Women's Procurement Program Equalization Act of 2013

Mr. Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2015 includes several small business sections, including Section 825 which was taken from my legislation H.R. 2452, The Women's Procurement Program Equalization Act of 2013. This bill was considered by the full Small Business Committee, of which I am the Ranking Member, and passed out by voice vote. This bill is an expansion of the Women's Procurement Program that was created as a result of legislation that I authored almost fifteen years ago and was passed by Congress in 2000. It increases the opportunities for legitimate women-owned small businesses to participate in the Federal marketplace and increase their share of federally awarded dollars. The legislation creates a level playing field between the existing small business government contracting programs under the Small Business Act by allowing contracting officers to award contracts to these businesses through a sole source mechanism, similar to those that exist for the HUBZone and Service-Disabled Veterans programs. Additionally, the language of the legislation eliminates the ability for businesses to self-certify for the Women's Procurement Program, thereby reducing the potential for fraud and increasing the dollars that genuine small businesses receive. As the author of the provisions, I would like to provide some background to be taken into consideration as we move forward to implement the legislation.

The number and economic contributions of women-owned firms continue to grow. For example, the rate of growth in the number of women-owned enterprises over the past 16 years remains higher than the national average. Between 1997 and 2013, when the number of businesses in the U.S. increased by 41%, women-owned firms grew by 59%--about 1\1/2\ times the national average. Furthermore, over the past six years, since the depth of the U.S. recession, privately held majority women-owned firms have provided a net increase in employment.

Yet, during this time women-owned small businesses continue to face challenges in the Federal marketplace. In 1994, the Federal government established a five percent procurement goal for women-owned businesses. However, twenty years later that goal has never been achieved. In FY 2013 year, women-owned small businesses received $15.4 billion, or 4.33 percent of contracting dollars, missing their goal by 3 percent--a loss of over $2.6 billion. It has been estimated that if women-owned small businesses received their 5 percent of the market, more than 673,000 jobs could be created; thus, not only helping their business but also the national economy.

One of the primary obstacles facing women-owned businesses that wish to do business with the government was the failure to implement for 10 years the section 8(m) of the Small Business Act, the Women's Procurement Program. That obstacle was removed in 2011 when the final regulations for the Program were released and implemented. Through this program, women-owned small businesses are eligible for contracts through restricted competition in eighty-three industries that have historically had underutilization of women-owned businesses. Nonetheless, three years after its implementation we have seen little improvement in awards to these businesses as the mechanisms currently at the disposal of contracting officers are limited compared to other programs. While other program participants regularly receive in the billions of Federal contracting dollars, since its implementation this program has seen awards only in the millions. In FY2013, the government only awarded 1,249 contracts worth $101.1 million, approximately 0.120% of small business dollars and 0.021% of all contracting dollars, through the Women's Procurement Program's existing mechanisms. Thus, changes are necessary to increase the participation of this group of businesses and ensure that they receive their fair share of contracting dollars.

The regulations of the program currently allow for either self- certification or third-party certification. Because of the lack of involvement in the certification, there is a high likelihood of fraud In numerous reports, GAO has highlighted these issues of fraud in other self-certification programs like the service-disabled veteran-owned small business program That program has seen several millions of dollars awarded to companies who self-certified they met program criteria when they were filing misleading or false statements to contracting officers in order to qualify for the contracts. This has made contracting officers weary of award to businesses as they are required to review self-certifications and determine their validity, taking them away from the other contracts they oversee. Also, in the implementation of the self-certification of the Women's Procurement Program, SBA requested only 1 million dollars to fund the document repository, eligibility examinations, as well as processing protests. Yet, the agency has not subsequently requested additional funds to maintain and provide oversight for these items further increasing the potential for fraudulent actions.

The bill, therefore, requires that businesses be certified by the Small Business Administration (SBA), among other entities. This ensures that the entity charged with determining the size of a business, SBA, has full control of the certification process. This provision puts the program on par with other small business contracting programs such as the 8(a) Business Development Program and the HUBZone program that rely on SBA certification. By having their own certification departments, the agency has been able to stop many ineligible businesses from entering their programs due to the vast amount of resources and manpower it has compared to other certifying entities. With these tools, SBA has the ability to provide greater oversight and quality control over the certification process.

