True Cost of Coal Act of 2013

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to Chairman Young, and to congratulate him on the bipartisan and transparent manner in which he has crafted the fiscal year 2014 Defense bill.

I also want to express my gratitude to Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, and all of the members of the Defense Subcommittee for their efforts. We would not be here today but for their outstanding effort.

I would also note that this will be the last Defense appropriations bill we bring to the floor with the membership of Mr. Bonner from Alabama. With his leaving this institution, we are losing a very serious and thoughtful Member who has worked assiduously every day to leave the world better, and I certainly want to recognize his individual contribution.

The bill also could not have been written without the dedication, hard work, and sound judgment of the staff that Mr. Young has already referenced. I do want to thank Tom McLemore, Sherry Young, Tim Prince, Jennifer Miller, Walter Hearne, Paul Terry, BG Wright, Brooke Boyer, Ann Reese, Adrienne Ramsey, Megan Rosenbusch, Maureen Holohan, Paul Juola, Rebecca Leggieri, Kent Clark, Michael Rigney, and Joe DeVooght.

The bill at hand is fundamentally aimed at restoring readiness and training for the services to areas that have suffered greatly in the budgetary upset of the current year.

While Chairman Young has noted that the bill's $212 billion in funding is approximately $28 billion more than the fiscal year 2013 post-sequestration level, it does contain a number of significant reductions. The bill cuts $617.8 million from the Joint Strike Fighter program to address unjustified cost growth and unjustified concurrency estimates for the program. It cuts another $112 million due to an overstatement of Army travel requirements. The bill rescinds $443 million for C-27-J aircraft.

The bill and report contain a significant amount of language and robust funding for initiatives to respond to sexual assault in the armed services. Sexual assault in any circumstance is unacceptable and maddening. The fact that it is prevalent within the military is even more so because of the standard to which our men and women in uniform hold themselves. These are individuals who are committed to give their ``last full measure of devotion'' to our Nation, who, in order to be effective, need to unconditionally trust each other. Sexual assault undermines all of this.

Though I strongly support the efforts contained in this bill, they are aimed mainly at offender accountability and caring for victims. Even though the comprehensive solution to this issue lies outside the services, it is imperative that the proper attitudes and training start during the recruitment process for the officers and enlisted and continue throughout each servicemembers' career.

I would also note that the bill includes $20 million above the request for suicide prevention and outreach, consistent with the funding level of the past 2 years. Suicides are another disheartening problem within the services, especially given the emphasis that the Department and Congress have placed on the issue over the past few years. But money is not the only solution. We need to spend the appropriated dollars as wisely and as effectively as possible.

I was taken aback in a hearing earlier this year to learn that the Navy has a collection of 123 programs aimed at addressing suicide and resiliency. While I am sure that each one of these programs is well- intentioned, the sheer number spreads resources too thin and creates confusion. To their credit, the Navy is in the process of implementing task force recommendations to dedicate more resources to the programs that truly work.

Additionally, I would like to express my support for a solution that benefits all future users of the Integrated Electronic Health Record program. I am proud of the efforts of our subcommittee and of the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs Subcommittee to effectuate this long-awaited improvement to medical care for our still-serving military members and our veterans. Additionally, the cooperation between our subcommittees and with our corresponding authorization committees demonstrates the importance Congress places on the issue.

I am pleased that the bill report contains provisions that enhance oversight at the Department. The Office of the Inspector General is funded at $347 million, which is nearly $35 million above the administration's request. This office plays a vital role in moving the Department towards auditable financial statements, which are long overdue and which I attach great importance to.

Also, while the committee increased funding relative to the budget request for environmental cleanup at Formerly Used Defense Sites, this increase is accompanied by additional reporting requirements. In the same vein as my prior comments, the money in this program must be spent more effectively going forward to ensure that we complete cleanup projects, not just continue them.

Regarding missile defense, the bill increases advance procurement funding for additional Ground-Based Interceptors. This funding is accompanied by a requirement to document the adequacy of the testing plan for the Ground-Based Interceptors.

In light of the program's recent test failure, I continue to be very concerned about the concurrency of this program. I believe it is essential to maintain rigorous standards to ensure that the weapons we pursue are fully developed before we begin fielding them, and once fielded, that these weapons effectively perform their missions.

Further, should the review to determine the cause of the latest test failure reveal significant problems, and if we understand that this program needs to be changed, we should reevaluate our position in conference.

While I support the bill, there are a few provisions that I have concerns with, in particular, the three general provisions regarding detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

I believe that the continued operation of Guantanamo Bay reduces our Nation's credibility and weakens our national security by providing terrorist organizations with recruitment material. I do regret that this bill and other relevant appropriations bills continue to thwart any attempts to close Guantanamo by prohibiting viable alternatives.

