To amend title 10, United States Code, to require an Inspector General investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault.

Reserving the right to object, I'd like to understand the reasons--I understand the typographical errors and appreciate that the chair wishes to revise those, but I'm curious about one provision.

As the chair would remember, I came to the committee and asked that they not waive the rule for the Cassidy amendment because the Cassidy amendment will increase the deficit by $15 billion over 30 years. And of course the rules of the House don't allow us to engage in additional spending without an offset, and there is no offset. But the chair did waive all points of order, so the rules of the House don't apply to this additional $15 billion of deficit spending.

But now my understanding is that they want to substitute a different amendment, which, instead of $15 billion of additional deficit over 30 years, would only create $14,999,999,970 of new deficit.

I would like to understand why we're bothering to do this. I think over the span of 30 years, increasing the deficit by $14,999,999,970 versus $15 billion, which is easier to say because it has got a lot of zeros in it, what's the rationale? Why would we do this? Why do we need UC for this? I'm just curious.

Could the gentleman respond.

Continuing to reserve the right to object, so the bottom line here, if I can define it for our colleagues in simple language, is the net difference in waiving the rules of the House of $30, apparently the total waiving of the rules of the House to allow additional deficit spending. In contradiction of what the other side of the aisle normally proposes, there is somehow a dramatic difference between $14,999,999,970 of new debt and deficit and $15 billion, which requires a substitution of this amendment, because it's my understanding it would somehow then violate the Budget Act twice. Is that accurate? Even though you've waived the rule and we can go ahead with the amendment, you would be violating the Budget Act twice. So we just want to say we're only violating the Budget Act once; is that the difference?

Further reserving the right to object, if you're going to waive the rules of the House to create $15 billion in new deficit, I don't know why we need unanimous consent to waive the rules yet again to create $14,999,999,970 in deficit. I guess that makes a difference somewhere to someone, so I would not object.

I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We could have done this bill as a suspension bill 2 days ago. That is, it probably could have passed the House by unanimous consent, which is very rare, if this provision had not been added.

There is consensus on both sides of the aisle that it's critical that we move forward with this agreement with Mexico to deal with shared resources in the western Gulf of Mexico. However, the Republicans have chosen to use this as a vehicle to launch yet another attack on Wall Street reform, on the Dodd-Frank reforms, which is totally unnecessary. Obviously, it was presented as: it's potentially, possibly, maybe a future problem for American oil companies if the Mexicans change their law. Under their existing law, there is no problem. We're going to see disclosure, and it will be disclosure by Mexican companies that are bidding or by American companies that are bidding or by any other foreign company that is bidding in the gulf. You will see full disclosure, so no one would be at a commercial or at an economic disadvantage.

But the premise here is that, someday, Mexico might change their law, and therefore our companies would have to disclose and theirs wouldn't. If that did happen at some potential possible future date by some potential possible future Mexican Government, then the Securities and Exchange Commission has adequate authority, even under the Dodd-Frank reforms, to waive that requirement because it would be in the public interest and commercial interest of the United States of America to waive that provision in this instance. Now, that's dealing with Mexico.

The second problem with what they're proposing here is that they actually want to totally repeal this section of Dodd-Frank for any future agreements with any other nations on a transboundary basis, which could certainly include Canada and, likely, with the conflicts that are looming over the Arctic Ocean and the resources up there, with Russia. Now, I get pretty

nervous when I start thinking that U.S. companies are going to be negotiating secret agreements with Russia and that somehow these are going to protect our taxpayers, that they're going to protect our shareholders, that they're going to protect our public interest. That, I think, is really a very, very, very disturbing trend with this bill.

So the issue is: do we want to get this done? If we want to get it done, this is not the way to do it, because this bill, as amended by the Republicans to change the agreement and waive the rules for oil companies so they can make secret payments to the Government of Mexico, that will not pass the Senate. So we'll have yet another one-House bill, and we will further delay what the Republican side wants to expedite, which is offshore oil and gas development.

I would suggest that, rather than expediting things here, we're messing them up, and I would suggest to my colleagues that we oppose this bill in this form, that we bring it back as a clean authorization with the existing agreement with Mexico, and that we move forward and get it done. I expect, if we got it done here, we could bring it up again and get it done in a day or under suspension or perhaps, I think, with unanimous consent, even between today and tomorrow. Then the Senate would pass it with unanimous consent, and we'd be done with it.

