Veteran Access to Care Act of 2014

Will the gentleman yield?

The committee wants to commend the gentleman for his support of this program. As you know, this program currently operates, I think, at 65 military installations and facilities around the country. This would increase that amount. And what is good about it is military volunteers are, in their own free time and volunteer capacity, doing some remarkable things with these young people.

So we commend you for your efforts. I know I share similar views to Ranking Member Visclosky, if you would yield to him.

Mr. Chairman, could we have it read so we know which amendment we are working on? Otherwise, I will reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my objection.

I can say, and I am sure my colleagues would agree, your service in the Congress has been enormously beneficial because you have been perhaps one of the strongest advocates on behalf of those with mental illness. And certainly, your service in the Navy Reserve as a psychologist is one of the reasons when you get up to talk, people listen.

So we are certainly accepting of your amendment and acknowledge your very, very strong and well-reasoned advocacy.

Our bill, of course, does make investments. This will make more investments, and we look forward to working with you and relying on your expertise and your advocacy.

I thank you for yielding.

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

Mr. Chairman, the President's budget requested $208.4 million for these Formerly Used Defense Sites. It is important to clean up these properties that have been used by the Department of Defense.

May I say, our bill already provides $25 million for the cleanup of such sites over the President's request, so the administration isn't looking for any more money.

While I sympathize with the gentleman's amendment, I cannot support his offset. I understand that his amendment intends to eliminate funding for the long-range standoff weapon, this cruise missile.

This program will provide a new air-launched cruise missile to replace a rapidly aging AGM-86. This is essential to our strategic deterrent and our ability to hold enemy targets at risk from standoff distances.

The Air Force requested $4.9 million for the program in fiscal year 2015 to continue studies and analysis in preparation for a formal acquisition program. This bill already takes a fiscally responsible $1.5 million cut from that amount.

In a year of tight budget, the additional funding the committee has already provided for the cleanup of Formerly Used Defense Sites will accelerate the cleanup of the sites and reduce the long-term government liability, which is important.

While I appreciate the gentleman's intent, I cannot support a cut that would eliminate a critical element of our military's future arsenal, so I oppose the amendment and urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, while I recognize the gentleman's concerns that the wounded warrior care program is effectively and efficiently monitored--and perhaps an outside group taking a look at it would not be a bad idea in and of itself--but removing $20 million from the aircraft procurement account, specifically that Navy account for Growlers, is excessive to fund a study that is really unrelated to the purpose of that aircraft. There are better ways to fund studies.

We can request the Government Accountability Office--and our committee would be happy to do that--to do a study, one that will certainly cost less than $20 million.

Additionally, the loss of funding for the Growler program will result in the loss of an airframe which is critical for the Nation's airborne electronic attack mission. We probably need more of these Growlers, rather than less.

So I would be happy to work with the gentleman on finding another source for an outside study, and I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, for any comments that he may care to make.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation and seek the time in opposition to the amendment.

It is my understanding the gentleman is going to withdraw his amendment. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Thank you for talking about this very important issue. I appreciate it and yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

It is a small investment which this amendment would eliminate. We want to have air superiority for decades to come. It is money that I think needs to be kept in there. It would be a great mistake to move it. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We commend you on your focus on prostate cancer and appreciate your limited remarks.

I know all members of our committee appreciate your advocacy and obviously your special knowledge and view of spinal cord injuries. We don't get involved in the process of funding grants, but when you brought to our attention the fact that maybe larger sums within the grants might expedite some of the exciting things that are happening, it seemed to make sense to us, so I very much am in line with the amendment that you put forward.

Thank you for yielding.

Our committee has long supported whistleblower protections. May I commend you on your two amendments today. You have got two in the win column and none in the loss column.

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the gentleman's amendment. Personally, I believe in the nuclear triad. We have checked with the Armed Services Committee, which is the authorizing committee, and they have no problem with the language.

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

Mr. Chairman, I, again, add my appreciation of the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee and add my appreciation of their concern for the health and welfare of the men and women of the United States military. Their appropriations bill evidences that.

I thank them again for working with me and their staff for working with me on this amendment dealing with increasing the funding for breast cancer research by $5 million, offset by a reduction of like amount in funding for procurement. Equally important is that this amendment has been supported by this committee.

