless this Congress acts, this plan will never take 
effect. Instead, it will be about $50 billion shy of the resources that 
we're going to debate and vote on this week.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the whole House would be well-served by 
following the example by which this legislation was put together. Led 
by Chairman McKeon and Mr. Smith, there was open, transparent, 
substantive dialogue throughout this process. Members on both sides of 
the aisle met for--my goodness, was it 16 hours, 18 hours, it seemed 
like longer, and any idea that any Member had was brought to the body, 
was vigorously debated, and either approved or disapproved. There was 
an open process that led to a good piece of legislation.
  This is exactly the opposite of what we've done on the sequestration 
problem. There have been backroom meetings. There have been high-level 
discussions, and absolutely nothing has happened. This, frankly, is a 
bipartisan responsibility of a national problem.
  I think that what is incumbent upon us doing here is the budget that 
has passed this Chamber and the budget that has passed the other body 
should be brought to a conference, and our body should select our 
conferees, and I'm sure the other body will select its, and they will 
thrash out this process and, I hope, come to a resolution of this 
mindless, harmful sequestration process.
  About a third of our Navy and Air Force planes aren't flying training 
missions because of sequestration. There's intelligence training for 
intelligence units throughout the services not being done because of 
sequestration. Important research and development, deferred maintenance 
on our capital stock, isn't being done because of this problem.
  We have spent hours in this Chamber accusing each other of whose 
fault it is that we are in this box. I, frankly, think the American 
people are tired of hearing whose fault it is and are ready to see this 
problem resolved.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend.
  The way to solve this problem is to emulate the example Chairman 
McKeon and Mr. Smith have given us: have a fair, transparent, open 
process; debate the issues; make some difficult choices. There are 
other difficult choices yet to make because of the amendments that are 
forthcoming.
  When the Members are given the chance to act in regular order, we can 
solve problems. Let's have that full and open debate on sequestration; 
and some day the plan that we're going to pass this week will actually 
take effect.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), my friend and colleague and a member of the 
Armed Services Committee.
  Mrs. NOEM. I thank the chairman for leading and for all of his hard 
work on this very important bill that we have on the floor today.
  Mr. Chairman, the number is staggering: 26,000. That's how many 
military members were sexually assaulted last year alone; and thousands 
more were unwilling to come forward. Since 2010, there has been a 35 
percent increase in military sexual assault.

                              {time}  1830

  This is a disturbing trend that needs to be stopped, and I would like 
to thank the chairman for working with me and for many other members on 
the committee to do just exactly that.
  There's no doubt that our military is the strongest and most capable 
force in the world. The men and women who voluntarily step up to serve 
and to defend this country know full well that they will be called, 
potentially, to serve in times of danger. But they should never, under 
any circumstances, feel threatened in one another's presence. For many, 
the military is an extension of family, and nothing hurts more than 
being hurt or let down by one of your own.
  Last week, the House Armed Services Committee passed the 2014 
National Defense Authorization Act by an overwhelming vote of 59-2. I 
was proud to support the bill in committee. It takes important steps to 
address the rise of sexual assault in our military, including several 
provisions that I authored. These provisions will improve military 
sexual assault investigations. They will also standardize sexual 
assault prevention training programs, and require the Pentagon to 
increase scrutiny of those selected that will fill sexual assault 
prevention positions in the military, necessary reforms that need to 
get done.
  For years, lawmakers, military officials, and civilians, alike, have 
discussed the need to bring an end to sexual assault. I see a real 
opportunity with this bill to put those words into action, to take 
meaningful steps to address this growing problem.

