[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 12064-12070]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2397, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2610, 
  TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 312 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 312

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2397) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     The bill shall be considered as read through page 157, line 
     2. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure 
     to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
        (b) No amendment shall be in order except those printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, the amendment described in section 2 of this 
     resolution, and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of 
     this resolution. All points of order against amendments 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules and against 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       (c) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn 
     by the proponent at any time before action thereon, shall not 
     be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole.
       Sec. 2.  After disposition of amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this 
     resolution, it shall be in order for the chair of the 
     Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer an 
     amendment reducing funding levels in the bill.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant 
     to this section shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees, shall

[[Page 12065]]

     not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
     Committee of the Whole. The original proponent of an 
     amendment included in such amendments en bloc may insert a 
     statement in the Congressional Record immediately before the 
     disposition of the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 4.  After the conclusion of consideration of the bill 
     for amendment, there shall be in order a final period of 
     general debate, which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations.
       Sec. 5.  When the committee rises and reports the bill back 
     to the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 6.  At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 2610) making appropriations for the Departments of 
     Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2014, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 
     waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
     chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to 
     the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. NUGENT. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 312 provides for House 
consideration of two separate pieces of legislation. The first of these 
bills is H.R. 2610, which is the appropriations bill to fund the 
Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and other 
Federal agencies. The second bill is H.R. 2397, which is the bill that 
funds our military and our national security programs for the next 
year. In perfect honesty, I don't think this is a perfect rule, but I 
know that it's the right rule for what we're doing today.
  When I came to the Rules Committee as a freshman a little over 2\1/2\ 
years ago, one of our promises not only to the House but also to the 
American people was that we were going to return to regular order. We 
were going to make sure the House worked in an open and transparent 
process.
  We promised the American people they would see what was happening in 
the House and read bills before they came to the floor for a vote. We 
promised that all Members would have the opportunity to amend and 
improve legislation. We also said we were going to have an open 
amendment process on appropriations bills.
  The rule provides for a true open rule on the Transportation, Housing 
and Urban Development appropriations bill. However, we're also taking 
up the Defense funding bill under a structured rule. While that may not 
be ideal, when I look at the alternatives, I know that this structured 
rule is the best way forward.
  As Members of the House of Representatives, we have a duty to fulfill 
our core mission of the Federal Government. I can't think of a single 
function of government more inherently Federal in nature than providing 
for the common defense of this great Nation.
  At a time when our troops are stretched too thin, the Department of 
Defense has been cut repeatedly in the last few years, and the Pentagon 
is now facing sequestration head on. We cannot let the new fiscal year 
begin without passing a Defense appropriations bill.
  There isn't anybody in this House who is more concerned about our 
Nation's involvement in Egypt and Syria or more upset about the 
allegations of the NSA spying on American citizens than I am. However, 
we cannot let these issues prevent us from beginning to debate on a 
bill that ensures our military has the funds it needs to get their job 
done. So if the choice is between a structured rule and never getting 
the Defense appropriations bill passed, or a structured rule versus 
passing a Defense appropriations bill that actually makes our Nation 
less safe than we are today, then I will vote for a structured rule 
every time. That doesn't mean I think it's a perfect process, but the 
alternative is unconscionable.
  The Department of Defense already is bearing the burden of half of 
the sequestration cuts, which, in conjunction with cuts they've already 
sustained, will completely hollow out our military. We need this 
Defense appropriations bill if we're going to restore flexibility to 
our military. And that's an issue that must come to the floor, even if 
it's under a structured process. So I come here today with a 
compromise.
  Far and away, the vast majority of the amendments offered to the 
Rules Committee on H.R. 2397 will be allowed on the House floor. Our 
philosophy when considering amendments really is as simple as this: if 
it would have been allowed under an open rule, it will be allowed under 
this rule.
  There are only three exceptions to that general rule of thumb. Those 
exceptions were amendments dealing with Egypt, Syria, and the NSA. And 
even then, these issues are in no way being swept under the rug. I 
wouldn't stand for that. I wouldn't allow it.
  The rule provides for extended debate time on amendments dealing with 
both Egypt and Syria. Additionally, the rule provides debate on two 
amendments getting at the issue of NSA--including one amendment that I 
personally offered. My amendment would strike a balance between making 
sure our government has all the necessary tools to keep our citizens 
safe and protecting American civil liberties. Both of the NSA 
amendments will get extended debate time.
  In total, this structured rule allows for debate on 100 amendments. 
In comparison, the Defense Appropriations Act of fiscal year 2010 also 
came up under a structured rule. Back then, however, only 16 amendments 
made it to the House floor.
  As I said, it's not a perfect world. I wish we didn't need to deal 
with choosing between an unlimited debate on these issues and making 
sure that our troops have the tools they need to protect themselves and 
our Nation. But that's the nature of the world we live in today. And 
when it comes down to it, the Defense appropriations bill isn't the 
right place to be having some of these debates.
  I am downright furious over what NSA has been doing. And the more I 
learn about the programs, the more outraged I get as it relates to 
trampling on our rights as citizens of this great Nation. But to try to 
change these programs on the DOD appropriations bill, where we can't 
legislate, isn't the right way to go about fixing something that's 
broken.
  I'll be the first one to say that we need to have a long and serious 
discussion and debate about the current law as it stands. Frankly, it 
seems to me that we need to fix that law--clearly.

