[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8536-8541]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4660, COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, 
   AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015; AND PROVIDING FOR 
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4435, HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 585 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 585

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4660) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related 
     Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the 
     committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a 
     recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     4435) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for 
     military activities of the Department of Defense and for 
     military construction, to prescribe military personnel 
     strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed 
     Services. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 113-44 shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No 
     further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such further amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such further amendments are waived. After 
     disposition of the further amendments printed in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules, the Committee of the Whole shall 
     rise without motion. No further consideration of the bill 
     shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of 
     the House.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, the reason it is hard to get order down 
here on the floor of the House is it is kind of a celebratory 
atmosphere down here. We just saw the Water Resources Development Act 
pass by a big bipartisan vote.
  It has been not a year, not 2 years--it has been years since we have 
been able to come together and pass this very important bill that deals 
with waterways and water supply all across this district. We do things 
together on a regular basis, but the big things are hard, and we have 
gotten to do the big things today.
  I will brag on my friend from Massachusetts just for a moment, Madam 
Speaker. I was at Crews Middle School in my district last Friday, and 
Crews Middle School, their eighth grade class, Megan Mendez runs that 
class, but they were talking about how it is that they could be 
effective, how they could make a difference.
  The students came upon Mr. McGovern's bill, I think it is H.R. 1692, 
dealing with Sudan and genocide, what we can do to come together to 
make a difference in other parts of the world.
  Now, I represent Georgia, Madam Speaker. It is a rock-solid hardcore 
Republican constituency. Folks can surmise where Mr. McGovern, out of 
the great State of Massachusetts, what kind of constituency he 
represents there.
  His ideas about how we could come together to make a difference for 
people resonated all the way down the eastern seaboard into that class 
at Crews Middle School, such that Nathan, Madeleine, Keegan, Georgia, 
Lauren all put pen to paper and invited me to come and talk about it to 
see how it was that we could come together.
  Now, we didn't have the entire cosponsorship discussion there in the 
classroom on that day. We were trying to talk about making a 
difference.
  That is what I get to come down and do today, Madam Speaker, with 
this rule that the Clerk just read. This is a difference-making rule. 
It covers two bills today.
  One is the Commerce-Justice-Science and related agencies bill. It is 
H.R. 4660, and the rule provides for an open rule, so that every single 
Member, no matter what their political stripe, no matter what their 
ideas, no matter where their constituency is located, any Member of 
this body can come to the House floor and offer their ideas to make 
that deal better.
  It is a wonderful part of our process. It is a part of the process 
that gets used all too frequently, and I am very fortunate to be able 
to come and bring a rule today that does that.
  Almost more fascinating, Madam Speaker, is that this rule makes in 
order the debate for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015. It 
is H.R. 4435, and that bill--I am just going to consult my notes 
because it is almost unbelievable. That bill came out of committee 61-
0, 61-0.
  Here we are, the bill that is going to authorize our entire national 
defense infrastructure, in what constituents back home believe is a 
hyperpartisan U.S. House of Representatives, made that way by 
incredibly divergent views held by American voters; and when it comes 
to national security, we came together at the committee level and 
passed out a bill 61-0.
  This bill is made in order for debate by the rule that is before us 
today. I hope I will be able to get my colleagues' support for that.
  It is, again, an open rule for the Commerce-Justice-Science bill and 
a rule for debate on a bill that came out of committee 61-0.
  Now, what is fascinating about this institution, Madam Speaker, it 
never ceases to amaze me. You hear about the arrogance of power in 
D.C., that somehow you get elected to Congress

[[Page 8537]]

and you get inside the Beltway, suddenly, you think you are the 
smartest guy in the room and only your ideas are the good ideas.
  This bill that came out of committee 61-0 isn't done with the 
legislative process there. This rule that we are debating today makes 
in order seven more amendments to that bill, so that we can all have a 
voice on that here on the floor of the House.
  My great expectation is the Rules Committee is going to continue to 
meet this afternoon, making even more amendments in order. Hundreds of 
amendments filed to this bill, and the Rules Committee is working 
through trying to get through each one of those amendments to determine 
what we can make in order.
  It is just a--I call it a festival of democracy, Madam Speaker. It is 
a festival of democracy that we are having right here on the House 
floor, where you not only have open rules, where every Member's voice 
is able to be heard, where every constituent back home is able to give 
that advice and counsel to their Member, and they bring those ideas to 
the floor, but it is on issues as difficult as national security, 
issues that do bring us together, but that have components that pull us 
apart, and we are able to work through that.
  Over 300 amendments have been filed for this National Defense 
Authorization Act, and the committee is working through them even as we 
speak.