Additionally, the bill eliminates the self-certification mechanism in the program. Removing this provision allows contracting officers the ability to focus on awarding contracts and limits fraudulent businesses from entering the program. While some may argue that the program will not function as a result of this change, this is not the case as the law still allows for certification from third-party certifiers.

The provisions in this subsection will increase the mechanisms available to contracting officers for awarding contracts through this program and equalize the small business programs by providing the ability for award of sole source contracts to women-owned small businesses. Currently, the Women's Procurement Program is the only small business contracting program under the Small Business Act that does not allow the award of sole source contracts. The provision would thus level the playing field between the small businesses groups and ensure equal participation when possible as well as more opportunities to award women-owned small business contracts than are currently available.

However, it is important to note that this bill and H.R. 2452 both retain the so-called ``Rule of Two'' in which sole source mechanisms can only be used if there is not a reasonable expectation that two or more businesses in the small business group will compete for award. The rule exists in all set-aside programs and while there have been calls by some to eliminate it, nothing in the language of this bill or

the underlying bill should be taken to support that proposition. The Rule of Two plays a vital part in not only allowing more small businesses to participate in the Federal marketplace but also by providing the government the best value from its vendors. Furthermore, this has been the lynchpin in guarding against challenges of the constitutionality of these set-aside programs.

This subsection requires for detailed reporting on contracts awarded by sole source contracts to women-owned small businesses. This is to increase the transparency of the award of these contracts, provide better oversight, and determine why certain industries do not receive these contracts so as to better focus outreach efforts.

In the implementation of these provisions, it is vital that there is no delay by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Regulations for the sole source provision should be enacted immediately and must be completed within 90 days. Additional regulations associated with this section should be released when ready and not held for completion of the entirety of the section's regulations. It is imperative that small businesses are involved in developing the regulations through outreach meetings and that their input is taken into consideration during the drafting process. Additionally, SBA should present draft regulations to the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives arid the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and have regularly briefings to update the Committees on the progress of implementation of this section. When the regulations are released, the SBA should conduct outreach with relevant stakeholders, such as contracting officers and Offices of Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization, about how the new tools can be used to maximize women- owned small business participation at individual agencies.

Regarding certification provisions, it is of the upmost importance and the number one priority to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in small business contracting and ensure only qualified women-owned small businesses enter the Women's Procurement Program. These businesses have been put at a disadvantage in the Federal marketplace for many years, and their ability to compete and receive their fair share of contracting dollars should not be diminished due to awards to unscrupulous businesses looking to cheat the system. Therefore, we fully expect the SBA to implement a robust certification program and to request full funding for such in their annual budget submission in February. The original intent of the authorizing legislation passed in 2000 for the Women's Procurement Program was to have the SBA conducting the certification process. However, the agency did not follow through with this intent. By statute, the SBA is the only entity capable of making a size determination. While properly approved third-party certifiers will play an import role in determining eligibility for this program, the agency should not rely solely on such entities to make certification decisions as to a business's eligibility. Therefore, the intent of this legislation is to reiterate that the SBA must create its own certification process to ensure a properly functioning program.

In the interim, the SBA should work with the other certifying entities to manage the increased number of applicants as a result of the loss of self-certification. Furthermore, SBA should approve and ramp in additional third-party certifiers in order to prevent a backlog of applications. In expanding the pool of certifiers, SBA should utilize the same process it used in selecting previous third-party certifiers. SBA must also create safeguard mechanisms in this certification process to limit the opportunity of fraudulent businesses to enter the program. In particular, protections should be put into place to prevent businesses from shopping around for a third-party certifier that will verify the company after they have already been determined to be ineligible for the program. Yet, after a reasonable time has passed, businesses should be allowed to reapply for the program to demonstrate that they have made corrective action on their eligibility requirements. SBA should also conduct random quality control checks on third-party certifiers to ensure that their process adheres to certification guidelines and has precautions to limit fraud, waste, and abuse.

However, it is important to note that while we are requesting additional third-party certifiers and safeguards to handle the influx of applicants to the program, these measures do not release SBA from its obligation to create its own program. As previously stated, we fully expect that the SBA create its own certification program within the agency within the next year.

Inclusion of Section 825 of the NDAA will ensure maximum and equal participation by women-owned small business in the Federal marketplace by providing a contracting mechanism available to other small business contracting programs and reduce the ability of fraud to enter the program by providing proper certification oversight.