[[Page 12066]]

That's why I'm a cosponsor of stand-alone legislation to do just that. 
The fact is that it's impossible to make the real, substantive changes 
by amending this bill.
  Appropriation amendments are blunt tools. If there ever was an issue 
that needed thoughtfulness and finesse, it's when we're looking at 
programs that are used to keep our Nation and its citizens safe. So 
today, I offer you an open rule--the rule for the Transportation 
appropriations bill--and one that is as close to open as we could get 
while still ensuring that the House votes on and hopefully passes a 
bill this week that keeps our troops funded, our Pentagon open, and our 
citizens safe from harm. It's not perfect, but it's as good as we can 
get in an imperfect world, and I'm proud to bring it today to the floor 
of this House.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Nugent), my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we're here today to consider one rule for two 
appropriations bills, the Department of Defense appropriations bill and 
the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill.
  While the T-HUD bill will be considered under an open rule--that is, 
if it's ever considered in this House at all--the Defense 
appropriations bill is another story. That's because the FY 2014 
Defense appropriations bill is not an open rule. This bill is 
structured. Many good amendments were denied. The Rules Committee 
cherry-picked amendments that could be considered and prevented many 
germane amendments from being considered today. In fact, Mr. Speaker, 
last month, Speaker Boehner touted Republican use of open rules for 
appropriations bills. But now, just 1 month later, this Tea Party-run 
House is limiting debate on the Defense bill just to avoid taking some 
tough votes.
  My colleague said that they made exceptions and limited amendments 
with regard to Egypt, Syria, and the NSA. Those were the only three 
areas, he said, that they purposefully made exceptions. Well, those are 
the three most important areas before us. Those are the things that our 
constituents want to make sure that we are debating and deliberating 
on.
  Let me note another area where this structured rule inhibits having a 
robust debate on a critical issue, namely, the debate on the need for 
greater transparency and oversight of NSA collection of telephone and 
email records from people who are not under any suspicion or 
investigation whatsoever.
  I'm grateful that a couple of amendments were made in order on this 
subject, but they were only given 15 minutes of debate apiece. That's 
it. This is a pretty big issue. We all want to provide our law 
enforcement officials with the tools they need to safeguard our country 
from potential terrorist attacks. But we also want to protect the basic 
rights and liberties guaranteed to all Americans from unwanted and 
unwarranted searches and invasion of privacy by government agencies.
  Issues of transparency, accountability and oversight are critical 
duties and responsibilities not just of the executive branch but of 
Congress. Who is providing the necessary oversight of all of this 
massive data collection? Who is watching the watchers? Isn't it time 
for Congress to take a serious review of how the law is being 
implemented, how it is touching and affecting all Americans, and 
whether any of those laws and their implementation now require changes? 
I, for one, welcome such a debate, which I hope will occur at least in 
a limited fashion on the amendments that were made in order under this 
structured rule.
  I believe a far better debate would have occurred under an open rule, 
where all Members could have voiced their concerns and outlined 
proposals for change. Regrettably, this will not happen under the time 
restrictions of this structured rule.
  Turning to the T-HUD appropriations bill, I am disappointed and 
concerned with the committee's proposed funding level for the Community 
Development Block Grant program, known as CDBG. The bill cuts CDBG from 
$3.071 billion in FY13 to $1.637 billion in FY14, almost halving the 
program and bringing it to a historic low in terms of funding. CDBG 
funds are working in neighborhoods throughout our country, and this 
proposed reduction will negatively impact local economies and economic 
development projects all over the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record a bipartisan letter signed 
by 101 Members of the House of Representatives expressing support for 
effective CDBG funding levels. If this bill is actually considered by 
this body before the end of the fiscal year, I hope there will be an 