Instead, we're going to have yet another example of the dysfunction of the Congress because we're going to pass a version here that cannot pass in the United States Senate, and then, I guess, the Republicans will try and blame the Senate for not wanting to waive the rules and allow oil companies to make secret payments to the Government of Mexico in order to garner commercial deals.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

That was very impassioned, and we can agree with the necessity of moving forward with the agreement. The problem is that the gentleman ignored the fact that the United States Senate will not pass this bill as written. They will not waive the Dodd-Frank disclosure rules to allow big oil companies to make secret deals with the Government of Mexico. They're not going to do that. So you're slowing things down by insisting on repealing part of these vital Wall Street reforms.

With that, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, who is an expert on this provision of law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

If the gentleman would go to the microphone, I would like to ask the gentleman a question, and I will yield to him.

Your assertion is that Mexico asked the Government of the United States to include a waiver of our financial services reform provisions in section 105 in this agreement, and the Obama administration didn't agree to that but Mexico signed the agreement anyway, and now you're trying to help out the government of Mexico to get something that you claim they wanted but didn't get from this administration; is that correct?

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Well, that's what you just said.

Well, please clarify.

Okay. With that, I would reclaim my time. I could ask to have the record read back, but I won't because it would delay things. But you said this is what Mexico wanted. You did say that just before as you spoke. Now you're saying that you believe that this is reflecting the spirit of the agreement. Now I will accept that. You believe that changing the agreement by waiving our financial services law is in the spirit of the agreement. I don't believe that. Maxine Waters, who serves on the Committee on Financial Services, doesn't agree with that. And, unfortunately, the President of the United States doesn't agree with that, so this bill is going nowhere. It's not going to get out of the Senate. They have a bipartisan bill over there that doesn't waive Dodd-Frank that they could pass by unanimous consent. We could be done with this. But no, we're not going to do that; we're going to play games.

So here's what the President said. He's got something to say about this in the end, he really does:

The administration cannot support H.R. 1613, as reported by

the House Committee on Natural Resources because of the

unnecessary, extraneous provisions that seriously detract

from the bill. Most significantly, the administration

strongly objects to exempting actions taken by public

companies in accordance with the transboundary hydrocarbon

agreements from requirements section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank

Act and the Securities and Exchange Commission's natural

resource extraction disclosure rule. As a practical matter,

this provision would waive the requirement for the disclosure

of any payments made by resource extraction companies to the

United States or foreign governments in accordance with a

transboundary hydrocarbon agreement. The provision directly

and negatively impacts U.S. efforts to increase transparency

and accountability, particularly in the oil, gas, and

minerals sectors.

So if we proceed with this bill in this form, the President will veto the bill, and we'll be back again. And how many months that'll take, I don't know. But to assert that somehow Mexico wanted this, or the administration wanted it, and they just kind of forgot to put it in the agreement, and now we're helping them out, even though the administration says they don't want it, and I don't know what the government of Mexico says--and then there was another issue raised about confidentiality provisions.

In fact, the SEC has more than adequate capabilities to do general exemptions in sections 12(h) and 36 of the Securities and Exchange Act. They could issue exemptions from this disclosure requirement under this authority, should it be warranted. In fact, the SEC today confirmed with us that there is nothing that would prevent the SEC from issuing exemptions should they be warranted. Now, the objection here is to waiving any and all future agreements from any public disclosure of payments to foreign governments. That's what you're doing here today. It's not about this one agreement or problems that might crop up with Mexico. That could be accommodated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. It's about doing away with a critical section of Dodd- Frank. And if you want to do that, why not bring it up in the Financial Services Committee, have a hearing, have a debate, send us a bill and repeal it. But don't try and do it in the dark of night in the hope that if you attach it to this agreement, which we all agree should be entered into, Mexico wants, U.S. wants, that you're doing anybody a favor.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters)

May I ask the Chair, how much time remains on either side?

Okay. Does the gentleman have more speakers or would he be closing?

Mr. Speaker, what we've heard here today is that by modifying this agreement, by preventing disclosure of payments by big oil companies to foreign governments which could essentially constitute under-the-table agreements, bribes, however you have it, will somehow lower gas prices for the American people.

Now, I think if you went out and asked the American people, ``Do you think allowing ExxonMobil or any of the other big companies to enter into secret agreements with foreign governments to exploit jointly held resources is going to benefit you at the pump?'' I think they'd kind of laugh at you. I mean, no offense, but they would.

The bottom line is there's also a further assertion that somehow this possible future development of this area will lower the price at the pump. It won't and it hasn't, and today the prices are excessive.

Why are they excessive?

Well, there's this funny little thing that happens just around Memorial Day every year. The refiners--and the refinery industry has been dramatically consolidated over the last few years because there's been buyouts and closures and everything else--they decide that they've got to do periodic maintenance.