                              {time}  1415

  I know that every Member of this body has a contribution that their 
constituency has asked them to make, a voice that their constituency 
has asked them to come and bring. Madam Speaker, there are times where 
all of those voices, whether it be because of a clock, whether it be 
because of timing, whatever the reason may be, where folks don't feel 
like those voices have been able to be heard. This day is not that day. 
This is a day where we have an opportunity to make sure that each and 
every idea is heard and heard fully. And I am proud that the Rules 
Committee has produced this product today.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this is not a normal rule, but it is a fair one. It is 
unusual because it combines two bills into one rule and makes in order 
several amendments for one of the bills. What might be unusual for my 
Republican friends is that I will support it.
  The rule makes in order the fiscal year 2015 Commerce-Justice-Science 
appropriations bill under an open rule. And although I wish the funding 
levels were higher, I believe it is a good thing to bring this bill to 
the floor under an open rule.
  This rule also makes in order general debate on the annual defense 
authorization bill along with seven amendments. That is a little 
unusual. Normally, the Rules Committee reports two rules: one for 
general debate and one for consideration of amendments. Now, I don't 
have any problem with these amendments being made in order, but I will 
voice my strong concerns tomorrow if the Rules Committee fails to make 
in order many of the amendments submitted for consideration.
  I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues, the chairman, Mr. 
McKeon, and the ranking member, Mr. Smith, of the Armed Services 
Committee for their leadership and their hard work in crafting this 
bill each year and for coming to a bipartisan agreement on so many of 
the serious matters contained in this bill.
  This is a massive undertaking that touches on so many aspects of our 
defense and national security priorities and the health and the well-
being of our military personnel and their families. But there are 
serious and substantive matters in this bill that we must debate over 
the next few days because they merit the attention of every single 
Member of this House.
  First and foremost, H.R. 4435 fails to make many of the difficult 
choices required by our current budgetary constraints and fiscal 
reality. This is a half-trillion-dollar bill. That is trillion, with a 
t, Madam Speaker. It provides $513.4 billion in discretionary budget 
authority. $495.8 billion of that is for the Department of Defense base 
budget; another $17.6 billion for defense-related activities, mainly 
nuclear, within the Department of Energy; and another whopping $79.4 
billion for the so-called overseas contingency operations, or OCO.
  But according to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 4435 decreases 
direct spending by just $1 million in FY 2015. In a $500 billion bill, 
we can only find savings of $1 million? There is probably $1 million in 
the couch cushions at the Pentagon.
  Madam Speaker, this Congress just cut $8 billion in the farm bill for 
the SNAP program. That is an $8 billion cut to help hungry families put 
food on their table. But we couldn't find more than $1 million next 
year from the Pentagon budget? Give me a break.
  And if sequestration remains the law of the land, these funding 
levels simply will not stand, and another round of arbitrary reductions 
will harm our troops, our military civilian workforce, their families, 
and our military readiness. That is also unacceptable.
  So I oppose, and I have always opposed, sequestration for both 
defense and nondefense programs. But putting forward a bill that fails 
to make any hard decisions on reducing spending authority is not a 
solution. In fact, it compounds the problem.
  This brings me to Afghanistan, Madam Speaker, where we continue to 
squander lives and waste money. Since 2001, over 2,300 U.S. troops have 
been killed in Afghanistan. Nearly 20,000 have been wounded. We lost 
127 brave soldiers just last year alone. Estimates are that around 
30,000 Afghan civilians have been killed since 2001. And the VA 
estimates that approximately 22 veterans will die by suicide every day.
  Since 2001, we have spent over $700 billion on this war. In this 
current year, fiscal year 2014, we are spending $7.1 billion every 
month in Afghanistan.
  The President is committed to bringing most of our troops home by the 
end of the year, and I trust him to keep his word to America's 
families. But he has also said that he wants to keep some level of 
forces remaining there, 5,000, maybe 10,000. And he wants to keep them 
in Afghanistan for an extended period of time.
  Whether you support keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014 or 
whether you oppose it, as I do, I would hope that we can all agree that 
Congress should have a say in whether or not the longest war in 
American history continues. At a minimum, we owe the thousands of U.S. 
servicemen and -women who will be called upon to serve for years to 
come in Afghanistan a vote, and we owe it to their families, and we owe 
it to the American people.
  Now, Congressmen Walter Jones and Adam Smith and I have an amendment 
pending before the Rules Committee that would call for such a vote, and 
I hope the Rules Committee makes it in order so that one of the most 
important matters facing the American people can be debated and voted 
on.
  Last year, 305 Members of this House voted in support of an amendment 
that we three offered, calling for just such a vote on any post-2014 
deployment of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. If that vote is to have any 
meaning whatsoever, then those same Members and this House must support 
the McGovern-Jones-Smith amendment once again this year.
  And this brings me to the overseas contingency operations, the OCO 
account. Madam Speaker, this bill authorized $79.4 billion for the OCO 
account for fiscal year 2015. Now, the last time I looked, the war in 
Iraq was over; the war in Afghanistan is winding down, with nearly all 
our troops heading home by the end of the year; and only a much smaller 
residual force for training operations and some special operations 
might remain deployed in Afghanistan, depending on what the President 
asks for. But the OCO funds don't ever seem to go down. The OCO is just 
$5 billion less than the current fiscal year. It certainly doesn't 
reflect