attempt to restore funding for this critically important program.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, June 25, 2013.
     Hon. Tom Latham,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban 
         Development, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ed Pastor,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Transportation Housing and 
         Urban Development, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Latham and Ranking Member Pastor: We write to 
     share our concern about the impact the proposed funding 
     levels for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 
     program in House Transportation, Housing and Urban 
     Development Subcommittee-passed bill would have on 
     redevelopment authorities and local municipalities. While we 
     understand the difficult fiscal decisions we must make in 
     Washington, the proposed bill reduces CDBG formula grants by 
     nearly 50 percent, from $3.071 billion in FY2013 to $1.637 
     billion in FY2014. This proposed funding level also marks an 
     historic low since the program's beginnings in the 1970s.
       As you know, 144 Members signed a bipartisan letter in 
     April for your review in developing FY2014 legislation. The 
     letter supported maintaining the funding levels that the 
     subcommittee recommended last year. The now proposed, 
     substantial reduction--essentially halving the program--would 
     impact local economies, threaten the program's national 
     scope, curtail on-the-ground lead-abatement projects helping 
     to revitalize our older cities, and reduce ongoing 
     capabilities to aid veterans and other workforce training 
     services.
       We are concerned about the implications of this reduction, 
     especially as the program's funds have already fallen 
     substantially--by nearly $1 billion since FY2010. As you 
     know, CDBG is largely managed by local municipalities, 
     providing flexibility and tailored needs in our local 
     economies and remains a lifeline for families and 
     communities. For example, HUD reports that between FY2007 and 
     FY2011, CDBG helped over 174,000 businesses expand economic 
     opportunities and over the last decade, CDBG programs have 
     rehabilitated more than 1.4 million homes for low- and 
     moderate-income homeowners and renters. As a proven program 
     with an effective track record, it serves an ongoing, 
     continual need that not only impacts lives, but provides a 
     documented return on its investment to leverage local 
     dollars: Every $1.00 of CDBG leverages an additional $3.55 in 
     non-CDBG funding, according to the U.S. Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development (HUD).
       The pressing need in the current economy for these funds 
     remains critical. We look forward to working with you to 
     maintain effective funding levels for this work. If we can 
     provide any further information, please contact Kate 
     Ostrander, Legislative Director of the Northeast-Midwest 
     Congressional Coalition, at 6-6106 or kate.ostrander@mail
     .house.gov. Thank you for your consideration and support.
           Sincerely,
       Mike Kelly; Michael R. Turner; Robert A. Brady; Lou 
     Barletta; Peter T. King; David B. McKinley; James P. 
     McGovern; Chaka Fattah; Christopher P. Gibson; Emanuel 
     Cleaver; Niki Tsongas; Jim Gerlach; Stevan Pearce; Marcia L. 
     Fudge; Peter Welch; Elijah E. Cummings; John K. Delaney; Tony 
     Cardenas; Matt A. Cartwright; Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan.
       Colleen W. Hanabusa; Nick J. Rahall, II; Wm. Lacy Clay; 
     John D. Dingell; Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.; Chris Van 
     Hollen; Juan Vargas; Mark Takano; Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott; 
     Mike Doyle; Ann M. Kuster; William R. Keating; Danny K. 
     Davis; Jim Matheson; Bobby L. Rush; Carolyn McCarthy; Alcee 
     L. Hastings; Janice D. Schakowsky; Linda T. Sanchez; Doris O. 
     Matsui.
       Brian Higgins; Louise McIntosh Slaughter; Eliot L. Engel; 
     Ruben Hinojosa; Albio Sires; Yvette D. Clarke; Charles B. 
     Rangel; Diana DeGette; John Conyers, Jr.; Richard M. Nolan; 
     Paul Tonko; Gene Green; James A. Himes; Anna G. Eshoo; Suzan 
     K. DelBene; Sander M. Levin; Ron Kind; David Loebsack; Grace 
     F. Napolitano; Michael H. Michaud.
       Corrine Brown; John F. Tierney; Lloyd Doggett; Bradley S. 
     Schneider; Joyce Beatty; Steven A. Horsford; Judy Chu; Carol