It's got to happen at the beginning of the driving season; and, of course, they all schedule it at the same time and they limit refinery capacity, and then they say there's a shortage and the price jumps up 50 cents a gallon, like it did in Oregon just a month ago--50 cents a gallon in a week.

Whoa, what happened? Did you see anybody waving red flags saying, We don't have any gas, or yellow flags?

Anybody remember the seventies? No. Everybody had gas. They just jacked up the price, because that's the way that the oil companies celebrate the beginning of the summer vacation season for the American people, by increasing their profits with extraordinary and unwarranted increases in the price claiming there's somehow a shortage because somehow they're cleaning their refineries, or one of them had a problem. They are actually exporting gasoline from the west coast.

What does that mean?

There's actually a glut of oil in the gulf region right now that they can't refine. We've got refineries closed in California with oil sitting in storage tanks that can't be refined. And somehow, if we just had more oil to add to the glut, to add to the full storage tanks because the refineries are shut down to drive up the price--or maybe they're not shut down. There was actually an investigation last year. When they claimed they were shut down, they weren't. So we don't really know.

But to say, well, gee, we trust the oil companies. Let's let them negotiate secret agreements with the Government of Mexico, with Canada, with--ultimately, perhaps with Russia and that will benefit the consumers at the pump, it does not meet the laugh test.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Reclaiming my time, we heard earlier the assertion that that would protect American workers. I'm not quite certain how that's going to work out. And probably it doesn't even help stockholders, because they might really want to know what's going on. I'm not sure.

I thank the gentlelady.

The bottom line here is it's simple. If we pass this bill in this form, the President would veto it if it came out of the Senate. It will not come out of the Senate.

They are actually acting in a true bipartisan way in the Senate, and they have a bill which could receive probably unanimous consent that does not contain this provision, that does not provide this waiver of the Dodd-Frank Act in favor of the big oil companies.

It's simple. I can see, you know, and I can count, and in all probability the Republican side will prevail here, but they are not furthering the cause of expediting the signing of this agreement and the execution of this agreement between Mexico and the United States by sending a bill to the Senate that the Senate will not pass.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding.

I believe Ms. Waters stated very clearly that there is substantial, if not unanimous, support on this side for this agreement without this provision, which would ultimately lead to the development of these resources.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 274, I call up the bill (H.R. 1613) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to provide for the proper Federal management and oversight of transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1613.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act.

This bill was introduced by my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member of the Natural Resources Committee, and will provide the certainty needed to move forward with offshore energy development in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico along our Nation's maritime boundary with Mexico.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mexican Foreign Secretary Espinosa signed this long-awaited agreement February 2012. Since that time, the House Committee on Natural Resources has repeatedly requested draft-implementing legislation from the Obama administration. But it was not until March 19, 2013, when the committee finally received just that--several short sentences to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to promote development of energy resources that lie along the boundary with Mexico.

Despite the Obama administration sitting on this agreement for over a year, that should not in any way downplay the importance of getting this agreement approved. This agreement is good for our economy, and it's good for our American workers.

Opening new acreage for energy exploration and development creates jobs, it creates more American-made energy, and it helps reduce our dependence on foreign countries for our energy needs.

According to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the State Department, this agreement would open up nearly 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico. These areas are estimated to contain as much as 172 million barrels of oil and 304 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

These areas are ready to be explored and developed, and this bill will give the U.S. job creators the certainty they need to move forward. Activity can begin once this agreement is enacted.

This bill executes the implementation of the U.S.-Mexico agreement, but it also looks to the future--providing a clear and transparent path for how future administrations should go about submitting future agreements with other countries with which we share international boundaries. Given the fact that this implementing legislation was bogged down within several agencies for over a year, I believe that Mr. Duncan's solution is a necessary step to ensure a smoother and more expedient process in the future.

H.R. 1613 also includes language to protect American workers by removing uncertainty surrounding the application of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act disclosure requirements.

The agreement signed by the Obama administration and Mexico specifically provides what royalty payments Mexico would receive from energy developers. However, under current U.S. law, companies that commercially develop oil, natural gas, or minerals are required to disclose payments made to a foreign government. This could create a potential conflict because Mexico has yet to decide how they will collect royalties and could potentially set regulatory measures that prohibit disclosure of payments.

This would then block American workers from being able to develop these resources.

Waiving the Dodd-Frank requirement is necessary in order to help protect American jobs and American-made energy in this instance. Without it, foreign-controlled energy companies could develop this American energy resource. The royalty payments to Mexico would still be undisclosed and kept private, but the net result would be that Americans would lose out on this energy potential.