[[Page 8538]]

the changing circumstances on the ground in Afghanistan.
  Where is all the money going? A February 28th Pentagon report 
concludes that the United States Government and its money ``created an 
environment that fostered corruption'' in Afghanistan. Maybe there are 
some lessons we need to learn here.
  Many assert that the OCO account is nothing more than a slush fund 
for the Pentagon. If we want to save some money, one of the first 
places we should look is getting rid of the OCO, putting everything 
back into the Pentagon base budget, and then taking a long and clear-
eyed look at where spending needs to be reduced.
  Madam Speaker, there are many other problems with H.R. 4435: it 
continues to place restrictions on the transfer of inmates in 
Guantanamo; it undermines our nuclear security cooperation with Russia; 
it attempts to derail the multiparty negotiations with Iran; and it 
coddles the nuclear weapons budget. Foolish choices, wasteful spending, 
and wars without end.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to change course, to end the war in 
Afghanistan, to cut the nuclear arsenal, face reality, and make the 
tough choices in overall defense spending.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my great pleasure to 
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), a member of 
both the Rules Committee and the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Georgia 
(Mr. Woodall). We came in to this Congress together a couple of years 
back, and I have had the great opportunity to serve with him on the 
Rules Committee. And being placed on Armed Services last year was a 
great opportunity for me to be in the process of crafting how our 
military establishment moves forward.
  Madam Speaker, in addition to providing an open rule for the 
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, H. 
Res. 585 provides for 1 hour of general debate on this year's National 
Defense Authorization Act. It also makes in order the first of many 
amendments that are going to be coming forward in the debate over the 
next couple of days.
  Because the Rules Committee traditionally does two rules, one for the 
underlying legislation and the second for the amendments, which I am 
going to bring forward tomorrow--as we have heard, we have had over 300 
amendments come forward on the NDAA this year. My understanding is that 
is a record. Typically, it is around 200-and-some. This year, it was 
over 300.
  So we are going to have the opportunity to hear arguments on both 
sides as to why an amendment should pass or why an amendment should 
fail, and that is a good thing. That is what this body is designed to 
do, to have a dialogue and a discussion back and forth about the merits 
of a particular issue.
  I have three sons who currently serve this Nation. One is in the 
National Guard, and two are in the Active Duty Army. So when we craft 
an NDAA, it is extremely important to me to make sure that our men and 
women have all the resources they need if they are called to go into 
harm's way. It is not their call to go. It is the President's call, the 
Commander in Chief's call in regards to whether or not our servicemen 
and -women go off to fight.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) mentioned earlier about all 
the partisanship in this place. The NDAA, when it passed through 
committee, had over 100 amendments within committee that passed and 
were attached to the NDAA, amendments from both sides of the aisle, 
Democrat and Republican alike, because there was great discussion 
within the committee about those amendments. Some didn't pass, but the 
vast majority, over 100, did pass, and you see it in the body of the 
National Defense Authorization Act today. That says an awful lot.
  The National Defense Authorization Act has passed 52 times, 52 
consecutive times, and we are hoping that this is the 53rd consecutive 
time that it passes in this body. Mr. Woodall was correct. It passed 