Further, I am concerned that the bill essentially prohibits a pay raise for civilian employees at the Department of Defense. We rely on the Department of Defense civilians working side by side with our military personnel to provide medical care for our troops, to perform vital logistics, maintenance and acquisition services, and to provide many other essential services within the Department. Even a modest raise that maintains pay equity between civilian and military personnel sends a critical message of support to these employees.

Looking ahead, I am concerned that if the shadows of the future remain unaltered, we will experience serious problems ensuring the continued defense of our Nation.

As Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments has noted:

Rather than getting larger and more expensive over the past

decade, the military just grew more expensive.

This reality makes our future choices even more difficult, and it is imperative that Congress join with the Department in working through these decisions at arm's length and also as a partner.

The Department of Defense did recommend some very difficult reductions in the budget submitted to us earlier this year, as they have done in previous years. We, as legislators, can no longer afford to reflexively reject those recommendations because they affect a specific company, a specific region of the country, or are simply not the most politic of choices to be made.

Our military is at a familiar crossroad, one they have been at before as the end of combat operations nears. The additions and subtractions to Defense funding made today must be carried out with an eye to the future, with a sense of the strategic impact on America's future ability to muster a force of successfully defending and protecting our country.

In closing, I again want to reiterate my appreciation to Chairman Young for his cooperation and assistance in addressing the interests we have expressed. He and his staff have ensured that the subcommittee continues its long tradition of operating collaboratively and effectively and transparently. I am pleased that we are finally considering this bill on the floor and look forward to the debate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would yield such time as she may consume to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

I would note to the gentleman from California that, with the recent concerns regarding security clearance processes for the Department of Defense and intelligence communities, I appreciate his bringing to our attention that the Department can increase the timeliness and quality of investigations and reinvestigations by using the Defense Personnel Security Research Center tools.

I yield to the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

As we have no further speakers, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I do not rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, but to cast a caution over the expenditure of the proposed funds. The bill contains $4 million, and this is a phenomenal program. I am not in any way suggesting otherwise.

But the gentleman's amendment is quadrupling funding in 1 year for this project from $4 million to $20 million. So I would hope that the people that are running this program understand that in a time of great fiscal constraint, they better very carefully, effectively, and wisely spend this additional money that I'm not objecting to, but I am very concerned about quadrupling $4 million that is already in a bill for a very good program.

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

My understanding as well during subcommittee consideration is that the new START proposed--and this is a new START proposed for 2014--provide very little explanation or rationale, and that's from the Department of Defense. The committee recommendation was for a reduction because of the poor justification by the Department itself. I think I am correct in my understanding.

I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I also appreciate having the time to associate myself with the remarks you have made on behalf of the gentleman's amendment.

Secondly, I note, as you point out, the subcommittee itself has done significant work and recognizes the problems that we face in the commitment we need to make to the individuals that the gentleman is trying to help with his amendment. So again, I very much appreciate the gentleman's remarks, as well as support for the issue in this particular amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).

Madam Chair, it does not appear that we have any other speakers on our side, so I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Again, I would not be opposed to the gentlewoman's amendment but would want to make the observation, given the observation I made in my opening comments, that I do wish she had chosen a different account for the offset.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I appreciate the recognition. And I think I speak for the subcommittee when I will suggest that we would be delighted to accept the gentlewoman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment and would want to make a couple of things clear to all of my colleagues.

The fact is the administration did ask for money. For the ballistic missile defense midcourse section in the bill they asked for $1.033 billion this year, fiscal year 2014. This is not absent an administration request.

Secondly, the gentleman from Arizona said that the bad test and the problems that they indicate are not unresolvable. I would absolutely agree with the gentleman, but this is a procurement account. Let us resolve these problems before we procure something that last month has not worked so we don't have to pull them out of silos, we don't have to invest additional taxpayers' money, and we don't have to waste that hard-earned money.

There are threats, and we ought to make sure the systems we deploy to protect our Nation work before we procure and deploy them.

I applaud the gentleman for his amendment and strongly support it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I certainly appreciate what my colleague from Wisconsin is trying to do with his amendment. As a former chairman and ranking member on the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, I certainly attach great importance to battery research. Mr. Frelinghuysen is on the floor as well, who chairs Energy and Water.

The concern I do have is to make sure that we are organized as the Federal Government on this research and that we are looking at the appropriate expenditure in the appropriate places for the funds.

One example I simply would give is that, in this 2014 fiscal year's Energy and Water appropriations bill, $24 million was provided to the Joint Center for Energy Research, a DOE energy innovative hub. This hub, which team includes five of the national laboratories and several major research universities, is seeking new technologies to move in the direction that my colleague supports.