[[Page 8778]]

  It's time to say, once and for all, that sexual assault ends now. In 
order to do that, we need to ensure that there are adequate protections 
in place that encourage the reporting of sexual assaults without fear 
of reprisal or further abuse from peers. We must provide support for 
victims and insist on swift punishment for those responsible.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the National Defense 
Authorization Act of 2014 and, again, I want to congratulate the 
chairman and the ranking member and the committee staff for a process 
that was really a breath of fresh air in this Congress--a long meeting, 
lots of hot debates and passionate debates, many opportunities, 
frankly, for the polarization that seems to dominate this Congress to 
break down the process.
  But at the end of the day, we had a strong vote, 59-2, obviously very 
bipartisan, and we came together as a committee to make sure that core 
functions of the government, our national defense are, in fact, going 
to be advanced. In particular, I want to focus for a moment on the 
bipartisan effort made in the Seapower and Projection Force 
Subcommittee to support our Nation's shipbuilding priorities.
  This bill supports the President's budget request for continued 
projection of two Virginia-class submarines in 2014, building on our 
efforts last year to restore a boat that had been removed from the 
shipbuilding plan. This measure also continues investment in critical 
undersea capabilities, such as the replacement of our SSBN fleet and 
the Virginia Payload Module.
  In particular, and also, the bill supports construction of eight 
battle force ships, four littoral combat ships, a DDG 51 destroyer, as 
well as continued work on a new aircraft carrier and vital seapower 
programs. To put that in context, the build rate in 2006 was only four 
battle force ships; in 2008, it was only three battle force ships.
  As we have heard firsthand in our subcommittee, a stable, 
predictable, and robust shipbuilding plan is the best way to ensure 
that our taxpayers are getting cost-effective ships with the block 
grant fixed price model that is producing ships ahead of schedule and 
below price. I know this is an issue that our panel will continue to 
look at closely as we move forward.
  In 2011, in Libya, we saw firsthand the value of a strong Naval 
force, where Operation Odyssey Dawn used seapower to wipe out the air 
defense system of Muammar Qadhafi. Again, using surface ships and 
submarines firing Tomahawk missiles, in a matter of hours we had 
advanced the cause for our NATO allies to finish up the work. So this 
is, again, critical to the refocus of our naval and strategic plan in 
Asia-Pacific and the Middle East.
  Again, we need a strong shipbuilding plan and naval force structure, 
which this bill will provide strong resources, again, far greater than 
in past years.
  So, again, I want to close by saluting the chairman's tremendous work 
and our staff, in terms of making sure that both sides of the aisle 
came together to protect core functions of our government, which, 
again, the Seapower Subcommittee, in particular, will advance.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), my friend and colleague, and a member of 
the Armed Services Committee.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the 
House Armed Services Committee for yielding me time. I also want to 
thank him for his tremendous leadership, and Mr. Smith, as well, in 
crafting a bill that brings solutions to combat sexual violence in the 
Armed Forces.
  This bill includes a provision that I authored with Congresswoman 
Loretta Sanchez to encourage victims to step out of the darkness. The 
provision specifically identifies reports of sexual assault as a form 
of communication under whistleblower protections. It ensures that 
victims cannot face reprisal for reporting acts of sexual assault.
  Sexual violence has reached epidemic proportions and is eroding the 
foundations of trust that our military traditions have been built upon.
  I had the privilege to visit our troops in Afghanistan and stand 
shoulder-to-shoulder with the finest military in the world. Hearing 
their concerns on this issue firsthand typifies the horrific reality of 
this situation.
  Mr. Chairman, there were an estimated 26,000 cases of military sexual 
assault last year alone, with only 3,600 victims reporting. It's 
reported that 62 percent of those who have been assaulted went on to 
experience some form of retaliation.
  Citing these facts and figures does not attest to the victims and the 
real-life faces of this problem. We're talking about our sons and 
daughters. We are talking about our brothers and sisters.
  In Indiana, a brave woman named Lisa Wilken, an Air Force veteran, 
came forward to share her own story of repetitive sexual abuse that she 
suffered during her military career. After being raped, she reported 
the incident to the Air Force. Her description of the reporting process 
was chilling. Whistleblower protections like what I'm talking about 
today will create an environment for safe reporting so that victims 
like Lisa can come forward and demand justice.
  For the troops who've been victimized while serving their country and 
the countless Americans who some day want to serve in this great 
military, I ask that we do the right thing. It's time for this Congress 
to do the right thing, and it's time for this Congress to act. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and the thoughtful 
reforms contained within.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  I just, again, want to emphasize how important this piece of 
legislation is, and the work that goes into it.
  And all the Members have said this is the way legislation is supposed 
to work. It really does work when you do the legislative process, when 
you have committee hearings and you debate amendments and you put 
together a product.
  And also to remind folks how important this piece of legislation is. 
It funds and supports our military in providing for the national 
security of this country. It is critically important that we pass it 
and get it done.
  I do also, however, want to emphasize the point that Mr. Andrews 
made, and that is that, unfortunately, unless we do something about 
sequestration, this bill is going to be largely undone. Taking $50 
billion out of this budget in a meat-ax fashion will not be helpful. We 
have to do something about sequestration if we're going to be able to 
protect this process.
  So I would urge the full body to follow the example of the Armed 
Services Committee: get together, work out a bipartisan solution to 
make sure that we can protect this work and not just the national 
security.
  Sequestration obviously affects all parts of government in a very, 
very negative way; infrastructure, education, health care all 
jeopardized by the sequestration legislation. So I would urge us to 
deal with that.
  But, in the meantime, I thank the chairman and I thank all the 
members and the staff for the great work that they've done in putting 
together this bill, and I urge support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Might I inquire how much time we have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  At this time, I'd like to thank Mr. Smith. This is our third bill 
that we've worked on in these positions, and I think we've become 
better friends over the years. We understand each other. We know that 
we, at times, will have disagreements.
  I have to confess, I've been married now 50 years, and my wife and I 
have had a couple of disagreements. I was always wrong, and she's stood 
by me, and we've had a great relationship.
  And we have a great relationship working in this committee. Likewise, 
our staff. I think they have done yeoman's work to get us to this 
point. And our subcommittee chairmen and ranking members that we've 
heard speak here today.