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

I want to join with the chairman in urging the body to pass this important piece of legislation. This bill every year helps our military do its job. It provides pay increases for the people who serve in the military, it provides for military construction, and it provides for the necessary authorities that the men and women who serve in our military need to perform the missions that our country asks them to do.

This is particularly important as we continue to fight in Afghanistan and as we continue to try to figure out how to deal with the challenge in Syria and Iraq. I think this bill is of even more importance because it contains within it the train and equip authority to help deal with ISIS and Syria and Iraq.

I really wish to emphasize for this body that that train and equip mission is just that. It in no way, shape, manner, or form authorizes the use of military force, and I think it is the best approach.

I don't want U.S. troops fighting this war. We have learned that U.S. troops cannot win the battle against the evil ideology that al Qaeda and ISIS have promoted. We need local partners. That is what this bill helps us do: train and equip those local partners so that they can fight ISIS on their home turf locally and in a far more successful way.

I will say that this bill is deficient in one regard. We have a smaller defense budget than we ever anticipated that we would have. If sequestration comes to pass, it will be smaller still.

There are very difficult decisions in terms of what equipment to procure, what equipment to set aside, how to cut personnel costs. The Pentagon has wrestled with all of those issues and made a series of proposals to us about how to make those cuts. We rejected pretty much all of them.

That is not going to happen in the future. In 2016-2017 we are going to have to make some choices, because if we don't make choices, readiness gets hurt. It is the last thing that they can cut. They do not fix equipment. They do not train troops as much. They do not pay for ammunition and fuel to do the training. If we don't make the decisions on how to make rational cuts in the budget in light of how much that budget has shrunk, readiness gets hurt. So in the future, I hope we will make those decisions.

I applaud the chairman for his fine work. I want to thank him for an excellent working relationship. I wish him the best. He has been an excellent chairman. He has upheld the tradition of bipartisanship on the House Armed Services Committee as well as anybody. I really appreciate that working relationship. I thank you for the work on this bill, and I urge its passage.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking member on the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), the ranking member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), the ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the ranking member of the Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

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

In closing, I want to, first of all, thank all the people who worked so hard to pull this bill together. The staffs on both the House and the Senate side do an amazing job that most people do not understand just how many long hours they put into this.

The process has been made more and more difficult in recent years by the fact that the Senate either doesn't pass a bill or waits until the absolute last minute to pass a bill, so then we have to work through the committee process. So there have been fits and starts back and forth, and the committee has done a fabulous job. This is a very lengthy, very complicated piece of legislation. Without the expertise of our staff, there is no way on Earth we would be able to accomplish it.

I also want to point out, again, how important this piece of legislation is. This is the 53rd consecutive year that we have passed an authorizing bill. I think that recognizes how important national security is and how it is one of the central duties of the United States Congress to make sure every year we give the authorities to our men and women who are serving in the armed services to do the jobs that we ask them to do. So I thank our staff for that. I really want to recognize their leadership.

I also want to particularly recognize the leadership of Chairman McKeon, as this is his last time as chairman and as a Member of Congress.

Our committee has tried to have two basic core principles: one, we get our bill done; two, we work in a bipartisan fashion. When you look around this body today, you have greater appreciation for how difficult those two things are. We are not naturally bipartisan, and we are not naturally inclined to pass legislation because there is always something about any piece of legislation that somebody would prefer to be just a little bit different. That is not any less true in our bill, but we recognize the necessity of getting it done.

The ability to do those two things starts with the chair of the committee. When I arrived here, Floyd Spence was the chairman of the committee, and he and everyone right up through Ike Skelton, who was Mr. McKeon's predecessor, have made it a priority to, number one, work with the other side. Buck, from the very moment he was elected and the moment I was elected as ranking, reached out to me and made sure that that bipartisanship started at the top and flowed down throughout the entire committee.

And the second piece of it is the absolute commitment to getting the bill done no matter what. Again, Chairman McKeon has just been outstanding in that regard. It has been a tough, tough, long 4 years. Many challenges have cropped up, but we have met every one of them and been able to get the bill done, so I thank him for his leadership.