So I do appreciate his long-term goal. Obviously, we have to reduce our dependency on carbon fossil fuel from a national security perspective, but, again, I want to make sure that we are cautious as far as where and how much of this money we can effectively spend in the coming fiscal year.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I rise in opposition because of where the funds for the gentleman's amendment are coming from.

The amendment would use funds from a committee priority, the Defense Rapid Innovation program. This program emphasizes technology development issues done primarily through small businesses.

Certainly, in my short time as ranking member on this subcommittee, I have been impressed by the lack of a true small business program at the Department of Defense, despite their protestations. DOD's track record of support for small businesses must be improved for many reasons, not the least of which is what small businesses provide to solve major issues for the Department. In the 2 years of program execution so far, fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the Department of Defense has received over 3,000 proposals for funding. This includes 2,200 proposals from small businesses across America for fiscal year 2012 funding for completion and execution this year.

Again, my concern is where the money is coming from in this amendment, and I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding and would point out to my colleagues that on this particular issue she has been dogged.

I do believe that this is one of a number of items within the bill where reasonable people can have a disagreement. Certainly the position that my colleague has from New Mexico is that she believes she has the most cost-effective approach that the United States Air Force should take. The problem that we face on the subcommittee, given the financial and fiscal constraints we have, is that the Air Force did not ask for funding for this program for fiscal year 2013 or fiscal year 2014. So we deferred.

I appreciate her concern, and I appreciate her raising it to the body without making any representations as to what the future holds, but again would commend her for her work on this program and again her doggedness on behalf of it.

I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding.

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 consideration of H.R. 2397, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Madam Chairman, the subcommittee has produced this bill after months of bipartisan cooperation, months of hearings, and months of classified briefings. We present a bill today that includes a base funding of $512.5 billion--$3.4 billion below the CBO estimate of the President's request and approximately $28.1 billion above the estimated fiscal year 2013 sequestration level. For Overseas Contingencies Operations, OCO, the bill includes $85.8 billion, which is $1.5 billion below last year's level.

We have worked closely with all parties. Mr. Visclosky has been involved in every step of the way on producing this legislation. Our committee staff is unrivaled anywhere in this Congress, and they have done a tremendous job for the subcommittee.

These are some highlights of the bill:

There is $580 million to fully fund the authorized military pay raise; $536 million to fully fund the anticipated fuel costs; $950 million to fully fund the 2nd Virginia class submarine; $922 million to restore Facility Sustainment, Modernization and Restoration funding; and $692 million for military medical research, including $246 million for cancer research and $125 million for traumatic brain injury research.

During the next couple of days we are going to consider 100 amendments. So everybody be prepared: it's going to be a long day and a long night. And Madam Chair, to get us started off on the right track, I'm going to reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY13.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY13.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY13.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY13.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY13.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY13.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY13.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY13.008

Madam Chairman, first, I would like to thank Mr. Visclosky for his much more detailed description of this legislation.

I would now yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, who has strongly committed to making sure that we pass all of our appropriations bills, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to an important member of our subcommittee, the very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Will the gentleman from Indiana yield?

Madam Chair, I am aware of the gentleman from California's deep interest, and I appreciate his proposed solution in finding ways to address this issue.

Like my good friend from Indiana, I agree that we should work with our friend Mr. Farr to ensure that the Department of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence leverage the security clearance research at PERSEREC in order to improve the precision and speed of investigations, and that is exactly why we included it in our report.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, the gentleman is correct. The administration's budget request for fiscal year 2014 includes no funds for the production of Abrams tanks, and the committee bill provides none. The Army is only now addressing the funds added for fiscal year '13, and production of the M1A2s will actually continue until December of 2014.

Foreign military sales have helped sustain a warm tank production line. Despite the delays and uncertainties in the FMS process, it is very likely that FMS sales will continue to play an important part in sustaining the tank line.

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the points raised by my colleague.

We will continue to monitor the overall requirement for tanks in both the active Army and the Army National Guard. We intend to relook at the issue of additional Abrams upgrades as we move forward in the appropriations process. We will have the benefit of more complete information on foreign military sales and of the Army's force structure analysis. Protecting the industrial base will remain a critical issue.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I do agree and the gentleman is correct.

I will tell the gentleman that I do agree. I would add that the ending of the Space Shuttle Program has also exacerbated the hardships of the industrial base, and I agree that the Navy's D5 program is now the cornerstone of the Nation's solid rocket motor production.

I feel that it is essential that the Navy sustain a steady production rate of 12 rocket motors per year as the minimum level to ensure that replacement motors are available to replace aged-out motors as well as to keep this unique and highly skilled engineering and workforce viable into the future. The industrial base has done a Herculean effort in downsizing and in becoming more efficient in the face of the declining workload as enhanced by the attractive pricing they provided the Navy on a recent motor contract.