[[Page 8779]]

  And I have to agree with Mr. Smith on the sequestration.

                              {time}  1840

  We, I think, all understand that this is bad for our Nation. We voted 
on it, those of us who did, knowing that, understanding that it would 
never happen. Well, reality set in, and it happened. I've had a few 
people come to me and say, gee, sequestration isn't that bad. They 
really haven't seen the full impact to this point. We're just starting 
into the first year of sequestration. And I was meeting with General 
Breedlove today, our new European commander. And he's just a month into 
his new job, and he's starting to feel the sequestration.
  I think what we need to understand is--and I've talked to each of our 
military leaders as they came in and secretaries as they came before 
our committee for the hearings that led up to this bill--that if 
something doesn't happen between now and September 30, all of this 
work, everything that we're working on is, as Mr. Smith has pointed 
out, going away. We are cutting $487 billion out of defense over the 
next 10 years. That's in the bill. We also, through sequestration, cut 
another $500 billion out of defense over the next 10 years. That is not 
reflected in--this year's portion is not reflected in this bill. Our 
Budget Committee in the House passed a budget, and they kept the top 
line number from the Budget Control Act of $967 billion, and they gave 
us additional money for defense, which we've used in this bill. But if 
we're not able to resolve the differences between us and the Senate on 
September 30, it will be like Cinderella and that magic shoe. 
Everything goes away. The carriage becomes a cantaloupe, or a pumpkin, 
and it's bad times.
  We've got to deal with that, we've got to deal with raising the debt 
limit, and there are a lot of very serious things on the table. So I 
would encourage all of our colleagues to join in the debate tomorrow.
  We had a great debate in committee. We had differences, and we talked 
about them. We didn't get personal, and we didn't get rancorous. We 
came out with a vote of 59-2 because everybody on this committee 
understands how important our work is, how important our national 
defense is, and how important the men and the women and their families 
in uniform are, and we stand behind them. Now we do need to make sure 
that we have the resources that they need.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would encourage all of us to support this 
bill tomorrow. Join in the process. Make it a better bill if we can.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in 
support of the men and women in uniform who have been faced with sexual 
assault while serving in the military. According to the Defense 
Department's own estimates, roughly 26,000 individuals in our military 
will be sexually assaulted each year. Worse yet, only a small fraction 
of these victims will find the courage to come forward to report these 
incidents, all of whom must then possibly face sizeable retaliation or 
anemic prosecution.
  Currently, sex-related crimes are subject to a traditional military 
chain of command, where a commander essentially has complete authority 
and control over the discovery process. This creates an opportunity for 
military commanders to protect perpetrators and even punish victims for 
speaking out.
  Today, as the House begins consideration of amendments to the 
National Defense Authorization Act, I applaud the efforts of 
Representative Jackie Speier and other House Democrats to drastically 
alter the way that military sexual assaults are addressed. 
Representative Speier's amendment, which was rejected by House 
Republicans without debate, would have given prosecutorial discretion 
to the impartial Office of the Chief Prosecutor, limiting any 
opportunities for wrongdoing during this critical phase in the judicial 
process. Until consistent and effective processes are established to 
carefully consider any wrongdoing, members of our armed forces will 
continue to struggle with the shameful reality of widespread sexual 
assault throughout the military ranks.
  Mr. Chair, mechanisms within the military structure must be 
implemented in force if we are to send the powerful message to these 
perpetrators that sexual assault will not be tolerated under any 
circumstances. We must stand behind our men and women in uniform, and 
provide them with the assurances that their voices will be heard, and 
that they will no longer have to live in fear of losing their 
livelihood in the process.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chair, I submit the following exchange of letters:

         House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, 
           and Technology,
                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science, Space, 
     and Technology in H.R. 1960, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
       Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1960 and 
     the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over 
     the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. 
     This is, of course, conditional on our mutual understanding 
     that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a 
     sequential referral waives, reduces, or otherwise affects the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology.
       Further, I request your support for the appointment of 
     Science, Space, and Technology Committee conferees during any 
     House-Senate conference convened on this and any similar 
     legislation. I also ask that a copy of this letter and your 
     response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest be placed 
     in the legislative report on H.R. 1960 and the Congressional 
     Record during consideration of this measure on the House 
     floor.
       I look forward to working with you on this important 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Lamar Smith,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     Chairman, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
     provisions in this important legislation, and I am most 
     appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in 
     the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 
     that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on 
     Science, Space, and Technology is not waiving its 
     jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be 
     included in the committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                     Washington, DC, June 5, 2013.
     Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Natural Resources 
     in matters being considered in H.R. 1960, the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
       Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1960 and 
     the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over 
     the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. 
     This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding 
     that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a 
     sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources and that a 
     copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our 
     jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee 
     Report and as part of the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of this bill by the House.
       The Committee on Natural Resources also asks that you 
     support our request to be conferees on the provisions over 
     which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate 
     conference.
       Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Doc Hastings,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Chairman Doc Hastings,
     House Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hastings: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on Natural Resources 
     has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this 
     important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 
     decision not to request a referral in the interest of 
     expediting consideration of the bill. I

[[Page 8780]]

     agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee 
     on Natural Resources is not waiving its jurisdiction. 
     Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the 
     committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. McKeon: I write to confirm our mutual 
     understanding regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. The section 
     provisions attached to this letter contain subject matter 
     within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans Affairs. 
     However, in order to expedite floor consideration of this 
     important legislation, the committee waives consideration of 
     these provisions.
       The Committee on Veterans Affairs takes this action only 
     with the understanding that the committee's jurisdictional 
     interests over this and similar legislation are in no way 
     diminished or altered.
       The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment 
     to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and 
     requests your support if such a request is made. Finally, I 
     would appreciate your including this letter in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 1960 on the 
     House Floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters.
       With warm personal regards I am,
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jeff Miller,
                                                         Chairman.
       Attachment.