[[Page 12067]]

     Shea-Porter; Gloria Negrete McLeod; Jerrold Nadler; Louis 
     Capps, Gwen Moore; Tammy Duckworth; David N. Cicilline; John 
     A. Yarmuth; Cedric L. Richmond; Pete P. Gallego; Suzanne 
     Bonamici; Theodore E. Deutch; Loretta Sanchez.
       Michael E. Capuano; Donna M. Christensen; Debbie Wasserman 
     Schultz; Ann Kirpatrick; Janice Hahn; Gerald E. Connolly; 
     Filemon Vela; Julia Brownley; Timothy J. Walz; Jim Costa; Joe 
     Garcia; Raul M. Grijalva; Stephen F. Lynch; Earl Blumenauer; 
     Jared Huffman; Xavier Becerra; Maxine Waters; Bill Pascrell, 
     Jr.; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Jared Polis; Patrick Murphy.

  Now, as for the Department of Defense appropriations bill, everyone 
in this House on both sides of the aisle supports our men and women in 
uniform. We want to make sure that they have the equipment, the 
training, and the logistical support they need to carry out their 
duties and missions, and that they have peace of mind that their 
families are being taken care of when they're deployed to perilous 
places abroad.
  We want the most effective and efficient modern military in the 
world. There is no argument and no debate over these priorities in this 
House. However, that doesn't mean we should just throw money at the 
Pentagon, which is infamous for wasting tens of billions of taxpayer 
dollars each and every year for as long as I can remember.
  In these tough budget times, we need to be smart with our money, and 
that includes with our defense dollars. I strongly believe that we 
could make better choices if the Republican majority would recognize 
that we need to negotiate a balanced approach to our national budget in 
order to get rid of the harsh and indiscriminate cuts caused by 
sequestration and I appeal to them to appoint conferees so that we can 
begin negotiations with the Senate on the budget. Now, I thought that 
was a priority for the House Republican leadership, but clearly I was 
wrong, as they have let budget negotiations languish for months.
  Now, in the absence of a balanced approach to the budget, which would 
have provided greater clarity to our defense priorities, I have several 
concerns about the fiscal year 2014 Defense appropriations bill.
  First, the bill neither reflects the current levels of defense 
spending that are the result of the current sequestration, nor does it 
reflect the next round of potential sequestration cuts that will go 
into effect for FY 2014. This would be easier to understand if the 
Republican majority showed any inclination to go to conference with the 
Senate on the budget resolution or return to serious negotiations with 
the White House on an overarching budget agreement. But the Republican 
leadership has stated clearly, time and again, that it will not 
negotiate a balanced and comprehensive solution to resolve our overall 
budget spending, revenue and deficit issues.
  While critical domestic priorities are facing deep cuts in other 
appropriations bills, and the Appropriations Committee is demanding 
sequestration cuts be included in these bills, the Defense bill sails 
on through relatively untouched. In reality, it's those painful and 
draconian cuts in the other appropriations bills that allow this 
Defense bill to emerge relatively unscathed.
  So let me share with my House colleagues a few words from the 
Statement of Administration Policy on the Defense appropriations bill:

       Enacting H.R. 2397--while adhering to the overall spending 
     limits in the House budget's top-line discretionary level for 
     fiscal year 2014--would hurt our economy and require 
     draconian cuts to middle class priorities. These cuts could 
     result in hundreds of thousands of low-income children losing 
     access to Head Start programs, tens of thousands of children 
     with disabilities losing Federal funding for their special 
     education teachers and aides, thousands of Federal agents who 
     cannot enforce drug laws, combat violent crime, or apprehend 
     fugitives, and thousands of scientists without medical 
     grants, which would slow research that could lead to new 
     treatments and cures for diseases like cancer and 
     Alzheimer's, and hurt America's economic competitiveness.

                              {time}  1245

  The statement goes on to say:

       Unless this bill passes the Congress in the context of an 
     overall budget framework that supports our recovery and 
     enables sufficient investments in education, infrastructure, 
     innovation, and national security for our economy to compete 
     in the future, the President's senior advisers would 
     recommend that he veto H.R. 2397 and any other legislation 
     that implements the House Republican Budget framework.

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record the Statement of 
Administration Policy on H.R. 2397.

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 2013.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


        H.R. 2397--Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2014

                          (Rep. Rogers, R-KY)