I would say that my fellow survivors and those in the United States military would appreciate the emphasis that we are making on addressing this phenomenon of breast cancer. My amendment, as indicated, increases the opportunity for research. The American Cancer Society calls several strains of breast cancer particularly aggressive subtypes associated with a lower survival rate. In this instance, it is called a triple negative. But I raise an article that says: ``Fighting a Different Battle; Breast Cancer and the Military.''

This triple negative strain has killed many individuals in a very quick manner.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I thank the ranking member very much. I would like to conclude, but I thank you for this support and make this statement as I conclude.

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, and 874 military women were diagnosed with breast cancer between 2000 and 2011. According to that same study, more are expected as it goes.

So, in conclusion, let me thank the chairman and the ranking member for their focus on this amendment. I will conclude by saying that breast cancer is striking relatively young military women at an alarming rate, but male servicemembers, veterans, and their dependents, are at risk, as well.

So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Again, those of us who are survivors recognize that the more research and the more intervention, the more lives we can save.

With that, I ask the committee to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I thank the ranking member and chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our nation safe.

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, which is identical to an amendment that I offered and was adopted in last year's Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 2397).

My amendment increases funding for the Defense Health Program's research and development by $5 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.

The Jackson Lee Amendment, however, will allow for the additional research.

That research is particularly needed since women are joining the Armed Services in increasing numbers and serving longer, ascending to leadership. With increased age comes increased risk and incidence of breast cancer.

Not only is breast cancer striking relatively young military women at an alarming rate, but male service members, 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, accrording to 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.

Dr. Clapp notes that 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, I am asking that we do the right thing. We are on the right track, 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.

I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to address another facet of a national tragedy, the epidemic of suicide among our soldiers and veterans.

In March of this year, zero U.S. troops died in combat. In that same month, almost 700 soldiers and veterans died at their own hand.

This bill, the bill that is before us today, takes enormous strides to treat mental health problems underlying this epidemic. It provides tens of millions of dollars for therapy, outreach, and peer-to-peer support. For that, the chairman and the ranking member and all of the committee members have my sincere praise and gratitude.

Suicide and the decision to take one's own life is complex and often mysterious, but we err if we think suicide is only a mental health problem. In truth, suicide is often the desperate act of a soldier or veteran in a desperate situation. One important component of that desperation is financial stress.

My amendment has been endorsed by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and would set aside $1 million to study these issues to improve our understanding of the links between financial stress, financial abuse, and military suicide and to generate recommendations to fix these interlinked problems.

A few years ago, Army Sergeant Angelo Stevens was living with $100,000 of debt. He had just been told that, because of his deteriorating finances, he was at risk of losing his security clearance. If he lost his clearance, he would lose his job, which would make his debt even more unmanageable.

Sergeant Stevens met with a military financial planner. He left feeling hopeless and humiliated. He told a reporter:

I walked out thinking, ``If I'm dead, my family can get

$500,000 in life insurance, but I have to kill myself.''

Sergeant Stevens ultimately found help and survived, but he was far from alone in his desperation.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I can certainly sum up quickly to say that I think it is important that we understand how effectively suicide prevention programs at the Department of Defense, the VA, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are working together and how they can work together better.

This is a serious national problem. This is one component of that problem, and I thank the gentleman. Again, I commend everyone on the subcommittee for the attention they are paying this year to this important problem.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky for their cooperation in preparing this commonsense amendment.

My amendment would carve out $2 million within the $504 million intelligence community management account and allocate it to the intelligence community whistleblowing and source protection directorate, which is a component of the Office of the Inspector General of the intelligence community.

Currently, this directorate is literally a one-man operation. Now, the intelligence community is a closed, secretive community. It is different from almost all other agencies this Congress deals with. Only from workers within these programs are we likely to learn about improprieties. Given the fact

that there are tens of thousands of Federal employees and contractors who work for the intelligence community elements, it is not realistic to expect the IC inspector general to be able to receive and investigate effectively any and all valid complaints from conscientious internal whistleblowers through a single investigator, no matter how talented that investigator may be. This $2 million reallocation of funds will help the community whistleblowing and source protection directorate hire more needed additional investigators and support staff and will fund outreach and education efforts across the intelligence community.