out of committee 61-0. I would suggest to you, I don't think I have 
heard that number before in other committees.
  While there are disagreements on how things should work in the NDAA, 
disagreements about priorities and how things should be moved around 
and where our money should be spent, at the end of the day, we came 
together as Democrats and Republicans and put forward a piece of 
legislation that we can be proud of, that was actually named after the 
chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Chairman Buck McKeon.
  Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to help craft the NDAA. I 
believe that it is a good step in the right direction. We have heard a 
lot of things about sequestration in the coming year, and we need to be 
very cognizant of what that will do to our military, our readiness, and 
our ability to meet the demands that this country could call upon our 
military to meet.
  This legislation takes care of that 1 percent of Americans who step 
forward and raise their hand and say: If you need me, I am there; if 
you need me to fight your fight, I am there. That is why this 
legislation is so important. It protects the members of our military, 
the 1 percent of America, Americans who stand up and say: I am there to 
protect you. That is why this legislation is so important.
  The benefit of this is that we have a strong, well-run military, that 
we have a military that is trained and equipped for the battles to 
come. And I will suggest to you that we have not done a very good job 
of figuring out what our next battle will be. As a matter of fact, we 
have had members of the military, flag officers, high-ranking folks 
that have been involved in the military for 30-plus years say we have 
never gotten it right once; not one time have we gotten it right in 
regards to what our future conflicts are going to look like. So I would 
suggest to you that we need to make sure that we are on top of it now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, Sheriff Nugent is the expert on these 
issues on the Rules Committee. I am proud to yield him an additional 3 
minutes.
  Mr. NUGENT. Well, I appreciate that. I don't know that I am expert, 
but I certainly have the heart. I have the heart to make sure that 
America is safe.

                              {time}  1430

  It is a constitutional responsibility that this body make sure that 
we have a strong defense for our homeland. It is a huge responsibility, 
and it is not one that is taken lightly. As you can see in the vote 
that was taken in the House Armed Services Committee--61-0--it is one 
that is shared by all Members.
  We have seen the threats. Unfortunately, not everybody knows what the 
threats are. But if you look at and read the news, whether it is Russia 
today resurging its influence within Europe, whether it is China, or 
whether it is Iran or North Korea, there are so many players out there 
that have ill intentions to our people, to this Nation.
  We have Africa, a continent that has seen a huge increase in violence 
that is associated with al Qaeda. We have threats around this world. To 
those who would say this world is safer than it was before, I would 
suggest to you it is not. So I will do anything that I can do to lend 
credence to our military fighting force to make sure we have the 
strongest, most-equipped, and best-trained force. It is what gave my 
wife and me solace when our older son was deployed to Afghanistan. It 
gave us solace when our two sons were deployed to Iraq, that we knew 
they were the best fighting force out there. That gave them the 
greatest opportunity to come home safe to us.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, we had a young man, a double 
amputee, who is a proud, proud member of the 82nd Airborne's 4th Combat 
Brigade. Specialist Stefan LeRoy was in our midst last night as we 
talked about the NDAA in the Rules Committee. There is not a more 
powerful statement than that young man sitting