The Natural Resources Committee and Mr. Duncan have worked hard to advance this bill and get it signed into law. It's important to American energy, to American jobs, to American energy security, and it is important in order to support a positive relationship with our neighbor to the south, Mexico. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the author of this legislation, a member of the Natural Resources Committee and of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), who worked very hard on this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Radel).

I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Let me clarify just a few major points here. First of all, the President did not say he would veto it. He said he had a concern. I accept that. But the President did not say he would veto this legislation. After all, it was his Secretary of State that negotiated the agreement. Why would he veto an agreement negotiated by his Secretary of State?

Secondly, if this could pass so easily out of the Senate, as my friend from Oregon asserts, why hasn't the Senate passed it?

We always ask that question over here. In fact, sometimes we get ourselves in a gridlock because we're so, maybe, frightened of what the Senate may or may not do.

Listen, if the Senate wants to pass this agreement without this provision, do it. Nobody is preventing them from doing it. Nobody.

Now, let me make another observation here that I think is probably more important in this debate than anything else that has been said, and that is, as was pointed out several times--I mentioned it in my opening remarks; Mr. Duncan mentioned it; Mr. Salmon mentioned it--in 2012, this agreement was signed. None of the information was given to us because we had to implement it. Now, I wonder why. Could it possibly be that the mindset of this administration, which, by the way, has consistently been nonresponsive to more exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf offshore--if I may, Mr. Speaker, go back just a bit.

When this administration took office, there was no moratoria on the Pacific or Atlantic coasts. One of the first actions of this President was to lock up 85 percent of those potential resources. So maybe they do have a bit of a bias against offshore drilling.

So here's an amendment, here's an agreement that was signed over a year

ago. It took over a year for it to come here. Because of no action on their part, it was going nowhere legislatively until Mr. Duncan said, Listen, this is something we ought to do.

So perhaps, Mr. Speaker, perhaps, is the reason why they're taking this one element--and I'll talk about that in a moment--as a reason to oppose this legislation really because they're trying to cover up the fact they don't like any offshore drilling?

I'll let somebody draw whatever conclusions they want. I simply ask the rhetorical question.

I will be more than happy to yield to my friend on that point. I assume he wants to talk about that, and I'm more than happy to engage in that debate.

Reclaiming my time, I think if you go back and look at the bills that have come in front of this body before in the last Congress--in fact, later on today--you will find that the overwhelming opposition to that legislation, if it's going to mirror what happened in the last Congress, was to oppose offshore development. So I'll just make that observation. Others can draw the conclusion.

But here is something that is very curious about this debate on why we should defeat this legislation because of this provision dealing in disclosure.

Anybody could have offered an amendment to take that provision out of the bill. It would have been perfectly in order. There's no parliamentary problem with striking from a bill. And there was an amendment, by the way, that was offered by a Member from the other body but was withdrawn. Both of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that are arguing against this because of this provision, they could have offered the amendment. It would have been made in order, and we could have debated it. But the amendment wasn't offered. I don't know why.

I will be more than happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I simply said that there is a pattern in this administration and with my friends on the other side that they oppose that. I'll let others draw that conclusion.

I will be glad to yield to the gentlelady.

Reclaiming my time, we believe that this provision in Dodd-Frank is contrary to the agreement because the only moneys--and I'll get to this point. I was going to get to it later, but I'll get to it right now. The only moneys that go to Mexico are what the Obama administration agreed to for these royalties or leases. That is the only money that goes to Mexico. So we believe that there's no reason to have this particular requirement in the bill, and that's why we did it.

Now you can disagree with that, of course. You have every right to do it. But if you really believe that this bill should be defeated because of that provision, why didn't you offer an amendment? Wait, there was an amendment that was offered and then withdrawn. Curious? I don't know what their reasons are.

So all I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a good piece of legislation. It deserves bipartisan support. And if the Senate, to conclude, has a different view, let them pass their different view and we'll work it out. Isn't that the reason our Founding Fathers had two bodies? So we can work out the differences?

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC, June 5, 2013.

Hon. Doc Hastings,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hastings: On May 15, 2013, the Committee on

Natural Resources ordered H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental

Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act,

as amended, to be reported favorably to the House. As a

result of your having consulted with the Committee on

Financial Services concerning provisions of the bill that

fall within our Rule X jurisdiction, I agree to discharge our

committee from further consideration of the bill so that it

may proceed expeditiously to the House Floor.

The Committee on Financial Services takes this action with

our mutual understanding that, by foregoing consideration of

H.R. 1613, as amended, at this time, we do not waive any

jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or

similar legislation, and that our committee will be

appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar

legislation moves forward so that we may address any

remaining issues that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction.