I also want to thank Chairman Levin on the Senate side, as he is retiring as well. This is his last year as chairman. He showed a similar commitment, and he had an even more difficult time over there. In fact, he and Senator Inhofe had a conversation a couple of days ago as we were trying to figure out how to do this in which they were trying to explain to us the Senate rules. I said: Look, I am never going to understand them. Just don't explain them. There is nothing I can do about it. That is up to you. You guys figure it out as best you can. So Senator Levin has shown outstanding leadership as well.

On the whole, I think this is a very good piece of legislation. We have to remember that we face a wide variety of national security threats at this point. We still have troops in Afghanistan. We now again have troops in Iraq. We have North Korea, which is very unpredictable. We have the challenge of dealing with Iran and all of its levels. We have Russia and Vladimir Putin that are messing around in Ukraine and a variety of different other areas. This is probably as dangerous a time as we have had since the end of the cold war. Our national security strategy, funding, and the decisions we make could not possibly be more important.

At the same time, we have a huge budget challenge. We have sequestration, and we have this rampant desire to cut, cut, cut, cut everything from government, not contemplate any new revenue, not contemplate any possibility of spending more money; and our national security strategy has to try to wrestle with that, so that makes it very, very difficult.

I will say again what I think is going to be most important in the next few years. I don't think sequestration is going away. I am going to continue to argue that it should, but given the majorities in the House and the Senate and given the last election, it is unlikely to go away, which means that the military is going to have to live with a dramatically lower amount of money than they thought they were going to have. They are also going to have to live with all those national security challenges that I mentioned and, undoubtedly, a few that I didn't.

So how do we do that? Right now, unfortunately, Congress is doing it the old way, which is parochial. We all have an interest. We don't want our base closed. We have an airplane or a ship that is stationed in our district or a particular defense contractor that is invested in a particular piece of equipment. So whenever the Pentagon comes up and says, ``We need to cut this,'' you have a predictable group of people who will rally and say, ``Here is why we shouldn't''; and by and large, the rest of Congress has gone along with that group of people.

I am here to tell you that is just not going to continue to work. It is not. The very small minor personnel cuts that are in this bill are things that none of us would have liked to do. We

would love to have more money, but we don't. On the A-10, on the retirement of the cruisers and the amphib vehicles--I am sorry, not the retirement, the refurbishment, the layup of those vehicles--on the changes to the Guard and Reserve that have been proposed, all of these are things that we would prefer not to do. But we have the money that we have, and until this Congress decides to change that and provide more, it is the absolute worst thing we can do to reject every single change.

We have had things as minor as a guard unit wanting to move five C- 130s from a base in one State to a base in another and proposals on our bill to disallow them from doing that because the people in that State don't want them to be moved. I understand that, but that is not a sustainable defense strategy in this environment.

We are going to have to make some difficult choices that we don't want to make if we are going to properly protect our military because, again, what happens when we don't make those choices, money doesn't magically appear to pay for these things. The Pentagon has got to reshuffle the deck and make cuts elsewhere to try to figure out how to make it work, and the cuts always come from readiness.

We have always said that the worst thing that we can do is create a hollow force, a force that does not have the training and the equipment to do the missions that we ask them to do. That is precisely what we do when we reject reasonable cuts--we don't do a BRAC, for instance--and leave the military with no choice but to reduce training and equipment, because that is all that is left. That is the last thing on the table. So I hope that we will start making some of those tough decisions in the next year.

Again, I thank the chairman; I thank the staff; I wish Senator Levin the best in his retirement as well; and I urge passage of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Ranking Member Smith.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of the FY15 NDAA.

As the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee, I appreciate that the bill provides our men and women in uniform with the resources they need to remain trained, equipped, and ready to execute the full range of missions and operations that face our modern military.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, the bill is a significant improvement over the House-passed measure and restores $818 million in cuts to the baseline operations and maintenance account. These funds will ensure that necessary repairs and upgrades to airfields and other mission- critical facilities occur. Among many other important provisions the bill also provides an additional $23 million for two additional combat training center rotations for the Army National Guard.

Mr. Speaker, this bill finally lifts the restrictions on the obligation and expenditure of Government of Japan direct contributions and U.S. military construction funds that directly support the realignment of Marines from Okinawa to Guam. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we can say that the military buildup on Guam is back on track, and this critical component of our rebalanced strategy will begin in earnest soon.