For our system of oversight of the intelligence community to work properly, it is vital that all employees and contractors know where and how they can report lawfully potential incidents of waste, fraud, abuse, criminal conduct, or whistleblower retaliation. So this directorate can truly become that place only if it has sufficient resources. I see this as a step in that direction. This amendment will ensure that they have resources to respond to legitimate concerns.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I thank the gentleman.

If I may make one comment in response to the ranking member and then yield to the chairman, there has been a lot of concern in this House about people going public with concerns about activities in the intelligence community, and we should want them to have a reliable channel through which they can lawfully express their concerns about criminal activity, about whistleblower retaliation or waste, fraud, and abuse. This office, underfunded as it currently is, is the official place for them to go, and we should make it more accessible.

I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I thank the gentleman, and 2 and 0 in this soccer day is probably a pretty good score.

So with that, I yield back the balance of my time with thanks to the chair and ranking member.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike a legislative rider that was put in the bill to prevent the Department of Defense from decommissioning nuclear missile silos.

As you know, the Defense Appropriations bill requires the administration to keep 50 soon-to-be-empty silos--silos with no missiles--on warm standby. The missiles in these silos will be eliminated under the New START arms control agreement, and the administration was hoping to be able to destroy

the silos eventually and save some money, but this bill will keep them in warm standby forever.

This is not without costs. Under New START, those extra empty silos will have to be counted against our launcher totals, meaning we will have fewer permissible bombers or submarine-based missiles because we have, instead, empty ICBM silos. These silos have been precisely targeted by the Russians for decades. While it is important that we have an appropriate, flexible, and survivable nuclear deterrent, these land-based missiles are the least survivable leg of our deterrent, and, of course, empty silos deter no one. What this rider says is that we should have 50 empty silos and 50 fewer submarine-launched ballistic missiles or bombers.

While it is true that, as an offer of support to Senators whose States have missile bases, the administration proposed to keep these silos warm temporarily, there is absolutely no reason to do so forever. This provision is not about security but about pork and political favoritism. Is it any wonder that the most ardent defenders of this provision are from the States of Montana, Colorado, North Dakota, and Wyoming and is not the chairman of the Armed Forces Committee? is not the ranking member of the Armed Forces Committee? In fact, they had worked out a sunset at one point.

Mr. Chairman, micromanaging our Nation's nuclear defenses is really not in the best interest of our country. Remember, we have some 450 Minuteman III missile silos. My amendment would change the status of 50 empty silos and only if our national security experts determined they wanted to do so. It would not affect any silos with actual missiles in them, and, therefore, it would not affect our deterrent.

I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, which would allow the President to remove those silos from warm standby at a time of his choosing, when the military tells him it is appropriate to do so and to avoid the cost of keeping open empty silos without any function or usefulness to the national defense.

But I want to make a broader point about our broader nuclear strategy. I want to call attention to the obsolescence of the concept of the nuclear triad. Something that has been accepted as gospel for many years no longer makes sense. Our nuclear arsenal is designed to serve as a deterrent to prevent anyone from even considering attacking the United States. In order to deter an attack, any potential adversary needs to know that we have enough nuclear weapons that will survive an initial assault and will retaliate with overwhelming force.

As part of the triad, we have ICBMs, which are very vulnerable to an enemy strike; we have bombers, which can be made less vulnerable; and we have submarine-launched missiles, which are not vulnerable. The ICBMs, because they are fixed targets and are vulnerable to attack, need to be launched immediately and are, therefore, at the greatest risk of being launched by mistake or by accident. There is almost no time to verify that a radar contact is actually a flock of incoming missiles and not a flock of seagulls or a sounding rocket.

So why do we even need the ICBMs, which are not only vulnerable but dangerous because you have to use them or lose them, especially when we have the subs and the bombers?

That debate is for another day. Today, all we are saying is that our generals should have the discretion to spend money on nuclear weapons that best protect the interests of the United States. They should not be forced to waste taxpayer dollars to keep empty missile silos warm when they have limited real utility and are not in our strategic best interests. They should not be used to keep these empty silos warm when it means, under the treaty, we can have 50 fewer submarine-launched missiles--real missiles--as opposed to empty silos. It simply makes no sense.