       The President is committed to our national defense and 
     funding other important priorities within a budget framework 
     that strengthens our economy and advances middle-class 
     priorities. The Administration believes H.R. 2397, making 
     appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes, funds 
     critical priorities, and looks forward to working on its 
     provisions as part of an acceptable budget framework.
       However, enacting H.R. 2397, while adhering to the overall 
     spending limits in the House Budget's topline discretionary 
     level for fiscal year (FY) 2014, would hurt our economy and 
     require draconian cuts to middle-class priorities. These cuts 
     could result in hundreds of thousands of low-income children 
     losing access to Head Start programs, tens of thousands of 
     children with disabilities losing Federal funding for their 
     special education teachers and aides, thousands of Federal 
     agents who cannot enforce drug laws, combat violent crime or 
     apprehend fugitives, and thousands of scientists without 
     medical grants, which would slow research that could lead to 
     new treatments and cures for diseases like cancer and 
     Alzheimer's, and hurt America's economic competitiveness.
       More than three months have passed since the deadline for 
     action and the Congress has yet to appoint conferees and 
     agree on a budget resolution. Prior to consideration of 
     appropriations bills the Congress should complete an 
     appropriate framework for all the appropriations bills.
       Unless this bill passes the Congress in the context of an 
     overall budget framework that supports our recovery and 
     enables sufficient investments in education, infrastructure, 
     innovation and national security for our economy to compete 
     in the future, the President's senior advisors would 
     recommend that he veto H.R. 2397 and any other legislation 
     that implements the House Republican Budget framework.
       The Administration would like to take this opportunity to 
     share additional views regarding the Committee's version of 
     the bill.
       Sexual Assault Prevention and Response. The Administration 
     appreciates the support of the Committee in working to 
     eliminate the threat that sexual assault in the military 
     presents to our Service members and our national security.
       Detainee Matters. The Administration strongly objects to 
     the provisions of sections 8107 and 8108 that limit the use 
     of funds to transfer detainees and otherwise restrict 
     detainee transfers, which, in certain circumstances, would 
     violate constitutional separation of powers principles. 
     Section 8107 undermines national security and this 
     unnecessarily constrains the Nation's counterterrorism 
     efforts, particularly where Federal courts are the best--or 
     even the only--option for incapacitating dangerous 
     terrorists. For decades, presidents of both political parties 
     have leveraged the flexibility and strength of this country's 
     Federal courts to incapacitate dangerous terrorists and 
     gather critical intelligence. The continued prosecution of 
     terrorists in Federal court is an essential element of 
     counterterrorism efforts--a powerful tool that must remain an 
     available option. Additionally, the restrictions in section 
     8108 on the transfer of detainees to the United States and to 
     the custody or effective control of foreign countries or 
     entities in the context of an ongoing armed conflict may 
     interfere with the Executive Branch's ability to determine 
     the appropriate disposition of detainees and to make 
     important foreign policy and national security determinations 
     regarding whether and under what circumstances such transfers 
     should occur.
       In addition, the Administration strongly opposes section 
     8109, which would prohibit the use of funds to construct, 
     acquire, or modify a detention facility in the United States 
     to house individuals held in the detention facility at 
     Guantanamo Bay. This would constrain the flexibility that the 
     Nation's Armed Forces and counterterrorism professionals need 
     to deal with evolving threats, intruding upon the Executive 
     Branch's ability to carry out its mission.
       Topline Funding Levels. The Administration strongly objects 
     to unrequested Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding 
     in the bill and the reduction of base budget funding relative 
     to the President's request. The FY 2014 Budget carefully 
     aligns program priorities and resources based on the 
     President's strategic guidance, and it fully funds OCO 
     requirements.
       Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). The Administration 
     strongly urges the Congress to provide BRAC authorization and

[[Page 12068]]