Our committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of

an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate

conference involving this or similar legislation, and

requests your support for any such request.

Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter

confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 1613, as

amended, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters

on this matter be included in your committee's report to

accompany the legislation and/or in the Congressional Record

during floor consideration thereof.

Sincerely,

Jeb Hensarling,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I find this amendment offered on this bill to be rather strange because the amendment usurps itself as an effort to protect states' rights. Well, the underlying bill is about an international agreement between the United States and Mexico, and that boundary is about 200 miles from the nearest shoreline. There is no jurisdiction of any State that goes that far out, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico. So I can assure the gentleman that there is nothing in this bill that would change any existing laws as it relates to states' rights and their waters.

But this amendment isn't necessary. It's simply restating the status quo. The sponsor of the amendment and all those concerned with upholding states' rights can be assured that the existing rights of the individual 50 States are fully respected and in no way undermined by this bill, as I just mentioned. However, adopting this amendment could impact international relations with foreign states. And the reason why is because in foreign law, as I understand it, the term ``state'' means foreign government. There's no explanation in the amendment about states, so that raises a concern.

So by adopting this amendment, you could potentially destroy the agreement that we have in place. And what will that do? Well, it would delay American energy production, and it would delay the creation of American jobs.

So I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, just simply to close, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This amendment is really unnecessary, and I think that chart points that out. You're talking hundreds of miles offshore, and yet the amendment asserts itself to protect states' rights. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I cannot connect the dots on that.

I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 260 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 260 is a structured rule that provides House consideration of amendments to this year's National Defense Authorization Act.

As I explained when I was down here yesterday, the Rules Committee receives hundreds of amendments to the NDAA every single year. This time we had 299 amendments to make our way through.

While the volume of amendments was massive, the Rules Committee evaluated each and every one in developing this rule. We were not able to make every amendment in order, but I believe this rule will allow for the exhaustive debate of a vast majority of the issues presented in committee.

Yesterday's rule provided for 1 hour of general debate on the underlying bill, H.R. 1960. Today, we're considering a structured rule that provides Members of the House with the opportunity to have copious and free-flowing debate on many of the issues contained in the underlying legislation.

As a member of both the Rules Committee and the Armed Services Committee, I know how complicated and far-reaching the National Defense Authorization Act can be. I've sat through multiple subcommittee marks on this legislation. We had a nearly 16-hour-long full committee markup on this bill, a meeting that started early Wednesday and lasted into Thursday morning. And now we've had two Rules Committee hearings on this bill, including yesterday's hearing, which took almost 10 hours from start to finish.

Having spent as much time with this legislation as I have, I can promise you this: the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014 is a good bill. That's why the Armed Services Committee passed it with an overwhelming vote of 59-2. And we need to acknowledge Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for fostering such a bipartisan and collaborative approach. This rule is the next step in that transparent and cooperative process.

Of the 299 amendments that we received in the Rules Committee, H. Res. 260 makes 172 of them in order. To use a technical term, that's a lot of amendments. Despite that, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will remind us that even with 172 amendments allowed on the floor, it's still not an open rule; and, clearly, they're right. But let me assure you that this is also a fair and inclusive rule.

Having considered each of the amendments that was offered in the Rules Committee, I can honestly say that what we have here today is a rule that gives the House the opportunity to debate all of the major topics contained in the underlying legislation without duplicating efforts and having multiple amendments on the same issue.

For example, we heard many Members speak on the House floor yesterday about sexual assault in the military. The underlying legislation takes significant and necessary steps to combat, prosecute, and prevent this heinous crime. But given the importance of this issue, the Rules Committee understandably received five different amendments all related to sexual assault. So I'm proud to say that H. Res. 260 provides the House with the opportunity to debate this issue and ask ourselves if there isn't more that we can do.

Another major topic, one that none of us can ignore, is the nature of our military's operation in Afghanistan. We need to ask ourselves what's going to happen at the end of 2014, at which time President Obama has indicated we will have moved strictly to a security operation in that country.

The Rules Committee received no less than four different amendments on Afghanistan. I'm happy to say the rule allows for debate on the issue by way of an amendment offered by my colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, and I look forward to that. I look forward to having the opportunity to join the gentleman from Massachusetts in supporting that important--and I think commonsense--amendment, and my hat's off to you for that.

And the list goes on--energy, the use of drones, Guantanamo Bay, missile defense. The rule allows for amendments on all these important topics. I am going to vote for some of the amendments that this rule makes in order; I'm going to vote against others. But first and foremost, I'm going to vote for this rule.