Over the past year there has been significant progress on the realignment, including the signing of a landfill permit by the Okinawan governor, the completion of a draft supplemental EIS document on Guam, and the delivery of a master plan to Congress. The actions we take in this bill fulfill the U.S. Congress' obligation to keep this progress on track. More importantly, we finally demonstrate to our allies in Japan that we value their leadership and role in moving this realignment forward on their end.

I cannot emphasize this enough: this bill moves the military buildup forward and is critical to our overall rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region.

I thank Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, our readiness chairman, my chairman, Mr. Rob Wittman, and all the members of the committee

for their support. I thank committee staff, particularly Vickie Plunkett and Brian Garrett, for their hard work. I urge my colleagues to pass this very important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, which provides for concurrence to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3979, the text of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Buck McKeon, Ranking Member Adam Smith, Chairman Carl Levin, and Ranking Member Jim Inhofe for their work to ensure we have a compromise package that keeps our 53 year streak of passing defense authorization bills alive. It is unfortunate that the Senate was unable to proceed under regular order to complete its defense bill, which would have allowed for a true Conference Committee to negotiate outcomes. Nevertheless, while this compromise package is not perfect, it does contain many elements that are critical for supporting our service members and our nation's defense posture.

This year's defense bill builds off the progress made last year on the realignment of Marines from Okinawa to Guam. The bill removes any restriction on the obligation and expenditure of Government of Japan and U.S. military construction funds for projects related to the realignment. Removal of the restrictions ensures that the realignment of Marines from Okinawa to Guam is back on track. While I have concerns about the precedence of putting a cost cap on the entire realignment program, the overall outcome in this bill is very positive. The U.S. is finally living up to its commitment under the Guam International Agreement, as amended in 2012.

Over the past year, there has been significant progress in Japan and in the United States regarding this relocation effort. Of greatest importance was the Okinawan Governor's signing of a landfill permit on December 27, 2014. The signing of the landfill permit, under the original agreement, signaled so-called ``tangible progress'' on the Japanese side for the development of the Futenma Replacement Facility in the Henoko area of Okinawa. It took decades to reach this milestone, but last December, the Governor signed the permit which allows for the beginning of construction of a new runway and replacement facility. Furthermore, the Department of Defense (DoD) released its draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS) for the Marine Corps main cantonment area and live-fire training complex on Guam earlier this spring. The DoD is now developing a final EIS with the intent of signing a record of decision early next spring. DoD also finally submitted a master plan to Congress that outlined the cost of the Marine realignment and provided the fidelity that Congress was seeking on a wide range of details about the relocation effort. All these together enabled us to prevail in Conference Committee and eliminate all the restrictions.

Our alliance with Japan is the cornerstone of peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. We have shared values economically and in security matters. It was critical that we uphold our end of the agreement this year. The bill finally makes good on our commitment and helps to further strengthen our relationship.

Unfortunately, this bill does not provide authorization for operations and maintenance funds to support civilian infrastructure requirements on Guam. There is a historical context for DoD providing local governments with support for civilian infrastructure requirements, like at Kings Bay, Georgia and Bangor, Washington, and I fundamental disagree with the opposition to this funding because it will support our military servicemembers. It is important to ensure that local infrastructure is able to support and sustain the additional military presence on Guam, and I believe the time is right to make these investments now, so that when Marines arrive on Guam, the overall island infrastructure is ready. I will continue to work with my House colleagues and the Senate to advocate for authorizing previously appropriated funds in future years.

I also greatly support the additional $1.148 million in funding for the Sea Cadet Corps program. This funding is in addition to $1.7 million that was programmed by the U.S. Navy in the Fiscal Year 2015 budget. The Sea Cadet program facilitates professional development for almost 9,000 Sea Cadets aged 11-17, in 387 units across the country. The Naval Sea Cadet Corps instills in every Cadet a sense of patriotism, courage and the foundation of personal honor, and it has significance in assisting to promote the Navy and Coast Guard, particularly in those areas of the U.S. where these Services have little presence.

Finally, I have some concerns about the provision that changes how the Directors of the Army and Air National Guard are appointed in the Department of Defense. A cohesive leadership team is essential to the productivity of any military organization. The Conference version of this provision is an improvement but still leaves much to be desired and the possibility that this process will continue to be abused.