[[Page 8539]]

right in front of me at the dais looking at us to make sure that we 
provide for them, for that 1 percent I talked about earlier. That is 
what makes this all worthwhile, in my estimation, that we do the right 
thing.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for his leadership and as well the manager, the 
distinguished gentleman from Georgia, both distinguished members of the 
Rules Committee.
  This is always a tough bill because many of us are aware of the 
extensive amendment process that occurred during the markup. But let me 
speak to one or two points that I think are very important. Our men and 
women in the United States military deserve our keenest support.
  This is, in fact, Military Appreciation Month, and we want them to 
know that we truly appreciate them. We also know that they are fact-
finders, and they are sometimes the front-line support on behalf of the 
United States without weapons to be helpful to countries that are in 
need.
  I am introducing an amendment cosponsored by Congresswoman Frederica 
Wilson and Congresswoman Barbara Lee to ask for a report on the status 
of the Boko Haram and the resources that our defense persons are using 
to help with respect to the girls that have been kidnapped, and as well 
report to the extent of the crimes against humanity with respect to 
Boko Haram in Nigeria. I just got through meeting with African 
ambassadors, and they have mentioned that this is a regional issue.
  We have also introduced an amendment to make sure that the 
contractors that are utilized for intelligence gathering have 
oversight, to avoid some of the catastrophes that we saw in recent 
years of contractors not appropriately, for some, handling important 
information that they had and doing this through contractors.
  As we support our military, every day we see soldiers coming home 
from places far away and the need for posttraumatic stress disorder 
treatment. And my amendment, as I have done, asked for an increase of 
$5 million to be able to help those individuals. It is not throwing any 
bad money after good. It is recognizing that these symptoms and 
psychological problems may cause difficulty in providing provider-
patient communication.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. They may appear later in time and not mostly at the 
time that these individuals will come home. So I think it is important 
that we have the opportunity for diagnosing at a later period of time. 
These numbers are going to grow. There are over 200,000 veterans of 
military service who live and work in Houston, more than 13,000 of whom 
are veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom.
  Let me finally say that we must stand with the repair of the Veterans 
Administration health system. I know that it tracks this bill, but it 
is not this bill per se, but we want to support our troops. And then I 
want to make sure that we heighten again the Iran negotiations and that 
we have no gap in the time that Iran is to report on what they are 
doing to not have war nuclear weapons as opposed to civilian use.
  Let us also get re-engaged in the discussions on the Palestinian 
peace discussions, with the discussions going forward with Israel and 
Palestine, in spite of the fact that there are some very difficult 
things that we have to overcome. I believe it is important that we 
stand ready and are ready, that our negotiations are going forward to 
secure this Nation.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, if I might just indicate that we hope to keep 
at Ellington Field--keep our helicopter units in Texas, and we hope 
that the legislation provides that opportunity without closing out the 
National Guard without a further review. I think that is extremely 
important.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to speak during House consideration of the rule 
for the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2015.
  I thank Chairman McKeon, and want to express my appreciation for his 
years of service to our nation as chair of the House Committee on Armed 
Services. This year's appropriation bill's title reflects the 
dedication you have shown to our men and women in uniform in defense of 
our nation.
  I also thank Ranking Member Smith of the Armed Services Committee for 
his work on this bill.
  Thank you, Chairman Woodall and Ranking Member McGovern I appreciate 
for allowing me the opportunity to speak on the Rule for H.R. 4435.
  This is the 53rd consecutive National Defense Authorization Act, 
which speaks to the long-term commitment of the Congress and successive 
Administrations to provide for National Defense. This bill encompasses 
a number of initiatives designed to modernize our nation's military to 
combat threats defined by the last decade of war in Afghanistan and 
Iraq, while dealing with dramatic cuts in funding; along with 
sequestration; and the federal government shutdown last year.
  The National Defense Authorization Act's purpose is to address the 
threats our nation must deal with not just today, but in the future. 
This makes our work vital to our national interest and it should 
reflect our strong commitment to ensure that the men and women of our 
Armed Services receive the benefits and support that they deserve for 
their faithful service.
  Our men and women in uniform are ending the longest military conflict 
in the history of our nation. The lessons learned are hard, but 
solutions to improve our ability to provide the tools our troops will 
need to protect themselves were developed based on their experiences. 
Now it is our obligation to be sure that these new tools for the 
defense of our troops are available for their use when and where they 
are needed.
  The bill will provide for resources to address the threats posed by 
improvised explosive devices, chemical agents, drug interdiction and 
dangerous drugs entering our nation.
  The military needs the funding in the bill that would address 
munitions destruction, support the Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund 
and support our work with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
to make more efficient the work of protecting America and our interest.
  We do live in a dangerous world, where threats are not always easily 
identifiable, and our enemies are not bound by borders. The Boston 
Terrorist Attack last year reminds us of how fragile our nation's 
security could be without a well-trained and -equipped military.
  The definition of war has changed and with it our understanding about 
what is needed to combat a unique type of enemy that fights under no 
flag or for any nation.
  U.S. Special Operations Command, a vital part of our military, 
provides much of the special skills needed to defend our nation. This 
legislation continues to build on previous efforts to support their 
important work.
  There are several Jackson Lee amendments before the Rules Committee 
for consideration. These amendments are simple, straightforward, and 
are intended to improve the underlying bill. I believe they would 
command the support of a majority of the House, and I urge the Rules 
Committee to make them in order.