                           section provisions

       Section 524--Contents of Transition Assistance Program.
       Section 552--Protection of Child Custody Arrangements For 
     Parents Who Are Members of the Armed Forces.
       Section 553--Treatment of Relocation of Members of the 
     Armed Forces for Active Duty for Purposes of Mortgage 
     Refinancing.
       Section 584--Recodification and Revision of Army, Navy, Air 
     Force, and Coast Guard Medal of Honor Roll Requirements.
       Section 592--Authority to Enter into Concessions Contracts 
     at Army National Military Cemeteries.
       Section 1421--Authority for Transfer of Funds to Joint 
     Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
     Facility Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell 
     Health Care Center, Illinois.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Hon. Jeff Miller,
     Chairman, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Miller: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
     has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this 
     important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 
     decision not to request a referral in the interest of 
     expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by 
     foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Veterans' 
     Affairs is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this 
     exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 
     on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
      Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                 Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I write to confirm our mutual 
     understanding regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, which contains 
     substantial matter that falls within the Rule X legislative 
     jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I appreciate 
     the cooperation that allowed us to work out mutually 
     agreeable text on numerous matters prior to your markup.
       Based on that cooperation and our associated 
     understandings, the Foreign Affairs Committee will not seek a 
     sequential referral or object to floor consideration of the 
     bill text approved at your Committee markup. However, this 
     decision in no way diminishes or alters the jurisdictional 
     interests of the Foreign Affairs Committee in this bill, any 
     subsequent amendments, or similar legislation. I request your 
     support for the appointment of House Foreign Affairs 
     conferees during any House-Senate conference on this 
     legislation.
       As the committee with legislative jurisdiction over U.S. 
     intervention abroad and declarations of war, and as the 
     traditional committee of sole referral for legislative 
     authorizations for the use of military force (including the 
     post-9/11 AUMF enacted as Public Law 107-40), the Foreign 
     Affairs Committee requires knowledge of where, and against 
     whom, such authority is used. For that reason, I appreciate 
     your commitment to add the Foreign Affairs Committee as a 
     recipient of the reporting required by section 1038 of the 
     Chairman's mark, and to include additional language in your 
     Committee report to expressly note that any reports required 
     by section 1041 are in addition to War Powers Resolution 
     (P.L. 93-148) reporting, which should continue.
       Finally, I respectfully request that you include this 
     letter and your response in your committee report on the 
     bill, and in the Congressional Record during consideration of 
     H.R. 1960 on the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Edward R. Royce,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Chairman Edward R. Royce,
     House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Royce: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has 
     valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this 
     important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 
     decision not to request a referral in the interest of 
     expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by 
     foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Foreign 
     Affairs is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this 
     exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 
     on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 
           Representatives
                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Hon.  Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I write concerning H.R. 1960, the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as 
     amended. There are certain provisions in the legislation that 
     fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       However, in order to expedite floor consideration of this 
     legislation, the Committee will forgo action on this bill. 
     This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding 
     that forgoing consideration of the bill does not prejudice 
     the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or 
     to any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters 
     contained in the bill or similar legislation that fall within 
     the Committee's rule X jurisdiction. I request you urge the 
     Speaker to name members of the Committee to any conference 
     committee named to consider such provisions.
       Please place a copy of this letter and your response 
     acknowledging our jurisdictional interest into the committee 
     report on H.R. 1960 and into the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the measure on the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Shuster,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Chairman Bill Shuster,
     House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Washington, DC.
        Dear Chairman Shuster: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
     provisions in this important legislation, and I am most 
     appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in 
     the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 
     that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its 
     jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be 
     included in the committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on the Judiciary in 
     matters being considered in H.R. 1960, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
       Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1960 and 
     the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over 
     the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. 
     This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding 
     that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a 
     sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, and that a 
     copy of