     funding as requested so that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
     can right-size its infrastructure while providing appropriate 
     transition assistance to affected communities. Without a new 
     round of BRAC, DOD cannot properly align the military's 
     infrastructure with the needs of its evolving force 
     structure, a critical tool for ensuring that limited 
     resources are available to the highest priorities of the 
     warfighter and national security.
       TRICARE Fees and Co-Payments. The Administration strongly 
     urges the Congress to support its proposed TRICARE fee 
     increases, because military retirees deserve an excellent, 
     sustainable health care benefit. The Administration is 
     disappointed that the Committee has consistently failed to 
     support requested TRICARE fee initiatives that seek to 
     control DOD's spiraling health care costs while keeping 
     retired beneficiaries' share of these costs well below the 
     levels experienced when the TRICARE program was implemented 
     in the mid-1990s. While the bill restores the projected FY 
     2014 TRICARE savings associated with the initiatives, the 
     Department will be forced to make deeper reductions to troop 
     levels, readiness and modernization accounts in order to 
     offset higher health care costs of over $8 billion through FY 
     2018.
       Military Pay. The Administration strongly urges the 
     Congress to include the proposal to set the military pay 
     raise growth at 1.0 percent in FY 2014. Consistent with the 
     views of the uniformed military leadership, the President's 
     Budget requests a 1.0 percent increase to basic pay, a 4.2 
     percent increase in the Basic Allowance for Housing, and a 
     3.4 percent increase in Basic Allowance for Subsistence. This 
     total compensation level recognizes the sacrifices made by 
     the men and women in our Armed Forces, while adhering to the 
     current budget constraints faced by DOD. The bill provides 
     $580 million in additional appropriations to fund the pay 
     raise in FY 2014, but it would increase costs by a total of 
     $3.5 billion from FY 2014 through FY 2018. After FY 2014, 
     these future costs would need to be offset by deeper 
     reductions to troop levels, readiness and modernization 
     accounts at a time when statutory spending caps require 
     defense reductions.
       Building Partner Capacity. The Administration strongly 
     objects to reductions in funds for programs to build partner 
     capacity, which would limit the Department's ability to 
     address current and emerging threats to our national 
     security. The bill provides $83 million less than the $358 
     million requested for the Global Train and Equip program and 
     does not fund the request for $75 million for the Global 
     Security Contingency Fund.
       National Intelligence Program Consolidation. The 
     Administration strongly objects to section 8105 because the 
     provision's prohibitions would impinge on the President's 
     prerogatives to seek efficient budget structures and unduly 
     constrain the President in future budget decisions.
       Unrequested Funding. The Administration is concerned about 
     the billions of dollars provided for items DOD did not 
     request and does not need, such as Light Utility Helicopters, 
     National Guard High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles 
     (HMMWV), additional medical research, and the modernization 
     of seven cruisers and two amphibious ships. The 
     Administration is also concerned that the bill makes spending 
     on these and other unnecessary items statutorily required, 
     diverting scarce resources from more important defense 
     programs and limiting the Secretary's flexibility to manage 
     the Department efficiently.
       C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (C-130 AMP). The 
     Administration objects to the $47 million in unrequested 
     funding provided for the C-130 AMP, which would start initial 
     production of C-130 AMP kits for the modernization of earlier 
     generation C-130 airlift aircraft. The President's FY 2013 
     Budget canceled the C-130 AMP because of its high total 
     program cost of $2.7 billion, and because the aircraft would 
     still be able to perform their missions with less expensive 
     upgrades. In addition, as required by the FY 2013 National 
     Defense Authorization Act, DOD is conducting an independent 
     cost-benefit analysis of the C-130 AMP, and it would be 
     premature to reinstate the program before that study is 
     complete.
       Advanced Innovative Technologies. The Administration 
     objects to the $115 million cut for Advanced Innovative 
     Technologies, an 88 percent reduction from the President's 
     request, which funds on-going research and development 
     efforts that support the new Defense Strategy and the 
     rebalance to the Asia Pacific. Specifically, this program 
     supports initiatives that would provide cost-effective and 
     cost-imposing capabilities that are critical for meeting the 
     Combatant Commander's objectives in the region. This 
     capability is needed to address real world threats and full 
     funding is required to research, develop and test performance 
     of the Electromagnetic Railgun system.
       Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund (JUONF). The 
     Administration objects to the elimination of funding 
     requested for the JUONF. This funding is critical to DOD's 
     ability to quickly respond to urgent operational needs of 
     Combatant Commanders. Elimination of funding may delay 
     fielding of important capabilities that help accomplish 
     critical missions.
       Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) 
     Programs. The Administration objects to the restoration of 
     funding for the STARBASE program, which would perpetuate the 
     Federal Government's fragmented approach to STEM education, 
     whereby more than 220 programs are scattered across 13 
     agencies. The Administration's proposed reorganization of 
     STEM programs would improve STEM education quality and 
     outcomes across the Federal Government.
       Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (DAWDF). The 
     Administration opposes the reduction of $205 million from the 
     FY 2014 Budget request for the DAWDF. Failure to provide the 
     full request would require DOD to collect the shortfall 
     between the appropriation and the statutory minimum for DAWDF 
     from other budget accounts. In addition, the Administration 
     opposes appropriations language that would not allow use of 
     prior year expired funds for the FY 2014 DAWDF collection. 
     Components should be allowed to use these funds per the 
     authority provided in current law.
       Civilian Pay Raise. The Administration urges the Congress 
     to support the proposed 1.0 percent pay increase for Federal 
     civilian employees. As the President stated in his FY 2014 
     Budget, a permanent pay freeze is neither sustainable nor 
     desirable.
       Missile Defense. The Administration appreciates the support 
     for DOD's air and missile defense programs, as well as 
     support for the government of Israel's Iron Dome rocket 
     system.
       Afghanistan Security Forces Fund. The Administration 
     appreciates the Committee's continued strong support for U.S. 
     efforts to build and develop the security forces of 
     Afghanistan. However, the Administration strongly urges the 
     Congress to make $2.6 billion of the $7.7 billion request 
     contingent upon pending policy decisions and the progress 
     made by the Afghan National Security Forces during FY 2014, 
     as requested in the President's Budget.
       Limitation on Funds Available to Procure Equipment. The 
     Administration appreciates the support of the Committee for a 
     responsive and flexible program to train and equip the 
     security forces of Afghanistan. However, the Administration 
     is concerned that some of the limitations proposed in section 
     8119 will prevent the Department from meeting critical 
     equipment requirements and delivery timelines for the Afghan 
     National Security Forces and will unnecessarily increase 
     costs for the U.S. taxpayer. The Administration urges the 
     Congress to work with the Department to develop an 
     alternative approach.
       The Administration looks forward to working with the 
     Congress as the FY 2014 appropriations process moves forward.