Currently, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau (CNGB) is not by statute or by regulation part of the selection process for his own leadership team and yet, the CNGB is the Department of Defense's official channel of communication regarding all matters relating to the National Guard, the Governors and State Adjutants General. As the National Guard Bureau is now a joint activity of the Department of Defense, the Chief's responsibilities within the Department of Defense and to the Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have grown. The CNGB should be allowed to create a leadership team that can provide unified representation of the National Guard within the Department of Defense and before Congress.

The provision will now only require consultation with the CNGB on the appointment of the Director and Deputy Directors of the Army and Air National Guard. There is a significant difference between consultation and giving the CNGB the authority he or she needs to have an effective and cohesive leadership team. We cannot neglect the importance of professional experience, knowledge, and understanding in our leadership positions. As a seasoned Guard member, the CNGB possesses a distinct perspective that can accurately identify the appropriate skill sets essential to fulfilling the requirements of senior level officers within the National Guard. We must remember that our National Guard fulfills a unique dual-hated role in meeting their Title 10 responsibilities for federal missions and a state role in supporting disaster relief and homeland defense. The CNGB is in the perfect position to best understand how to balance these sometimes competing paradigms and is best positioned to ensure that these Army and Air National Guard leadership teams can execute and balance these requirements in their role at NGB and in working with the Army and Air Force.

The reason this provision did not achieve our ultimate goals is routed in the antiquated way in which many senior leaders in DoD still view the role of the National Guard. When legislation asking for the Chief to be included in recommending his own staff meets such vocal opposition, it becomes easier to understand just how hard it is for the National Guard within the Service and Pentagon decision making processes and why there is discord on key initiatives. The Congress and both Presidents Bush and Obama have elevated the CNGB to a four-star position, also placing the Chief on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The empowerment of the National Guard was critical to ensuring that our nation's leaders had direct guidance and input on the capabilities that the National Guard can bring to the table in solving a wide range of national security challenges and allows for better coordination of federal and state homeland missions and response. However, the current process of choosing the Director and Deputy Directors of the Army and Air National Guard has been used to leave the CNGB out of the process and push personalities rather than individuals with the joint capabilities to make the entire organization function within its new roles and missions. As such, I will continue to work with my colleagues to watch implementation of this provision and ensure that it is not abused by each respective service and work to improve this provision in future years.

The defense bill is a year long process and is put together with the help and assistance of our outstanding staff. In particular, I appreciate the hard work and coordination of the entire House and Senate Armed Services staffs. I support this bill and urge my colleagues to pass this measure.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 770, I call up the bill (H.R. 3979) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that emergency services volunteers are not taken into account as employees under the shared responsibility requirements contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, with the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3979.

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

I rise today in support of the fiscal year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act.

The NDAA is how Congress fulfills its constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense. This year will mark the 53rd consecutive year that we have completed our work.

What makes this bill such an important piece of legislation are the vital authorities contained within. It provides resources for the mission in Afghanistan. It funds our military operations against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. It pays our troops and their families. It keeps our Navy fleet sailing and our military aircraft flying. It maintains a strong nuclear deterrent.

The NDAA is much broader than this, but I will close in the interest of time. Before I do, I would like to thank Ranking Member Smith, all of the members of our Armed Services Committee, and my colleagues in this body for all of their efforts to get us to this point.

Every year for the past 52 years Congress has passed an NDAA. I am grateful for the hardworking chairs and ranking members of the HASC, but also to all Members of the body for recognizing the importance of this vital piece of legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), my friend and colleague, the incoming chairman of the

House Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), my friend and colleague who is a member of the Armed Services Committee and is the chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), my friend and colleague who is a member of the Armed Services Committee and the chairman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), my friend and colleague. He is a member of the Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee and the sponsor of the child protection amendment that he has worked on for 7 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), my friend and colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee and the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada, Dr. Heck, General Heck, Joe Heck, my friend and colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), my friend and colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would, at the outset, like to thank Mr. Smith. I agree with probably about everything he said. He has been a tremendous partner to work with. He just had hip surgery a few weeks ago, and in these last few weeks with all these meetings and all the time and all the effort he has had to put forth in great pain, I really commend you for your integrity, for your steadfastness in your commitment to serving your district, the members of our armed services, and this Nation. It has been a great experience working with you, and I enjoyed just about every minute of it.

There are times when we have disagreed, but we have really done that at a high level and tried to keep it always on the issue, never, never personal, and it has been great.