                 JACKSON LEE-WILSON-LEE AMENDMENT (#65)

  This amendment (#65), co-sponsored jointly by Congresswoman Barbara 
Lee of California and Congresswoman Frederica Wilson of Florida, and 
Congresswoman Kelly of Illinois have joined efforts to make three 
important contributions to the bill): strongly condemns the ongoing 
violence and the systemic gross human rights violations against the 
people of Nigeria carried out by the militant organization Boko Haram, 
includes the cowardly kidnapping of the more than 200 young 
schoolgirls; expresses support for the people of Nigeria; and the 
Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the nature and extent of 
the crimes against humanity committed by Boko Haram in Nigeria.
  Since 2013, more than 4,400 men, women, and children have been 
slaughtered by Boko Haram.


                JACKSON LEE-WILSON-LEE AMENDMENT (#186)

  The second Jackson Lee Amendment (#186) directs the Secretary of 
Defense to conduct a study to ascertain the extent to which civilian 
contractors are used in the conduct of intelligence activities and the 
type of information to which such contractors are exposed or have 
access.
  The amendment also requires the Secretary to submit to Congress a 
plan for reducing by 25 percent the number of civilian contractors with 
top secret security clearances that are engaged in intelligence 
gathering and analysis activities.

[[Page 8540]]

  The disclosure of leaked and highly sensitive classified information 
to the Washington Post and the Guardian by a contract worker with a 
security clearance raises several very important and disturbing issues.
  Something went very wrong in the conduct of this individual's 
security clearance background investigation, which is troubling enough 
in itself but particularly alarming given that more than 3.5 million 
persons hold a Confidential or Secret clearance.
  The cost of government security classification in 2005 was $7.66 
billion and in 2011 the total was $11.36 billion.
  According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence 2012 
Report on Security Clearance Determinations there were 483,263 
contractors with Top Secret security clearances.
  In the previous year 133,493 contractors receive approval for Top 
Secret security clearances. At the time of the report over 1.4 million 
Federal government employees and private sector contractors held Top 
Secret security clearances.
  These costs are not all encompassing, but were generated by 41 
executive branch agencies including the Department of Defense.
  Another consequence of contracting out national security work is the 
power it may extent to a private company over the most sensitive 
information our nation may hold.
  For example, only the person with the Top Secret classification 
authority may classify information. Only original classifiers are 
authorized to decide what information if made public could cause harm 
to national security.
  Between 2003 and 2004 original classification authorities increased 
the number of classified documents from 234,052 to 351,150. In 2011, 
the Department of Defense original classification activity generated 
62,753 classifications.
  The consequences for making more and more information Top Secret 
could lead to the government's need for more persons working for 
contactors receiving classifications to do this type of work. At some 
point the ability to manage the work absent contractors can become very 
difficult.
  My amendment simply directs the Secretary of Defense to study the 
feasibility of implementing a modest reduction in that number 
consistent without jeopardizing the nation's security.