  Finally, and most importantly, Mr. Speaker, this bill not only 
continues funding for the war in Afghanistan; it also increases the 
Overseas Contingency Operations account, adding $5 billion more above 
the Pentagon's request, for a total of $85.8 billion.
  Now, let me see if I understand this correctly, Mr. Speaker. During 
the time period when the United States is significantly reducing the 
size of our forces in Afghanistan, and when we are withdrawing from the 
war, this bill actually adds $5.1 billion to the OCO account above and 
beyond what the Pentagon asked for.
  That is simply crazy, Mr. Speaker. Maybe those extra billions will 
pay the $70-plus million exit tax that Afghanistan is demanding of the 
United States to pull out our military equipment. That's not fuzzy 
math, Mr. Speaker. The word for that is ``extortion.''
  My colleague from Vermont (Mr. Welch) had an amendment that simply 
said that the American taxpayers aren't going to pay this extortion tax 
that Mr. Karzai is demanding. His amendment wasn't even made in order. 
It was germane, but it wasn't even made in order.
  While I appreciate the language in the bill that none of these funds 
can be used for President Karzai's personal benefit, since we found out 
earlier this year that he was lining his pockets from a U.S. taxpayer-
dollar slush fund, it certainly won't stop Karzai's government from 
squeezing every last dollar it can from the United States to carry out 
the military drawdown over the next 15 months.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sick and I am tired of asking our brave servicemen 
and -women to fight and die for this corrupt government. While I hope 
to be surprised, I really have little faith that next year's 
parliamentary and presidential elections in Afghanistan will be free 
and fair, let alone usher in a new order committed to eliminating 
corruption and cronyism.
  I am sick and tired of U.S. tax dollars being wasted in Afghanistan 
on military headquarters that will never be

[[Page 12069]]

used, only to see them built and torn down.
  I am sick and tired of building roads to nowhere or having our 
convoys pay a tax to transport troops and much-needed supplies to 
provinces outside of Kabul.
  In brief, just like the overwhelming majority of the American people, 
I want to see this war brought to an end and our troops safely home, 
reunited with their families and loved ones, and contributing to home 
communities right here in the United States.
  Let us be clear, Mr. Speaker: the $85.8 billion total for the OCO 
account is still designated ``emergency funding.'' That means it is all 
put on the national credit card. Not a penny of the hundreds of 
billions of dollars for this war has ever been paid for or offset or 
balanced with revenues from someplace else in the national budget.
  We certainly do not need to add even more billions to the OCO 
account. What we need to do is to end this war as quickly as possible 
and bring our troops home.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time 
and rise in support of his rule and the underlying Department of 
Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2014.
  First of all, I congratulate my chairman, Mr. Rogers, and also 
Defense chairman, Mr. Young, as well as Mr. Visclosky and Mrs. Lowey, 
for their hard work and leadership getting this legislation forward.
  Mr. Speaker, as we are all keenly aware, the budget of the Department 
of Defense is under severe stress. We are already seeing the effects of 
the President's budget cuts and the sequester on military readiness.
  To fight effectively, our Armed Forces must be staffed, equipped, and 
trained to operate under dangerous, complex, and uncertain conditions, 
often with little or no warning. They require the right personnel using 
the right equipment and the right training.
  But if history teaches us anything, it teaches us that the future is 
highly unpredictable. Unanticipated events often catch us by surprise. 
We constantly ask our military to be prepared for any contingency. Yet 
today we have burdened them with new levels of budgetary uncertainty 
hampering modernization, planning, and training.
  Mr. Speaker, our men and women in uniform need this Defense 
appropriations process to move forward. We should not force them to 
contemplate another inefficient continuing resolution on top of 
additional crippling sequester cuts. That is what will happen if this 
House cannot find a way to pass this important legislation: more delay, 
more uncertainty, diminished readiness, more risk for the men and women 
we ask to go into harm's way.
  Is this a perfect rule, this structured rule? Absolutely not. The 
committee always prefers open rules and regular order.
  At the same time, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bill so that we can work with the Senate to fulfill our most 
basic mission under the constitutional duty--to provide for the common 
defense.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues again why 
these are tough budgetary times. This Defense bill is being treated 
differently than appropriations bills that actually fund needs right 
here in the United States.
  I would remind my colleagues that national defense also includes what 
happens here in the United States--whether people have housing, whether 
people have food, whether or not people have good health care, whether 
or not we have good roads and good bridges, whether or not we have 
jobs. All these domestic needs are being ignored. In fact, they are 
being obliterated by the Republican numbers in the appropriations 
process.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. I also thank my colleague from 
Florida. I appreciate the courtesy that the Rules Committee extended to 
Mr. Gibson and me last evening when we offered our amendment on Syria.
  Mr. Speaker, my moment here is to discuss this fundamental question 
about whether America is going to be taking military action in Syria 
without any congressional debate. We have a responsibility under the 
Constitution.
  Article I, section 8, clause 11 gives Congress the power to declare 
war and raise and support the Armed Forces. My colleague from Florida 
rightly said that we have an obligation to support the military men and 
women. They will do anything that we ask them to do.
  But this is the moment when we face our responsibility or shirk it--
to give them a policy worthy of their willingness to sacrifice. The 
idea that we would take military action, and arming the Syrian rebels 
is military action, it is intended very specifically to take down the 
Government of Syria--and I want Assad to go, and we all do--but I don't 
want this Congress to back into a policy, stumble ahead, where we find 
ourselves engaged in military conflict where we haven't even met our 
basic responsibility to have a debate about it.
  We have to decide: Are we going to be men and women of Congress, are 
we going to do our jobs, are we going to be Congressmen and -women, or 
are we going to be cowards? It is the coward's path to avoid taking 
responsibility for a momentous decision that we know at this moment is 
upon us.
  Vote ``yes'' or vote ``no.'' But to have no debate, to actually once 
again stumble into a military action, have we learned nothing from Iraq 
and Afghanistan? Iraq right now is supporting Assad; it is supporting 
Iran.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. WELCH. Afghanistan is now, after 11 years, ripping us off as we 
try to bring our material home. Does anybody on the either side of the 
aisle support this? Why don't we have a debate?
  I admire Speaker Boehner for saying he wants to have this House work 
its will. But I say to Speaker Boehner: give us a vote, let us debate, 
let us meet our responsibility. There will be men and women that will 
go into harm's way, stumble ahead, because we did not stand up and take 
responsibility. We are accountable to the people who elect us.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of serving on both the Armed 
Services Committee, as well as the House Depot Caucus. Our U.S. 
military has its own defense, repair, and sustainment capabilities, 
precisely because the government needs to guarantee that soldiers in 
the field will be sustained and supported in times of war. They will 
guarantee that needed equipment will be there in working order when and 
where it is needed because their lives and our freedom depend on it.
  That is why I object to the current furlough policy of some of our 
DOD civilian workers. I have great sympathy for the Department of 
Defense. Unlike every other budget of the Federal Government, they did 
not receive an increase of appropriations before sequestration. In 
fact, the military is the only area where in this administration they 
received two cuts in their funding before sequestration hit, which was 
the third cut. Our defense has been hit disproportionately because of 
sequestration.
  The Department of Defense's approach is to have everyone sharing in 
the burden or the pain of it. That is actually a political decision, 
and I don't use that in a pejorative sense. But Congresses have 
understood the work of our sustainment sector for decades, passing 
title I, sections 129 and 2472, which deal with working capital funds, 
and we have five such working capital funds.
  These are revolving funds that are self-sustaining, which means by 
law if you have a workload and you have the