I want to join him in thanking our staff. We get all the credit; they do all the work. Both sides of the aisle, frankly, most of the staff, I don't know if they are on the minority or the majority side because they work so closely together. That is just the culture of this committee, and I am sure it will continue.

As you have heard through other debate, this legislation addresses a wide variety of policy issues, including supporting operations in Afghanistan, funding the war against ISIL in Iraq and Syria, reinforcing our capabilities in the Pacific, and maintaining the Nation's nuclear deterrent. But many challenges remain.

Next year, the Armed Services Committee will be in excellent hands. Mr. Thornberry and I have sat next to each other now for 20 years on the committee. He will be the chairman next year. Mr. Smith will continue to be the ranking member. They will have their work cut out for them, but they are more than up to the task. I wish them all the best because the security of our Nation lies in their hands, along with all of the members of the committee and all of the Members of this body.

I hope sometime next year a compromise can come to the floor that will end sequestration. There isn't a magical solution that Republicans can support and the President can sign without sacrifice on both sides. When that solution comes, it will be a tough vote on both sides.

I pray that our colleagues will hold this one thought in their heart when that vote comes: remember the great sacrifice that our troops and their families and loved ones at home are making around the world.

Right now, they are walking in the mountains of Afghanistan. They are at sea, within missile range of Iran. They are flying wingtip-to- wingtip against Russian bombers over the North Sea. They are nose-to- nose with the North Koreans. They are sweating in the equatorial heat of Africa, fighting a horrible disease. They are standing on the sands of Iraq, risking everything against a brutal enemy.

They take those risks and they make those sacrifices because of you. They do it for you. They do it for us, for their families, for their flag, and for our freedom. How have we repaid them? With equipment that is falling apart, by laying them off while they are off in war zones, by docking their pay and their medical benefits, by throwing them out of the service and onto a broken economy.

I have met our forces on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, dirty and sweaty from fighting. I have watched too many families, as have all of you, spend long months waiting for those returning from deployment. I have seen too many heroes put into the ground. They never failed us, not once, so shame on us if we are unwilling to pay back the debt we owe them. Shame on all of us, from the White House down, if we cannot make far less a sacrifice than we ask of them on their behalf.

My road in Congress is coming to an end. It will be up to the next Congress and the President to make these injustices right. Please show our troops the respect they deserve. Give them the tools they need. Help keep them safe. Honor their sacrifice with your service. I know that you will do the right thing.

I am in the twilight of a 22-year career here in Congress. It has been mentioned that we passed this bill 53 times. I want to tell you I was not here for all 53 of those, nor was Adam. He is much younger than I am. You might think that I have been here 53. It has been the history of the committee to get this done every year because it so important.

I have come to know many of you as friends and family. To the Armed Services Committee staff, once again--that is, minority and majority-- you are all veterans, you are professionals, you are tireless, but I just think of you as the best.

To my personal staff, I did not want to give this speech, not because I have any regrets, but I just have this problem. Thankfully, the Speaker has it a lot worse than I do, and he gets all the attention, but I have the same problem.

We hear a lot about government workers and how we spend money on government workers and they don't do anything. I just want to tell the people of America that all of these people that work here spend countless hours, and they do so much for so many people. I have some constituent workers at home that have helped thousands of people, and every one of these government workers here deserve our gratitude and thanks for all that they do.

I want to thank all my colleagues for the many wonderful things they have said. I made a comment the other day that my funeral is going to be somewhat anticlimactic. I have heard speeches saying what a wonderful person I am. Fortunately, I am old enough that I don't take any of that personally or too seriously.

I understand that this is a responsibility that was given to me by colleagues. I have enjoyed it. It has been a great experience, but I know it is not about me. It is about what we do here.

I want to thank my family. People say, ``Boy, we love your Christmas card.'' We have 6 children, 30 grandchildren, and now one great- grandchild, and they are all great. I am going to spend a little bit more time with them. I think I would like to teach some of my grandchildren how to fish, if somebody will teach me how to fish.

My wife has stood by my side for 52 years now. She is a tremendous person who I look up to so much.

Now, I am a McKeon, so that means I am of Irish heritage. I would like to part with an Irish blessing for all of you:

May the road rise up to meet you. May the wind be ever at

your back. May the Sun shine warm upon your face and the rain

fall

softly on your fields, and until we meet again, may God hold

you in the hollow of his hand.