I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment, which would restore to the President and to the military the flexibility to determine whether we want to keep empty silos or real missiles.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

In reclaiming my time, I am not suggesting what we should do other than that we should leave the administration and the military with the discretion. They may decide they would rather have more submarine-based missiles rather than empty silos or they may not decide that, but that should be a decision for them. Personally, I think I would rather have more missiles than empty silos or maybe save money, but that is my personal preference. We should leave the decision to the administration.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

This is a simple amendment that would cut $3.4 million for a new nuclear-armed, air-launched cruise missile and redirect the funding towards the cleanup and removal of unexploded ordnance that litters most congressional districts in every State of the Union.

It would save the taxpayers from footing the bill for a program whose rationale remains ill-defined.

First, the United States currently has a robust arsenal of air- launched cruise missiles, and with the life extension program, they are expected to be in service well past 2030.

These existing cruise missiles are also compatible with the Air Force's greatest procurement priority, the long-range strike bomber.

Now the Pentagon has not yet made a final decision on how or when it will replace its existing nuclear air-launched cruise missile, so it seems ill-advised to spend money before we know what our long-term plans are.

We no longer need a bomber with standoff nuclear weapons like the ALCM. The new Air Force bomber that will be designed to penetrate air defenses, it needs bombs that can be dropped, not a new cruise missile.

The procurement of the new cruise missile will also have a destabilizing effect in our efforts to control nuclear proliferation. A mass deployment of cruise missiles probably would trigger, potentially could trigger a new arms race that we have already agreed to begin to end.

Currently, only the United States, France, and Russia have such weapons. But are we going to be more secure if this sets off an effort for other countries to develop them?

Are we going to be more secure if China has them, if Pakistan develops them? I think certainly not.

Now, maybe this amendment looks modest, only directing $3.4 million. But allowing this seed money to go forward could potentially mean billions down the road if we don't have a reason, a rationale, a commitment to do it.

The new ALCM does not yet have an official pricetag, but the research we have done suggests it is in the range of 20 to $30 billion. And a rebuilt nuclear warhead to go on it would cost another $12 billion, according to the National Nuclear Security Administration.

So a potential of over $40 billion, and based on our past experience with weapons developments and the nuclear area, it is very likely that that is going to increase over time.

Remember, we recently had a debate on the floor of the House that highlighted that the costs of the current nuclear program were understated by the Pentagon by $150 billion.

This program, whose true utility remains a mystery, even to those requesting money for it, will directly compete with other priorities.

Let me repeat that. This is not free money. If we launch this program, it is going to directly compete with other priorities. The Navy, as we all know--which the committee has been wrestling with--is looking for $100 billion to build 12 new nuclear-armed submarines.

The Air Force is coming up short looking for the $70 billion it needs to buy up to 100 new long-range bombers. A down payment on a cruise missile today that we don't need means cuts to other programs tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that, instead of launching us down this path of unnecessary spending and potentially huge outyear costs, that we, instead, spend this money on Formerly Used Defense Sites that have been contaminated by our activities over the better part of the last century in the United States. It is better use for the money.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, first let me point out that this is a minuscule sum. I have pointed out that we have the capacity with the current plans to be able to deal past 2030, so this is not an urgent effect. We have a chance to sort it out and see if it truly is a priority.

I respect the gentleman's point about--I think he is sincere in wanting to clear up these Formerly Used Defense Sites, but the amount in the budget is $50 million less than we had in fiscal year 2014 and is less than we enacted in fiscal year 2013.

At the current rate of funding, the Pentagon estimates that it will take 250 years to clean up the backlog of dealing with the military contamination and unexploded ordnance. That is unacceptable.

In a defense budget of this magnitude, we can and should be doing more. I appreciate what the gentleman is saying. It is not nearly adequate, and we certainly don't need to launch down this other path that may lead to dramatic unnecessary spending in the future.

I respectfully urge adoption of this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, much like the VA, the Department of Defense is confronting significant challenges regarding its care and transition of wounded warriors.

In fact, following the recent death of two individuals at the Army's Fort Bragg hospital, the Secretary of Defense ordered his own comprehensive review of DOD health care. Simply, it is obvious and is becoming increasingly more obvious that wounded warriors are still failing to receive the care that they need and that they clearly deserve.