I will work to ensure that the Navy has sufficient funding to maintain at least the minimum production required to sustain this critical industrial base.

Madam Chairman, I am happy to yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I claim the time.

Madam Chairwoman, for the reasons that the gentleman has already outlined, the committee had already added $30 million for the special purpose MAGTF, Crisis Response teams, as well as an additional $35 million for the new Marine Corps Embassy Security program.

The gentleman is exactly right that we're not doing enough on this issue, and we are certainly in support of his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time.

Madam Chairman, the Fisher Houses program is a real success story. It was initially started by Mr. Zach Fisher. After his death, the family continued.

The need was so great at the military hospitals; but also at the VA hospitals, there were no Fisher Houses. So the program was expanded, and we increased our involvement. The Congress had not been involved up to this point. The Congress appropriated money, and we've been appropriating $4 million a year to add to the Fisher House Foundation for the purpose of the Fisher Houses. We also allow for $11 million for transfers to the Fisher House operations.

I say, again, it's a real success story; and while it's additional money, we're happy to support the gentleman's amendment and make sure that the Fisher Houses continue.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Reclaiming my time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I would like a clarification on the time issues.

Since the time is structured, is it possible for the person offering the amendment to reserve that time when they have completed their statement?

Madam Chairman, very simply, most of this

money would be taken from the Special Operations Command funding. It's not a good idea. We're using the Special Operators more and more, all the time. We are finding them involved in places where you might be surprised, and I just don't think it is wise for us to be taking this funding from Special Operations. Special Operations are the Navy SEALs and the Special teams that go into difficult places. We prefer not to put limitations that this amendment would cause.

I yield to Mr. Visclosky.

I thank the gentleman for his comment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, although we're going to support this amendment from my colleague from Florida, I take this time to point out that we've already included an additional $20 million for the program, the same amount that was included in fiscal year 2013. Prior to 2013, the subcommittee typically included $8 million to $10 million annually for this program. But this bill, this year for 2014, has an additional $20 million, but it is a serious issue, and it is one that we can't take lightly, and so we do support the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, actually, this amendment moves money around within the Defense health program for something the committee has worked a long and hard time over the years dealing with: the subject of traumatic brain injury and psychological health research. In fact, we included an additional $125 million in the bill above the President's request because of the importance of the issue that we're facing. We are seeing more and more cases of TBI, traumatic brain injuries, than we had expected, I believe. So we added the additional money that the gentleman's amendment would move around in the DHP, so we have absolutely no problem with this amendment.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 312, I offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Chairman, the en bloc amendment has been agreed to by the minority and the majority. They are noncontroversial amendments that cover topics such as suicide prevention, traumatic brain injury, and National Guard issues. The sponsors of the amendments have agreed to the amendments being considered en bloc, and I would ask for the adoption of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, as much as I want to support my friend's amendment, I can't, so I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chairman, the money that he would use for a large part comes from the Special Operations Command, and I just don't think that we can restrict them, like some of the amendments that we're seeing, in their ability to move about the world as they have to move about the world and do the exciting things that they do.

But the gentleman's amendment adds $22 million to the $32 million that we already included for this program. Now, that is a 63 percent spike in funding for fiscal year 2014. That makes it very difficult for the program managers or anybody involved with the program.

To assume a 63 percent increase means there may be a lot of new jobs this year, but then the next year they'd all be fired and laid off because the money is not there. This is not a consistent program, except for the $32 million that we have included in this bill.

And so as much as I would like to support his bill, his amendment, I really can't. I just don't think the program managers can handle a 63 percent increase in this or, frankly, any program.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I'm not exactly sure how this is targeted or how it would support the $125 million increase already in this bill. PTSD is a serious issue. It's becoming more serious as time goes on and as our men and women return from the battlefield. And so we understand the importance of the program. We did increase it by $125 million.

This amendment, I think, is positive, and I'm not going to oppose it.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Madam Chairman, PTSD is going to be with us for a long time because there are men and women returning from the battlefield who believe they don't have PTSD or don't want to admit to the fact that they have it. I can certainly understand why they do not want that on their record. But, nevertheless, it is going to show up; and when it shows up, we need to be prepared to care for those who have fought this battle.

And so I support the gentlelady's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This amendment would add $25 million for the purpose of restoring these Formerly Used Defense Sites by cutting the same amount from the Army RDTE account for research and development.

As important as this amendment might be, Army research and development is extremely important to the soldiers on the battlefield. In today's battlefield in Afghanistan, we're facing an enemy that is constantly moving. As we move one direction, they move another direction. As we present a new device, a new weapon, a new system, they develop a way to get around it. It's important that we continue to fund Army research and development.