To this great body and to our troops, wherever you may be, may God bless you and keep you. May God bless America.

Now, for hopefully the last time, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for various provisions of the Senate's Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. While the underlying bill will strengthen our national defense and benefit my home state of Rhode Island, ultimately I was unable to support it because it contained a provision to extend for two years the training and arming of Syrian rebels, a program that shows little evidence it will be successful and may well be the first step toward direct U.S. involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Without this provision, I would have been proud to cast my vote in favor of this legislation. However, after voting only two months ago against a temporary authorization to train and arm Syrian rebels, I could not, in good conscience, vote for a bill to commit more U.S. resources and increased military involvement in an unwise program that presents the danger of deepening our involvement in a sectarian civil war.

The agreement that passed today included the designation of the Blackstone River Valley in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, the birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution, as a National Park. As the lead sponsor of the House bill creating the Blackstone National Park, it is an issue for which I have fought throughout my time in Congress. In addition, this agreement authorizes robust funding for the continued construction of the Virginia Class Submarine, which employs more than 3,400 jobs in my home state. It includes a one percent pay increase for members of our Armed Forces, provides additional funding for psychological and behavioral health for servicemembers, strengthens our nation's cybersecurity capabilities, and strengthens our relationship with Israel through significant funding for the Iron Dome missile defense program. Finally, this agreement makes great strides in combatting sexual assault in our Armed Forces by eliminating the ``good soldier defense'', and assessing a commanding officer's handling of sexual assault cases as part of his or her performance evaluation. I strongly support all of these provisions.

Unfortunately, with the inclusion of language authorizing military involvement in Syria, I believe that this legislation places the United States on a dangerous path that could lead to the engagement of our troops in yet another endless war in the region, an act that the American people have made very clear they oppose. I remain concerned that this program will be difficult to carry out, impossible to effectively evaluate and monitor, and that there is a lack of a clear end-game. In November of this year, the Washington Post reported that U.S. trained Syrian rebels were routed by the al Qaeda affiliated rebel fighters. Reports indicated mass surrenders and defections by U.S. trained rebels, as well as significant amounts of U.S. supplied weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. It should be noted that earlier this year, the CIA expressed doubts about the effectiveness of training and equipping rebel forces, citing unsuccessful attempts to do so in the past in countries such as Nicaragua and Somalia.

Additionally, there is no explicit limit to the amount of money authorized for this program, rather, this bill allows the Administration to tap into the nearly $64 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations Funds authorized for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These funds are not only exempt from statutory budget caps, but the bill provides no limit for the amount of funds that may be reprogrammed for these operations. This would be in addition to the $500 million spent on this program since September. These are federal dollars that we should invest in our priorities we face here at home, such as rebuilding our roads and bridges, improving our education system, and investing in the creation of jobs.

When this policy was authorized for three months in September of this year, it received rigorous debate on the House floor before it was included in the Continuing Resolution. However, this two year reauthorization is

being included in essential legislation, which totals more than 1,600 pages, without any debate under a closed rule. I believe that we are moving forward with this policy without a clear understanding of with whom we are partnering, and without a clearly defined goal or an articulated strategy for achieving these goals. Without this understanding, I remain gravely concerned that this two year extension could be the first step into wider, more entrenched involvement in yet another war in the Middle East.

Instead, we should be placing our focus on building a stable government in Iraq, a policy that must include ensuring they have the support they need to prevent the spread of the Islamic State. Indeed, the Iraqis have made great strides in stabilizing their government and unifying fractious segments of their population. This week, the Iraqi government signed an historic agreement with its autonomous Kurdish region in which the two sides agreed to share oil revenues, and will allow for greater cooperation in equipping Kurdish pesh merga forces in combatting the Islamic State. We should continue to press the new Iraqi government to fulfill its responsibility to defeat the Islamic State and maintain a viable and inclusive government.

We have been and will continue to be a leader in the world's fight against terrorism and those who wish to harm this country. But we should not allow our responsibility to defeat terrorism draw us into an unwise, expensive, and risky military engagement in the Middle East. Because of my grave concerns about moving forward with a hasty and in my view incomplete program to arm rebels in Syria, despite the other favorable provisions included in this legislation, I could not vote in favor of its passage.