The bill was done the right way. It went through the subcommittee process; it had a thorough and lively markup in the full committee; and it went to the Rules Committee, where we were diligent about making sure we gave it the consideration it deserves and provided it with two rules.

H. Res. 260 is the next step in a thoughtful, bipartisan process. I'm proud of this rule and the underlying legislation and the process that has gotten us to where we are today. For that reason, I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in passing this rule, passing the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014, and making sure our men and women in uniform have the tools and resources they need to complete the mission safely and successfully.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), my colleague on both the Rules Committee and the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I have none.

Mr. Speaker, this may be my third National Defense Authorization Act as a Member of Congress, but it's my first NDAA as a member of the Armed Services Committee. Let me tell you, it's been an experience. It's an educational, time-consuming and sometimes an exhausting experience, but it's always been a gratifying one.

As the father of three sons that currently serve in the United States Army, I never forget the overarching purpose for all of our work on the Defense Authorization Act. I know that my HASC colleagues never forget it either.

I've had sons that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, sometimes simultaneously. I know what it's like to send a son or a daughter off to war. As a family, it's something that causes you anguish all the time. It's not something that should be done lightly. So I appreciate the McGovern amendment because it's going to provide the opportunity to actually discuss and put on the floor an ability for this House to actually authorize or continue authorization of any force.

I think this House has been, unfortunately, somewhat derelict in its duties because of what we've done in the past and what we've called the President to do when we went into Libya, even though limited by air support only. We should never put our men and women at risk unless this House has a say in that which is so precious to us, and that's our sons and daughters.

You heard Mr. Turner speak as relates to sexual assault, and I heard a lot on the floor about Ms. Speier. She had the ability in the Armed Services Committee--the committee I serve on--she had the ability to bring that up in committee and have unlimited debate--unlimited debate--within that body in regards to her amendment. She chose not to do that. Instead, she chose to bring it in front of the Rules Committee that has a limited time slot.

Of the 299 amendments that were brought forward, 172 were made in order that are going to be heard on this floor today. That's what this rule is about, about giving everybody access and to be heard on all the important aspects of the NDAA. So to say that she was locked out just isn't so. The ability was there. As a Member of the HASC Committee, she had the ability to have unlimited debate.

Remember, the NDAA passed out of that committee 59-2. That's about as bipartisan as you can get, and it really talks about the issues that are important to America and particularly as it relates to protecting our sons and daughters that are called upon to protect this Nation and called upon to go out and sacrifice for this Nation. We owe them that much. We want to make sure that they're successful in any mission that they're sent forward to participate in to protect the interests of this Nation and our Allies.

The American people hear in the news media about how partisan Congress is today. Although we have our disagreements, and I know those reports and folks back home can't be looking at the work we're doing on the Armed Services Committee if all they see is partisanship, because it's not there. If they were looking at the Armed Services Committee and this year's National Defense Authorization Act, they'd see the kind of collaboration that legislation is supposed to be about. They'd see a chairman and a ranking member who work together on a common goal. They'd see staff that works to benefit our warfighters and not a political party. They'd see an

NDAA that was passed out of the largest committee in the House of Representatives with only two people opposing it.

And, tomorrow, I hope they'll see a House of Representatives that can put politics aside and support our troops by overwhelmingly passing the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014.

It's a good bill. H. Res. 260 makes it even better by allowing the House to consider amendments covering all the major issues covered by NDAA and the Department of Defense at large. I always like to say that nobody has a monopoly on good ideas. And that truism is evidenced by the 299 amendments that were offered to this legislation. The rule provides time for a vote on the majority of those ideas. That's why I support the rule, I support the underlying legislation, and I hope the House, as a whole, can do the same.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the rule for the defense authorization bill is a structured rule. Over 300 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee, and 172 were made in order.

This was a very difficult task, made even more difficult because the majority scheduled only 2 days for debate on amendments to this 850- page bill. But I would like to add a special word of appreciation for the Rules Committee staff, both majority and minority, who worked tirelessly for long hours to prepare this bill and its amendments for debate. I think most of my colleagues do not have the appreciation for what the staff and even the members of the Rules Committee have to go through, but I think they should appreciate their work even more after this rule that is being brought before the floor today.

I am pleased that one of the amendments included in this rule is my amendment on the war in Afghanistan. This is a bipartisan amendment which will be debated and voted on later today. It is cosponsored by Walter Jones of North Carolina and Ranking Member Adam Smith of Washington, along with Representatives Lee and Garamendi of California.

A very similar amendment was not allowed debate last year; and I want to particularly thank Chairman Sessions, members of the Rules Committee, my good friend, Mr. Nugent, and the Republican leadership of the House for allowing a debate on the war to occur this year. It is the right thing to do; and I appreciate that they take seriously the responsibilities of the House to debate issues of war and peace and to sending and keeping our servicemen and -women in harm's way.