The President requested $237.4 million for this purpose. We added an additional $25 million for the cleanup of these sites over the President's budget request. The funding provided in the RDTE Army account supports critical research in Army laboratories and in colleges and universities across our country to ensure that our soldiers have the best that we can provide them as they face an enemy that is constantly moving on the battlefield. Unnecessary reductions to Army research and development is just not right, especially when we have already added the additional money over and above the President's budget request.

We understand the importance of restoring these sites, but we also understand the importance of maintaining our research and development for the soldier on the battlefield to have the most advanced technology and the most advanced weapons that he or she can possibly have to carry out their mission and to protect themselves while they're doing it.

So I must oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 312, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I'm hoping to convince my colleagues that, albeit what numbers you may have in this increasing and emerging epidemic of post-traumatic stress disorder, let me give a personal story that comes by way of my interaction often with veterans and, particularly, a post-traumatic stress disorder center that we were able to fund in a hospital that previously had not had the ability to serve Active Duty soldiers and veterans.

It's a small hospital off the campus of our main Veterans Hospital in Houston, Texas, but we established a post-traumatic stress disorder center there that allowed veterans who may not have traditionally been at the Veterans Hospital, not because they did not have benefits, but for a variety of reasons, to find a comfort place to be treated for their post-traumatic stress disorder.

And they were not just veterans of the Afghan and Iraq wars, but these were ones from the Persian Gulf, from Vietnam. And they could not thank the staff and could not thank the work that we had done to secure just a small amount of dollars, which this amendment does.

This takes a small amount of dollars from a very large funding for, certainly, a commendable challenge, but it is one that I believe would benefit, as we seek to create a better quality of life for our soldiers, wherever they might be, and our veterans.

This is a $500,000 deposit, if you will, on the high numbers of post- traumatic stress disorder. I have seen it in our returning soldiers, I have seen it in our veterans, and it is clearly something that is not going away.

I think the poignant story that I want to share is how grateful this particular veteran was, who said he had never been to treatment and his whole life had been turned around. His wife was there with him. She said their lives have been turned around.

So I ask my colleagues to consider the responsible approach that we have taken for just this amount of money to reinvest in our needy, but deserving, men and women who are both Active Duty. In the instance of the story that I gave, because this facility was able to utilize TRICARE, they could serve Active Duty, and they could serve those who were veterans as well.

So I thank the chairman and ranking member and urge support of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I'm overwhelmed and very grateful to Chairman Young, my dear friend who has done so much, as well as the ranking member, likewise, for his great service. He's done so much.

Let me just conclude by saying that PTSD, as both the chairman and the ranking member have agreed, is an invisible wound that you don't often see. One of the best ways to increase access to treatment is to increase the medical facilities and also the medical professionals. These additional dollars, as I understand the intent of both the ranking member and chairman, will be used effectively.

Post-traumatic stress disorder is one of the most prevalent, devastating psychological wounds suffered by the brave men and women. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I withdraw amendment No. 11.

I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and I thank the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Madam Chair, let me, first of all, acknowledge the hard work that it takes to provide for the men and women of the United States military and to secure America. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am well aware of the combined efforts, obviously, in the military and the line of demarcation between civilian, but we all are committed to the national security of this Nation.

This amendment deals with the reduction in funding of the procurement Defense-wide by $1 million. I want to give the good news. The good news is that this money would be put in deficit reduction. But I do want to acknowledge that one of the issues that we must address as we go forward in the collective intelligence agencies, as we have listened to some of the challenges that we are facing in light of the present status of the leaks that have occurred by an American citizen who was working in the capacity as a contractor--this impacts all of us. So as this $1 million would be submitted into the deficit reduction pool, I believe it is extremely important that we look very closely at the extended use of civilian contractors, the extended use of a budget that is responsible for 70 percent of the intelligence of this country.

Now, I know that some of the contractors deal with issues that are not individual personnel, but are dealing with research and dealing with equipment. But I believe that it is important that we look at the question that resulted in the disclosure of leaked and highly sensitive classified information, and the continuing raising of concern of whether or not the national security of this Nation has been impacted because of the outsourcing of intelligence responsibility.

In particular, I think we need to look at the outsourcing of determining top secret clearance. Obviously, the circumstances that resulted in the leaking is an individual that had an interesting resume, from the educational level of a high school GED--of which we respect and encourage people to complete their education--of the military service, and then on to top secret by a contractor who gave out top secret clearances. We hope that there was some kind of review. So my amendment is intended to highlight this issue.

I would hope that as we proceed, that this question will, if you will, have the ability to slow--not halt--the use of civilian contractors out of all of our agencies dealing with the issue of intelligence. We want to assure the American people that we are concerned about the protection of this Nation's national security-- civil liberties as well, but also to prevent the leaks that have occurred.