We know that the DOD has undertaken countless studies and has appointed numerous working groups to identify ways to improve wounded warrior care. Moreover, Congress has rightfully engaged and has held a multitude of hearings and initiatives. There has been a lot of review internally and a lot of conversation.

I believe, though, that we need to engage some of the brightest minds in our country to gain a new and objective perspective on improving care for wounded warriors.

So this amendment appropriates $20 million to fund an amendment that, again, was passed in the FY15 NDAA to provide for an outside, independent study to identify challenges confronting the DOD's care of wounded warriors and offer specific recommendations to improve that.

This study, passed in the NDAA, will only be awarded to an entity that has received a small percentage--at the very most--of its revenue from contracts with the DOD, essentially an outside organization with little or no contact or relationship with the DOD or the VA. We are really trying to get a fresh set of eyes on this question.

This study of the Department of Defense's health care for wounded warriors is almost identical to the independent study of the VA, mandated by H.R. 4810, Chairman Miller's Veteran Access to Care Act, which just passed the House last week; so the same set of fresh eyes that will be looking at VA care, I believe, need to be focused on the Department of Defense care as well.

This amendment is funded by allocating $20 million from the Navy's $14 billion aircraft procurement account, which includes nearly $1 billion in funding over the Navy's request to purchase 12 EA-18G Growler aircraft.

The Navy requested none of these aircraft in its budget request, and it would seem to me that, out of the $14 billion in that procurement, with nearly $1 billion in new money for something that wasn't requested, we could find $20 million to make sure that the billions of dollars that we are spending in DOD health care--particularly for our wounded warriors--is spent in the most efficient way and provides the absolute best care in the timeliest fashion available.

That is what this amendment would do. I urge its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their comments.

I will say that, when I speak of a set of fresh eyes--I understand the studies that have been done by the GAO and other internal studies, and I will acknowledge a certain irony in making the comment because it is so often that we hear that we can't be continually looking for answers to these difficult questions only from those of us in government, that we ought to be taking a look at it from a fresh set of eyes that come from outside, from the private sector. I think that that would be a great advantage in this case.

Regarding the offset, I understand and wholly support all of the work that we need to do and the investments that we need to make to ensure that our military is fully capable.

I just believe that the same commitment that we have to our own protection ought to extend to protecting those who put on the uniform of the country and suffer as a result. They ought to get the best care.

Out of the $970 million increase from what was requested, it would seem to me that finding $20 million from that would not be a bridge too far.

I appreciate the comments, and I hope that we can work together on finding solutions on this.

I think Chairman Miller was right in his approach with the VA, and I think the same could be said for the DOD, and that is what my amendment would do.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Missile Project, better known as CHAMP, is an Air Force program to disrupt or eliminate an adversary's electronics without causing physical damage to facilities or people.

My amendment would transfer $10 million within the Air Force R&D budget from directed energy technology to advanced weapons technology. This will move duplicative funds from laboratory development of high- power microwave technology to integration on a delivery vehicle for actual use on the battlefield a decade ahead of schedule.

The Air Force intends to develop CHAMP for use on a reusable delivery vehicle that will be available to combatant commanders in 2025. For a small investment of $10 million this year, the Air Force can get CHAMP to the combatant commanders on a cruise missile delivery system 18 months after enactment of this bill, almost a decade ahead of schedule.

The reason we can do this so quickly and at such a low cost is by utilizing unused cruise missiles, just like the ones the Air Force used to test CHAMP recently. There is an existing stockpile of cruise missiles that have been removed from their original mission and can be cost-effectively repurposed as a delivery vehicle for CHAMP. Over the next few years, the Air Force has an opportunity to fit CHAMP on a proven delivery vehicle already in stock.

In this window, it is very cheap to make a cruise missile-delivered CHAMP system and very expensive for adversaries to defend. The $10 million my amendment allocates to advanced weapons technology will improve the size and weight of the weapon to optimize its performance on a cruise missile.

It is important to note this amendment will ensure that sufficient funds

exist to develop both the short-term cruise missile system and the long-term reusable delivery system.