However, I'm a little disappointed that the debate will only last for 10 minutes. That's the amount of time designated for this amendment. Ten minutes is not really enough time for a genuine debate on the war in Afghanistan and what might next be required of our troops, and how much staying in Afghanistan will cost us.

Afghanistan has turned into the longest war in American history--over 12 years so far. And heaven only knows, Mr. Speaker, it has cost us dearly in both blood and treasure. Those costs will haunt us for decades to come, as so many of our veterans have returned wounded in body, mind, and soul: 2,235 American military personnel have been killed in Afghanistan, and even more will be sacrificed before our troops come home. Over 17,000 have been wounded. It's estimated that over 30,000 Afghan civilians have been killed since 2001; 349 of our veterans committed suicide last year, more than the 310 servicemen and -women who were killed in theater in Afghanistan.

Since 2001, including the money in this bill, we have spent $778 billion for Operation Enduring Freedom, nearly all of that in Afghanistan. Right now, as we speak on the floor of this House, we're spending over $7 billion each month in Afghanistan. Every hour costs us nearly $10 million. And all this time we have helped support a corrupt Karzai government, a government that gets billions of dollars each year and billions more under the table.

Surely this war and the possible extended deployment of our brave troops for an indefinite period of time are worth a little bit more time than has been given for debate.

But, Mr. Speaker, Members will have the opportunity to debate and vote later today on ensuring the President completes his timeline to transfer all combat military and security operations to Afghan control by the end of 2014, at which time U.S. involvement in combat operations is to end; and to express that should the President determine to extend the deployment of U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014, then the United States Congress should specifically vote to authorize that mission.

I would urge all of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--to join us in supporting this very, very important amendment.

Again, I do want to express my appreciation to my colleagues on the Rules Committee for making it in order. While I am pleased that my amendment was made in order under the rule, several other amendments on very serious military security issues were excluded from debate. I would just like to mention a couple of them.

In a bipartisan fashion, Members of Congress have expressed their shock and outrage over the epidemic of rape and sexual abuse and assault in all branches of our military and at all ranks and military institutions. It is unacceptable, and it is intolerable. While H.R. 1960 has many provisions that address aspects of this crisis, there were several amendments that were not allowed, in particular, amendments dealing with military sexual assault offered by Representatives Speier and Gabbard.

These amendments were serious efforts to advance this debate and to let Members of this House as a whole decide whether more needs to be done to prevent and reduce the level of military sexual assault, to prosecute and to bring to justice the perpetrators of sexual abuse, and to hold accountable the military chain of command and institutions that have allowed, facilitated, or tolerated this abuse. They should have not been excluded from this rule, and they deserve our most serious attention.

So because these and some other important issues fail to be included in the rule, I reluctantly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Again, I thank my colleague, Mr. Nugent, for his courtesies and for his kind words about my amendment, and I will now reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer.

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey).

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from my friend how many more speakers he has on his side?

Okay. Then I will yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge that we defeat the previous question. And if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to make this an open rule so that Members have the opportunity to offer any amendment allowed under the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include for the Record the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I think the Rules Committee had a difficult task given the fact that the leadership of this House has kind of only allocated 2 days for debate on the defense authorization bill. They had to deal with 300 amendments. They made 172 in order. I know that everybody worked hard to try to be fair. I appreciate, again, the courtesy extended to me on my amendment with regard to Afghanistan, and I appreciate my colleagues on the Republican side for their support.

I think the controversy still is around the issue of sexual assault in the military. A number of amendments, particularly those offered by Ms. Speier and Ms. Gabbard, were not made in order. That, unfortunately, makes it very difficult for many on our side to support this rule.

But I want to thank, again, the staff of the Rules Committee and the Members for work on this. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I want to thank the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee for his leadership on this issue as well as to thank my friend, Mr. Salmon from Arizona, for his leadership in the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee on this issue because he understands what is at stake.

One thing this bill will do is attract jobs. It will help the United States Government create energy sector jobs. The second thing it will do is help meet our energy needs, and it will help lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy by producing those energy resources here at home. That's a national security issue. By being less dependent on foreign sources of oil, we are less dependent on what goes on in that part of the world. There can be no national security without energy security, and this is a step in the right direction.

We are willing to say that the Obama administration got something right in forming this agreement and signing it. In February of 2012, Secretary Clinton signed this agreement with the Foreign Secretary from Mexico, Patricia Espinosa, to open up this area known as the ``western gap'' in the Gulf of Mexico so that both countries--Mexico and the United States--could explore and start producing oil and natural gas from this area.