Let me conclude my remarks and let me just say that I hope this brings about a discussion that will cross jurisdictional lines of the Judiciary Committee, the Intelligence Committee, our appropriators. Let's fix this enormous use and reliance on these contractors' outsourcing. Let's develop a highly trained group of Federal Governmental professionals committed, if you will, to the ongoing service to their Nation. Respecting contractors have the same loyalty, but I think it would be better, Mr. Chairman, if we can frame the utilization of contractors in such a way that we can be assured that everything that deals with the national security of this Nation will be protected.

With that, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Young and Mr. Visclosky for their leadership for an important responsibility in this Nation.

My amendment increases funding for the Defense Health Program's research and development by $10 million. These funds will address the question of breast cancer in the United States military.

The American Cancer Society calls several strains of breast cancer as a particularly aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates; in this instance, it's a triple negative. But I raise an article that says: ``Fighting a Different Battle; Breast Cancer and the Military.''

We all know, by the way, that breast cancer can affect both men and women. The bad news is breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women in the military as combat. Let me say that sentence again. Breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women in the military as combat. More than 800 women have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Army Times; 874 military women were diagnosed with breast cancer just between 2000 and 2011. And according to that same study, more are suspected. It grows.

The good news is that we have been working on it, and I want to add my appreciation to the military. This, however, will allow for the additional research. As new young women come into the United States military, as women stay longer in the United States military, as women get older in the United States military, as women ascend to leadership roles in the United States military, these dollars provide research.

Not only is breast cancer striking relatively young military women at an alarming rate, but male servicemembers, veterans and their dependents are at risk as well. With a younger and generally healthier population, those in the military tend to have a lower risk for most cancers than civilians--including significantly lower colorectal, lung and cervical--but breast cancer is a different story.

Military people in general, and in some cases very specifically, are at a significantly greater risk for contracting breast cancer, says Dr. Richard Clapp, a top cancer expert at Boston University who works at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on military breast cancer issues. He says life in the military can mean exposure to a witch's brew of risk factors directly linked to greater chances of getting breast cancer.

So, my friends, I am asking that we do the right thing. We're on the right track, we're on the right rail, we're on the right road. But with the expansion of women in the military, I can assure you, for long life, a vital service that

these men and women give, it is extremely important to move forward with this amendment.

Researchers point to a high use of oral contraception that's linked to breast cancer among women that would ensure that this particular amendment would be a positive step forward.

So I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me thank the gentlemen, and thank them for their commitment to the men and women of the United States military. And let me thank my colleagues for accepting this amendment.

With that, I know that we will be safer, secure and healthier with this fight against breast cancer that continues to grow in the United States military.

I ask my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

The U.S. Navy has acknowledged a growing problem that threatens its dominance at sea. It's strike reach is shrinking and aging, while potential enemies' attack reach is growing and modernizing. We recognize this most specifically within the Asia-Pacific region. It's because of this growing recognition that the Navy is exploring new weapons in order to successfully execute our strategic rebalance of military assets to the Asia-Pacific region.

A longstanding Navy urgent operational needs statement and related intelligence estimates detail a troubling capability and readiness gap that have compelled the Secretary of Defense to direct accelerated development of an over-the-horizon surface warfare missile that can be launched from aircraft or surface vessels and strike well-defended moving maritime targets.

Currently, surface-launched anti-ship missiles face the growing challenge of penetrating sophisticated enemy air defense systems from long range and present the potential for large no-go zones, which deny the Navy access in key conflict areas.

The military expects our adversaries will continue their development of increasingly sophisticated anti-access area denial capabilities that are able to jam or destroy GPS systems which guide our missiles. This clearly highlights the need for the offensive anti-surface warfare weapon, as well as the long-range anti-ship missile, which has a requirement of independently detecting and validating the target that it was shot at.

In authorizing the full request in the President's budget, the House Armed Services Committee noted the need for a new generation of anti- ship weapons capable of penetrating sophisticated enemy air defense systems from long range and said such a capability is even more relevant today and is critical to meeting national security objectives and rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region. By providing these new capabilities, we allow our Navy to safely engage and destroy high-value targets well beyond the potential counterfire range of the adversaries that they may face.

I recently received a letter from Admiral Locklear, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, who's at the forefront of this rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region, noting the importance of these two weapons. He expressed deep concern about the reductions proposed by the Defense Appropriation Subcommittee and said that such reductions will derail the efforts of Pacific Command to outpace an expanding threat, increasingly degrade our regional response options, and potentially erode regional confidence in our commitment to the rebalance. We can and must do all that we can to correct the significant strategic and operational risks that these budget cuts present at this critical juncture.