The offset for this amendment pulls from an increase in another directed energy program in the Air Force that is doing duplicative work to reduce the size and weight of high-power microwave.

Instead of just doing lab work, we can do the lab work and get it out into the field. As I said, these two programs are doing duplicative work, and one is closer to the finish line than the other.

This is a bipartisan bill. I am happy to have support of the ranking member of the Armed Services subcommittee of jurisdiction and cochair of the Directed Energy Caucus, Mr. Langevin. The authorization for this program increase has been in the National Defense Authorization Act since the chairman's mark and was in the bill the House passed earlier this year.

In the Armed Services Committee, we have heard the desire of this game-changing technology in testimony from combatant commanders and from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

Let's get the warfighter this capability in 18 months by passing this simple amendment today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his consideration. What I would like to add to this is that the Air Force tested CHAMP on that delivery vehicle--a successful test, as it may be--and the testimony from those combatant commanders, the guys in the field that actually need it, are saying: hey, I would rather have it in 18 months than in 2025.

It is just that simple. We heard testimony with regards to China and about Russia. Wouldn't it be better to use these limited funds that we have already spent millions of dollars on to develop the process, develop the technology, wouldn't it be better today to spend $10 million to actually get it in the field to support our troops and our warfighters? That is our argument.

While I respect the Air Force, I think what the Air Force has--and they are looking at a long-term solution, a reusable vehicle, which I support, but I also support those who are out on the front line today. I have three kids out on the front line.

This helps those soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors with more protection. We can do it cheap, and we can do it today, and we can have it done in 18 months.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I rise to offer a very simple amendment to direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to increase individual grant amounts issued through the Spinal Cord Injury Research Program.

I would like to begin, of course, by thanking Chairman Frelinghuysen as well as Ranking Member Visclosky for their work on the underlying bill and for their continued commitment to funding the Spinal Cord Injury Research Program.

As someone who has suffered a spinal cord injury at the age of 16, I am acutely aware of how important this research is to the millions of servicemembers and civilians who suffer from various forms of paralysis and other conditions related to spinal cord injury. They simply want to know whether they will ever again be able to move, be able to walk, or even be able to breathe on their own.

I am thrilled to say that we are beginning to see meaningful answers in a positive way to these questions. Research into spinal cord injuries is producing, right now, a wealth of groundbreaking discoveries that are making treatment protocols never before envisioned an actual achievable goal. However, if we want these advancements to continue, particularly in the areas of translational research, then we must make sure that we are providing higher grant award levels to the researchers funded by the Spinal Cord Injury Program.

I say this because we have heard from researchers in the field of spinal cord injury research that the current grant awards, though meaningful, the ones that are issued to the program are not yet really large enough to make an appreciable difference, given the promise that the research shows right now.

So in the fiscal year 2013 appropriations measure, I was proud to work with the Defense Appropriations Committee to double the funding for the Spinal Cord Injury Research Program from $15 to $30 million; and thanks to the hard work of Chairman Frelinghuysen as well as Ranking Member Visclosky, we have been able to maintain that funding level in this bill. I am incredibly grateful.

With twice the amount of funding allocated since 2013, it is time to increase the amount of individual grants provided to the program's recipients. Remarkable advancements are now ripe for further development, but these next steps will only be achieved if the grant awards keep pace with the growing complexities and costs of this research.

With that, I thank, again, Chairman Frelinghuysen as well as Ranking Member Visclosky. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I thank the ranking member. I thank both the gentlemen for their comments, their support of this research.

When I was injured 34 years ago, I was told that I would never walk again, that spinal cord injury repair was just too difficult, it would never happen. We know now, because of research that is happening over the years by dedicated researchers and where we are right now, that it is no longer a question of if but when people with spinal cord injuries will walk again, be able to breathe on their own again, and be able to move again.

The support you have given to this amendment is going to help millions of people. I thank both the chairman and, again, the ranking member as well as the members of the committee.

Mr. Chair, with that, I again just want to express my deep appreciation for the hard work that went into this bill. Of course maintaining the current funding level at $30 million in this program and the support of both Jim Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky encouraging larger grant awards, I know that this will make a difference. Just hearing from the researchers in the field explaining why and how the larger awards would make this difference, I know that we will be seeing results very soon.

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