[[Page 8781]]

     this letter and your response acknowledging our 
     jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee 
     Report and as part of the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of this bill by the House.
       The Committee on the Judiciary also asks that you support 
     our request to be conferees on the provisions over which we 
     have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference.
       Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Chairman Bob Goodlatte,
     House Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Goodlatte: Thank you for your letter 
     regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on the 
     Judiciary has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
     provisions in this important legislation, and I am most 
     appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in 
     the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 
     that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on the 
     Judiciary is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this 
     exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 
     on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                 Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform in matters being considered in H.R. 1960, 
     the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
       Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1960 and 
     the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over 
     the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. 
     This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding 
     that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a 
     sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform, and that a copy of this letter and your response 
     acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in 
     the Committee Report and as part of the Congressional Record 
     during consideration of this bill by the House.
       The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform also asks 
     that you support our request to be conferees on the 
     provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-
     Senate conference.
       Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Darrell Issa,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Chairman Darrell Issa,
     House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Issa: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
     provisions in this important legislation, and I am most 
     appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in 
     the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 
     that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform is not waiving its 
     jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be 
     included in the committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
                                                         Chairman.


                        general leave statement

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chair, I submit the following exchange of letters.

                                            Committee on Education


                                            and the Workforce,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual 
     understanding with respect to H.R. 1960, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Thank you for 
     consulting with the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     with regard to H.R. 1960 on those matters within the 
     committee's jurisdiction.
       In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of 
     H.R. 1960, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will 
     forgo further consideration of this bill. However, I do so 
     only with the understanding that this procedural route will 
     not be construed to prejudice my committee's jurisdictional 
     interest and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar 
     legislation and will not be considered as precedent for 
     consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my 
     committee in the future.
       I respectfully request your support for the appointment of 
     outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in 
     a conference with the Senate. I also request that you include 
     our exchange of letters on this matter in the Committee 
     Report on H.R. 1960 and in the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of this bill on the House floor. Thank you for 
     your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                       John Kline,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____
                                  
                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Hon. John Kline
     Chairman, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kline: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
     provisions in this important legislation, and I am most 
     appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in 
     the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 
     that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce is not waiving its jurisdiction. 
     Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the 
     committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I write concerning H.R. 1960, the 
     ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.'' 
     I wanted to notify you that the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce will forgo action on H.R. 1960 so that it may 
     proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.
       This is done with the understanding that the Committee's 
     jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation 
     are in no way diminished or altered. In addition, the 
     Committee reserves the right to seek conferees on H.R. 1960 
     and requests your support when such a request is made.
       I would appreciate your response confirming this 
     understanding with respect to H.R. 1960 and ask that a copy 
     of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the 
     House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Upton: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
     has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this 
     important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 
     decision not to request a referral in the interest of 
     expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by 
     foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this 
     exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 
     on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                        Permanent Select Committee


                                              on Intelligence,

                                                     June 7, 2013.
     Hon. Buck McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In recognition of the importance of 
     expediting the passage of H.R. 1960, the ``National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014,'' the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence hereby waives further 
     consideration of the bill. The Committee has jurisdictional 
     interests in several provisions of H.R. 1960, including 
     intelligence and intelligence-related authorizations and 
     provisions contained in the bill and provisions that may 
     affect sensitive reporting with respect to covert action.
       The Committee has specific and unresolved concerns with 
     respect to certain provisions of the bill, and takes this 
     action only with

[[Page 8782]]

     the understanding that this procedural route should not be 
     construed to prejudice the House Permanent Select Committee 
     on Intelligence's jurisdictional interest over this bill or 
     any similar bill and will not be considered as precedent for 
     consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the 
     Committee in the future. In addition, the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence will seek conferees on any 
     provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction 
     during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on 
     this legislation.
       Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our 
     exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional 
     Record during the House debate on H.R. 1960. I appreciate the 
     constructive work between our committees on this matter and 
     thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Mike Rogers,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Hon. Mike Rogers,
     House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Capitol 
         Visitor Center, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Rogers: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2014. I agree that the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
     provisions in this important legislation, and I am most 
     appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in 
     the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 
     that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence is not waiving its jurisdiction. 
     Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the 
     committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                               Committee on Financial Services