I urge you to support the President's budget request, as well as the authorization that the House Armed Services Committee approved, in order to keep this essential element of our Asia-Pacific rebalance on track for fielding.

I look forward to working with my colleagues and ask for their support as I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, a couple of points I would like to clarify. This amendment proposes that the offset come from the O&M Defense-wide account, but makes up less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire amount requested in funding for that.

With regards to the justification for the timing of this issue, the letter from Admiral Locklear--the contents of that letter recognize the effectiveness and the necessity of these programs, and are looking really to bypass normal acquisition processes due to the urgent need that they have identified there within the region, which is why I am strongly asking my colleagues to consider supporting this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Commander,

U.S. Pacific Command,

Camp H.M. Smith, HI, July 18, 2013.

Hon. Richard Durbin,

Chairman, Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: As you know, U.S. Pacific Command

(USPACOM) is at the forefront of executing key aspects of our

strategic rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. The complexity of

the operational environment and the pace of emerging

potential threats in this theater demand a responsive and

credible joint force to reassure our friends, dissuade

adversaries, and defend our national interests. To that end,

I want to ensure you are aware that proposed reductions in

the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 budget for Offensive Anti-Surface

Warfare (OASuW) capability (PE 0604786N) introduces

significant strategic and operational risk at a time-critical

juncture in our rebalance.

Specifically, my FY 2015-2019 Integrated Priority List

(IPL), a long-standing Navy OASuW Urgent Operational Needs

Statement, and related intelligence estimates detail a

particularly troubling capability and readiness gap that

compelled the Deputy Secretary of Defense to direct

accelerated (2018) fielding of the Long Range Anti-Ship

Missile (LRASM). If enacted, the reductions proposed in the

FY 2014 budget for OASuW/LRASM will derail our efforts to

outpace an expanding threat, increasingly constrain our

regional response options, and potentially erode regional

confidence in our commitment to the rebalance.

I urge you to support the President's Budget request and

reconsider the proposed OASuW/LRASM reductions in order to

keep this vital program on track for FY 2018 fielding. Thank

you for your continued support of USPACOM and this essential

element of our Asia-Pacific rebalance.

Sincerely,

S.J. Locklear, III.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, due to its strategic location in the Pacific, my home of Hawaii has long been at the forefront of our Nation's conflicts. We have more than 100 Formerly Used Defense Sites just as a result of a defensive buildup pre-World War I and, later, in the massive rush to mobilize in World War II. These sites, often also referred to as FUDS, can be littered with dangerous unexploded bombs and shells, in addition to harmful chemicals.

As in Hawaii, Formerly Used Sites across the country--in every State and congressional district--can serve as housing developments, schools, parks, and playgrounds, areas that can be used productively. The Army Corps of Engineers has been working diligently to clean up unexploded ordnance from many sites in Hawaii, many of which I visited myself, including 135,000-acre Waikoloa Maneuver Area on the Big Island of Hawaii. During World War II, this area was home to some 50,000 U.S. servicemembers who trained and prepared for many of the historic battles that were fought in the Pacific.

One of the places that I visited and met with many elementary and middle school students was Waimea Middle School, where unexploded ordnance has been found within the last few years by these students themselves. You are talking about 9-, 10-, 11-, 12-year-old students who have to be trained in this day and age to identify what an unexploded ordnance looks like and how to report it. This is not something that we should be facing in our society today.

The effort to clean up these Formerly Used Defense Sites not only makes our communities safer, but has a significant and positive economic impact. There have been substantial investments in the training of local people in Hawaii to do this highly skilled and often dangerous work. By training these local people, we're actually saving taxpayer dollars because we're not having to import talent, pay per diem and all these other exorbitant costs, and we're providing jobs to the local community.

I sponsor this amendment because Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the Department of Defense has the resources it needs to clean up these dangerous unexploded munitions.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that I'm introducing with my colleague, Ms. Gabbard from Hawaii, that would simply restore funding to the fiscal year '13 levels for cleanup and safety in public areas.

We take great pride in the United States in our military being the best trained and most powerful fighting force in the world, but decades of military operations and training have left a toxic legacy of dangerous explosives and harmful chemicals on millions of acres in this country. The Department of Defense has an obligation to remediate these dangerous areas, often in public or residential areas, in a timely fashion. This contaminated real estate contains housing, schools, parks, and playgrounds in every State and almost every congressional district in our country.

To help the Department of Defense become a better partner for our communities and our constituents, I urge you to join me in supporting funding for a program that will employ skilled, high-tech companies to clean up these dangerous liabilities and create opportunities for economic development on land that is currently a danger.