                 JACKSON LEE-WILSON-LEE AMENDMENT (#68)

  The third and final Jackson Lee Amendment (#68) increases post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) funding by $5,000,000.
  Last year, the Rules Committee made in order the identical amendment 
to the FY14 NDAA, which was approved by the full House. I ask the 
Committee to make this amendment in order again this year.
  Post traumatic stress disorder is one of the most prevalent and 
devastating psychological wounds suffered by the brave men and women 
fighting in far off lands to defend the values and freedom we hold 
dear.
  PTSD symptoms and other psychosocial problems may cause difficulty in 
provider-patient communication, reduce patients' active collaboration 
in evaluation and treatment, increase the likelihood of somatization, 
and reduce patient adherence to medical regimens.
  As with other anxiety disorders and depression, most patients with 
PTSD are not properly identified and are not offered education, 
counseling, or referrals for mental-health evaluation.
  A suicide bomber, an IED, or an insurgent can obliterate their close 
friend instantaneously and right in front of their face.
  Yet, as American soldiers, they are trained to suppress the agonizing 
grief associated with those horrible experiences and are expected to 
continue with their mission. And carry on they do, with courage and 
with patriotism.
  According to surveys conducted of troops in Iraq, 15-20% of Army 
soldiers suffer PTSD symptoms, including nightmares, flashbacks, 
emotional detachment, dissociation, insomnia, loss of appetite, memory 
loss, clinical depression, and anxiety.
  Approximately 35% of soldiers seeking some kind of mental health 
treatment within a year of returning from combat.
  I am reminded of the continuing need to treat PTSD every time I 
return to my district because Houston is home to one of the largest 
populations of military service members and their families in the 
nation.
  There are over 200,000 veterans of military service who live and work 
in Houston; more than 13,000 of whom are veterans of Operation Enduring 
Freedom (Afghanistan); and Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq).
  Although some of a soldier's wounds are invisible to the naked eye 
they are still wounds that should be properly treated. One of the best 
ways to increase access to treatment is to increase the number of 
medical facilities and mental health professionals who are available to 
serve the needs of men and women currently serving and those who have 
become veterans.
  We must continue to direct our efforts as a body to ensure that our 
troops remain the best equipped and prepared military force in the 
world. They are not just soldiers they are sons and daughters, husbands 
and wives, brothers and sisters--they are some of the people we 
represent as members of Congress. Support of them is a sacred 
obligation of Congress both to those who are at risk on battle fields 
and serving as the guard against threats around the world, but they are 
also those who have returned home from war.
  I thank Chairman Woodall and Ranking Member McGovern for their work; 
to manage the debate on the rule for the NDAA Fiscal Year 2015 bill.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I would advise you and my friend from 
Massachusetts that I do not have any further speakers remaining, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Madam Speaker, as I indicated at the beginning of this debate, we 
have no objection to this rule. We are glad that the 2015 Commerce-
Justice-Science appropriations bill is coming to the floor under an 
open rule. We have no problem with moving ahead on general debate or 
the amendments made in order on the Department of Defense authorization 
bill, and so we support this rule.
  It is my hope, as I said earlier, that when the next rule in the 
defense bill comes to the floor that it will allow for there to be 
debate on a number of the important issues that Members of this House 
feel deserve that debate.
  I have nothing but the highest regard for all those who serve on the 
House Armed Services Committee, but I have to say that this bill is too 
big. It is too big. We have not done a very good job, I don't believe, 
in this Congress of getting rid of the bloat, the waste, and the 
duplication within the Pentagon budget. For some reason, we have 
Members who think that the way you show you are tough in terms of the 
defense of our country is by supporting bills that add more and more 
and more money to the Pentagon's budget.
  The bottom line is that strong defense doesn't mean wasteful defense. 
It doesn't mean weapons systems that are obsolete or that are not 
practical or that are not needed anymore. It doesn't mean a bloated 
bureaucracy.
  Again, as I said earlier, this bill fails to make any of the tough 
choices. I want to make sure our troops get all the equipment and all 
the support that they need. I want to make sure that we are prepared 
for anything that might come at us in the future.
  But wasteful defense spending doesn't help us at all. And so there 
are some significant problems with the underlying bill. In addition to 
being too big, this bill also fails to cut our nuclear arsenal. We are 
spending billions and billions and billions of dollars maintaining an 
arsenal way bigger than anybody believes that we need to, but we don't 
deal with that issue.
  This bill continues to place restrictions on the transfer of inmates 
from Guantanamo, which is problematic. Again, this bill fails to face 
reality and make any of the tough choices in terms of overall defense 
spending.
  Again, I will appeal to my colleagues on the Rules Committee to 
please make sure that we have the opportunity to debate the issue of 
Afghanistan on this floor. We are at war, and we very rarely discuss it 
in this Chamber. To those who say, well, it is up to the President to 
decide whether we stay or go, I will remind my colleagues that we have 
a role in that, too. Our indifference and our silence over the last 
several years means we are complicit in this war's continuing, the 
longest war in the history of our country.
  As I said, I will offer an amendment, along with Mr. Jones of North 
Carolina and Mr. Smith, the ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee, to make it clear that if the President wants to continue the 
deployment of U.S. forces beyond 2014, which was his stated policy last 
year, then we ought to vote on it. We ought to vote on it. And if you 
believe we should stay longer, you can vote ``yes.'' If you believe 
that enough is enough, then you