What it does is to create a broader legal certainty along that U.S.- Mexico boundary area in order to foster more American energy development and job creation. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement estimates that this area contains as much as 172 million barrels of oil and 34 billion cubic feet of natural gas-- shared resources. Yet they're shared under a common border, a border between the United States Government and Mexico. If you think of a border, think about it out in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. It's a maritime boundary, and these resources lie underneath the Earth's Outer Continental Shelf. Underneath that border, who do they belong do? This agreement addresses that they are shared resources. They belong to both countries, and we ought to utilize this agreement in order to start harvesting those resources.

The gentleman talks about changes to Dodd-Frank and other things, but why is that necessary? Who will benefit? I'll tell you who won't benefit if we don't put this language in there. The people who won't benefit are the American consumers. They are paying almost $4 a gallon for gasoline. They won't benefit because we won't be producing American resources to meet their energy needs.

So why is this necessary? Without the changes to this agreement, the language in the agreement can create an impossible situation for American companies operating on transboundary hydrocarbon resources.

For example, Mexican confidentiality requirements may forbid the disclosure of the very information that the Dodd-Frank rule requires of American companies. This would lead to a situation in which companies that are regulated by the SEC have at the very least uncertainty about compliance with both Mexican and American disclosure laws. This uncertainty and potential disclosure conflict would place foreign state-owned oil companies, which are not regulated under Dodd-Frank or by the SEC, at a competitive advantage to the companies which operate under the United States' agreement and are regulated.

The change in this language will open up competition and allow American companies to actually go to work without the uncertainty as to which laws they need to comply with and which they don't. This is the right thing. The changes to this language will ensure that American energy development will go forward in the transboundary area and that those resources in that area will be harvested to provide the necessary energy for America, which drives our economy.

This is the right thing for America. We are willing to enact this agreement because we want to harvest those resources, and we want America to move toward American energy independence. Ultimately, we want to put Americans to work. We want to create jobs--good paying, long-term, energy sector jobs. We do that by moving toward American energy independence. We do that by enacting this agreement and by opening up 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for energy exploration and development. It's the right thing for America. It's a movement toward an all-American energy policy, utilizing American resources to meet American energy needs and putting Americans to work.

I can only see a win-win for both Democrats and Republicans and for all Americans by moving this agreement forward. We asked, from February 2012 until now, for the United States Department of the Interior to send us the enacting legislation, to send us the enacting ability so that we could vote on something in the last Congress, and they failed to do that. So understanding that we need to do that, the Natural Resources Committee took the bull by the horns and said, We're going to do it. We're going to pass the implementing language to enact that agreement and put Americans to work and provide those resources that are so vital to moving this economy along.

Let's just be clear, America, what we're talking about and where we're talking about.

This chart shows the Western Gap, the only area covered under the transboundary hydrocarbons agreement--the agreement negotiated by the Obama administration--to open up this area; 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico that's so far away from the shore of Florida that really makes this amendment not applicable.

This is the area we're talking about, this 1.5 million acres that would produce American jobs and American energy resources.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

I urge opposition to this motion, Mr. Speaker.

What we have here in this motion to recommit is just the latest attempt by a few on the other side of the aisle to cater to special interests instead of the needs of the American people.

Behind me, I have a copy of the transboundary area that we're talking about, the Western Gap. You'll notice in that map you don't even see the State of Florida.

This bill enacts an agreement between the United States Government and Mexico to open up a million and a half acres to offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, an agreement negotiated by and signed by the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in February 2012.

We want to make sure this agreement will help create American jobs. We want to make sure that we're developing our resources in a safe and responsible way. We want to make sure that this bill puts us on the path toward North American energy independence.

This bill does all of those things, yet the gentleman that offers the motion says he is against the bill. Actually, he said he's for it, but for a lot of different reasons. But this is an attempt to delay the fact that we need to make changes.

The time for delay is over. The time to come together in a bipartisan way to create jobs through energy is at

hand. We want to develop these resources to achieve North American energy independence and end our dependence on Middle Eastern sources of energy, and we want to reduce the cost of fuel for all Americans.

We want this bill to be part of an all-of-the-above, all-American energy strategy. We want to provide the regulatory clarity and the certainty that energy producers need to explore the area, create the jobs, and produce the energy that we need. And for all of you still on the fence about whether or not to support this bill, let us remember that this is the administration's agreement, and we actually want to get it enacted.

So let's get to work creating American jobs while producing American energy. Let's defeat this motion and let's pass this bill to put Americans back to work.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.