Just last month, at the height of the tourist season, Maryland officials were forced to shut down Assateague Island after a visitor noticed unexploded ordnance, or UXO, had washed ashore. Upon further investigation, they found hundreds of pieces of UXO that were discovered and had to be detonated onsite.

Our constituents demand that the United States lead by example. Keeping our families safe requires us to return the land to productive uses by paying for and cleaning up the mess we make. The Department of Defense agrees. Before the House Budget Committee last year, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, when asked if there were a way to create a partnership between local communities and the Department of Defense, said:

I'd be more than happy to engage you in that process. The

only way to ultimately achieve savings is to be able to have

the cleanup and do it expeditiously. There are lots of things

I think we can do to improve the process.

I appreciated Chairman Young's reply on the House floor last July. When asked if the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee could commit to helping increase funding for environmental remediation on Formerly Used Defense Sites, Chairman Young said:

I say absolutely yes. I would very much like to do this,

because I believe we need to do it. We hope to have an

opportunity this year to do it right.

The funding levels would restore the DERP-FUDS account to fiscal year '13 levels by redirecting $25.1 million from the Ground Combat Vehicle, a program whose utility has been called into question by the CBO and CRS. It would take a modest reduction in funding by less than one-half of 1 percent. But restoring funding to this program would still mean that funding for this vital cleanup would be less than one-twentieth of 1 percent of defense spending.

At the current rate, the estimate is that it will take 250 years to clean up these sites. I find this embarrassing, frankly. I would hope that this would be the least we could do to keep faith with people who are at risk because the military has not cleaned up after itself. It's Congress that needs to step up and provide the funding so that the Department of Defense can do what it wants to do.

I yield the balance of my time to the coauthor of this amendment, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This amendment simply reduces Research Development Test & Evaluation funds for the new Ohio-class nuclear-armed submarine by 10 percent. Bear in mind, we are facing 10 percent sequestration cuts over the next decade. This will help the Navy plan for the likely effects of sequestration by cutting Cold War weapons rather than what the military really needs.

These replacement submarines are unaffordable and will weaken the surface Navy. They are expected to cost $6 billion per boat on average with a plan to procure 12 of them.

According to a report from the Arms Control Association, the operating cost of this replacement will be $347 billion lifetime. Even the Navy's own shipbuilding plan for fiscal year 2014 said:

Replacing the Ohio-class submarines will have a

disproportionate impact on Navy shipbuilding plans.

It comes at the expense of other shipbuilding abilities and naval readiness. There are far more effective job creation plans than to undertake this initiative.

Our amendment offers a more balanced approach. We can easily afford to phase down or slow the replacement submarine program. The Navy can deploy 1,000 nuclear warheads on its submarines--as planned under the New START Treaty--with eight Ohio-class submarines, which means this modest cut can be easily handled.

The Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have determined that the United States can provide for its security with fewer nuclear weapons. Yet nuclear acquisition programs are racing to preserve the current size of today's nuclear force.

Instead of wasting billions of dollars on weapons the Pentagon says it will not need, we should realign our budgets with the reality that the United States plans to reduce its nuclear arsenal.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I listened to my good friend from Florida, and I agree in terms of the necessity of having a strong nuclear deterrent, but he just ticked off that we would still have the air-based bombers and we would have land-based missiles. Even with eight nuclear submarines, we would have more than enough capacity.

Now, the historic arguments, I think, are a little bit distorted. Each of these new submarines carries 16 to 20 missiles. Each missile today carries four to five nuclear warheads, each 20 times more powerful than the bombs that decimated Hiroshima. One of these submarines--two, three, four--is adequate to serve as a deterrent for anybody going forward, especially when we have our air- and land-based in addition to this.

We have a deterrent that will make a difference to anybody as we are moving now to scale down the overall number of warheads, because who is it that we are deterring? North Korea? It doesn't yet have a missile that can even get to us, one, and a fraction of the firepower would destroy it. We could wreck China. We could decimate the Soviet Union. Deterrence is alive and well with a fraction of this, but embarking on a program to spend hundreds of billions of dollars--freezing us in time with, as I mentioned, $347 billion going forward--is foolish. Every independent analysis suggests that we will be better off in going forward with being able to right-size the nuclear deterrent. Even the 1,000 is probably more than we need today.

If we can't come to grips with the fact that we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on things that don't make us any safer, that we can't afford, and that come at the expense of operational activities for our military that do matter, we are going to be trapped in this downward budget spiral, wasting tax dollars, not making America safer, not making it stronger, and not being able to have resources for things that would be of a higher priority for our military.

Now, notwithstanding all of the hyperbole here, this is a modest 10 percent reduction in the development resources. It's not going to stop our going forward, but it will be a signal to maybe take a deep breath and look at how we do this most effectively. I would strongly urge the approval of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.