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Hon. Buck McKeon,
     Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: On June 6, 2013, the Committee on 
     Armed Services ordered H.R. 1960, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as amended, to be 
     reported favorably to the House. As a result of your having 
     consulted with the Committee on Financial Services concerning 
     provisions of the bill that fall within our Rule X 
     jurisdiction, I agree to discharge our committee from further 
     consideration of the bill so that it may proceed 
     expeditiously to the House Floor.
       The Committee on Financial Services takes this action with 
     our mutual understanding that, by foregoing consideration of 
     H.R. 1960, as amended, at this time, we do not waive any 
     jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or 
     similar legislation, and that our committee will be 
     appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar 
     legislation moves forward so that we may address any 
     remaining issues that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction. 
     Our committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of 
     an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate 
     conference involving this or similar legislation, and 
     requests your support for any such request.
       Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter 
     confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 1960, as 
     amended, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters 
     on this matter be included in your committee's report to 
     accompany the legislation and/or in the Congressional Record 
     during floor consideration thereof.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jeb Hensarling,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Hon. Jeb Hensarling,
     House Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hensarling: Thank you for your letter 
     regarding H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on Financial 
     Services has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
     provisions in this important legislation, and I am most 
     appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in 
     the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 
     that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on 
     Financial Services is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, 
     this exchange of letters will be included in the committee 
     report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                     Washington, DC, June 5, 2013.
     Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon, I am writing concerning H.R. 1960, 
     the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, 
     which was expected to be marked up in the Committee on Armed 
     Services this week.
       In order to expedite House consideration of H.R. 1960, the 
     Committee on the Budget will forgo action on the bill. This 
     is being done with the understanding that it does not in any 
     way prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment 
     of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or 
     similar legislation.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 1960, and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during Floor 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Paul Ryan,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     House Committee on the Budget, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Ryan: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on the Budget has valid 
     jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
     legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not 
     to request a referral in the interest of expediting 
     consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a 
     sequential referral, the Committee on the Budget is not 
     waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters 
     will be included in the committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                                      Washington DC, June 3, 2013.
     Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Agriculture in 
     matters being considered in H.R. 1960, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
       Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1960 and 
     the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over 
     the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. 
     This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding 
     that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a 
     sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, and that a copy 
     of this letter and your response acknowledging our 
     jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee 
     Report and as part of the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of this bill by the House.
       I also ask that you support our request to be conferees on 
     the provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any 
     House-Senate conference.
       Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Frank D. Lucas,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Hon. Frank D. Lucas,
     House Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Lucas: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2014. I agree that the Committee on Agriculture has 
     valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this 
     important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 
     decision not to request a referral in the interest of 
     expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by fore 
     going a sequential referral, the Committee on Agriculture is 
     not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of 
     letters will be included in the committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon, I write to you regarding H.R. 1960, 
     the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 
     There are certain provisions of this legislation that fall 
     within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland 
     Security.
       In the interest of permitting the Committee on Armed 
     Services to proceed expeditiously to the House floor, I will 
     not seek a

[[Page 8783]]

     sequential referral of H.R. 1960. However, I do so only with 
     the mutual understanding that the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Homeland Security over matters contained in this 
     or similar legislation is in no way diminished or altered. I 
     further request that you urge the Speaker to name members of 
     this Committee to any conference committee that is named to 
     consider such provisions.
       I request that you include this letter and your response 
     into the committee report on H.R. 1960 and into the 
     Congressional Record. Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                Michael T. McCaul,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.
     Hon. Michael T. McCaul,
     Chairman, House Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman McCaul: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2014. I am most appreciative of your support and 
     interest in this important legislation. Further, this 
     exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 
     on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
                                                         Chairman.

  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Griffith of Virginia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, 
Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
bill (H.R. 1960) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 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, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________