[[Page 12070]]

funds, then these employees should not be thrown under the bus with a 
furlough. It is silly to think that the workload would be there. The 
funds are actually there, but the workload will be sitting in depots 
and the technicians and mechanics working on those will be forced to 
take off days without pay. It will increase our delay; it will increase 
our cost. The furlough working fund that funds employees does not save 
the government any kind of money, but it hurts delay.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma will have an amendment, which I hope the 
House will take seriously, which will look at these working capital 
funds, and realize the unique situation they have within our system and 
will hopefully solve this problem going forward in the future.
  It has been said that we have a foreign policy which we will fund. 
Actually, the book I read said, ``The foreign policy for which we will 
pay for.'' I just didn't want to end in a preposition.
  Our foreign policy is funded here in the Defense Department 
appropriations. This is what gives us the flexibility diplomatically to 
do things not now, but 5 years from now and 10 years from now and 15 
years from now.
  We are truly looking at our future with this particular fund, and it 
must be taken seriously. We are living since the Cold War ended in a 
much less secure world than we were while we were in the Cold War, not 
just because of what is being done by our traditional adversaries in 
Russia and China, but in the Rim countries, Third World counties, which 
have used new technology to create what is called ``technological 
claustrophobia,'' as their efforts are now compressed together and we 
are having to respond to that.
  There are many issues in this particular bill which help us move 
forward, not only in defense of our military, but in our foreign policy 
opportunities. There are a few amendments out there that actually do 
harm to that. I hope we look at it very carefully. It is a well-crafted 
rule with a whole lot of amendments--perhaps far too many amendments 
made in order--and it will provide for a logical debate. I hope when we 
come out of it, we realize the significance of this, not just funding 
our military, but also funding our diplomatic future.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to build on something that Mr. Welch of Vermont said here on 
the House floor about the lack of debate on Syria. As somebody who was 
here when the Afghanistan war began and when the Iraq war began, I 
believe that both of those wars were unnecessary. We ended up getting 
Osama bin Laden not in Afghanistan with 100,000 troops, but with a 
small well-trained group of Navy SEALs in Pakistan.
  This notion that somehow our strength can only be measured by the 
number of troops we have overseas or the number of weapons that we send 
overseas I think is just crazy. I think the amount that we have spent 
on these wars that have been added to our debt have weakened our 
security. I think the fact that we have lost so many incredibly brave 
men and women to these conflicts is a tragedy.
  What the gentleman from Vermont raised was the issue that I think is 
on a lot of our constituents' minds, and that is what is going to 
happen in Syria. The real problem with this rule, Mr. Speaker, can be 
seen in the debate surrounding Syria. There is a real split when it 
comes to Syria. There are some who don't believe we should get involved 
at all; and there are others, like Senator McCain, leading the 
Republicans over in the Senate, saying we ought to do more, we ought to 
get more involved in Syria.

                          ____________________