[[Page 8541]]

can vote ``no.'' But after that time, after all this time, we have an 
obligation in this Congress to speak up and speak out and make sure 
that our constituents know what we are doing. We cannot allow this war 
to go on forever on autopilot. We have a responsibility here.
  I have heard the arguments of my friends who want to stay. They are 
compelling arguments. Make them on the House floor, and have the next 
Congress decide whether or not we should continue the war there.
  I will just close with this. When people say to me that there is no 
place to cut in the Pentagon's budget, I would urge them to talk to 
some of the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces or some of the 
men and women who serve in the Pentagon who, over the years, I have met 
with who talk freely of places where we could cut without sacrificing 
any of our national security, places we could cut, quite frankly, that 
will enhance our security, because they believe that wasteful defense 
spending has no place in our budget, especially during these tough 
fiscal times.
  But I also believe when we talk about national defense it also means 
the quality of life in our country and whether or not people have a 
job, whether or not people have adequate health care, whether or not 
people have access to good education, and whether or not we end hunger 
and poverty in our country. All those things matter, as well.
  So, again, I urge my colleagues to support the rule because, quite 
frankly, there is no reason to oppose it. And I would urge my friends 
on the Rules Committee to please be generous in offering and allowing 
Members to offer many amendments on this bill. This is an important 
bill not just for people on the Armed Services Committee but for all 
Members.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, it would be easy to close debate just by reminding my 
colleagues that the gentleman from Massachusetts plans to support this 
rule. That is reason enough when we can find agreement in the Rules 
Committee on moving forward. But I hate to stop it there just because 
it is worth celebrating. It is absolutely worth celebrating.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts is absolutely certain we are 
spending too much on the Department of Defense. I am absolutely certain 
we are spending too little. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
absolutely certain that waste has no place in the Department of 
Defense. I, too, am absolutely certain that waste has no place in the 
Department of Defense.
  Madam Speaker, just because this bill came out of the Armed Services 
Committee 61-0 does not mean that we do not have differences in this 
Chamber. We do. But this rule provides us an opportunity to debate 
those differences and then provides an opportunity for the Members of 
this body to have their will done.
  Whether you are talking about the National Defense Authorization Act, 
or whether you are talking about the Commerce-Justice-Science 
appropriations bill, these bills did not come down from on high 
dictated by a Speaker or dictated by a minority leader. These bills 
were both crafted by the membership of this body, and this rule allows 
them to be perfected by the membership of this body should it pass this 
afternoon.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________