Protecting Students from Failing Institutions Act

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida, my friend Mr. Nugent, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, we debate the rule to consider two measures: H.R. 4870, the fiscal year 2015 Defense Appropriations bill; and the motion to go to conference on legislation addressing the problems at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I regret that this is not an open rule. Strict time limits have been placed on debate, which make it impossible to adequately discuss important issues. On issues regarding our national security, we should have ample time for discussion. This is hardly a festival of democracy, as my friend from Florida described this process--this is muzzling democracy. But less debate in a more closed process has become the signature of the Republican majority, I am sad to say.

I am pleased that legislation addressing the problems at the VA is moving forward in a timely way. However, I want to echo the statement of my friend from Maine, the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mr. Michaud. The distinguished ranking member correctly pointed out in testimony presented to the Rules Committee that while this bill is important, it is shortsighted and should include many of the bipartisan measures that have been worked on at the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Like Mr. Michaud, I would prefer that this process be more open, and it is just another example of how this closed process denies many good bipartisan ideas from being considered and adopted.

Although I have serious concerns with the final Defense Appropriations product, I do want to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky for working together in a bipartisan way on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we take up this bill at a very serious moment in time. Every day we turn on our TVs and see conflict, war, and turmoil around the world. It is often hard to remember that most of the world is not at war.

I am very concerned that this bill continues funding the longest war in United States history: the war in Afghanistan. Even though the President has announced that he will draw down most of our combat forces by the end of this year, he has also said that he will keep 10,000 of our servicemen and -women in Afghanistan through 2016.

I believe strongly that Congress should debate and vote on approving the President's proposal to keep our uniformed men and women in harm's way for another 2 years. What are these 10,000 troops supposed to accomplish that 100,000 troops have not yet done? Our own generals were quoted in Monday's Washington Post saying that security is not the problem in Afghanistan, corruption is the problem. Ten thousand U.S. troops are now going to magically eliminate corruption in Afghanistan.

Just last month, at the end of May, during consideration of the NDAA, Armed Services Ranking Member Adam Smith, Congressman Walter Jones, and I attempted to offer a germane amendment that would have required the House to vote early next year on whether to maintain U.S. military forces in Afghanistan as the President has proposed.

Outrageously, the Republican leadership of this House refused to let us offer that amendment. We were denied the chance to debate one of the most important questions facing this Congress, the American people, our troops, and their families. So, as we get ready to deliver in this Defense Appropriations bill a $79.4 billion blank check to the President to continue the war in Afghanistan, I call upon the Speaker and the leadership of this House to promise--to promise--that before the 113th Congress adjourns they will bring before this House a joint resolution whether to approve the President's proposal to maintain U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan through 2016.

Let the House debate it, and let the House vote on it, up or down. Let's do our jobs. I have no idea what the result of such a vote might be, but I do know that we owe that vote to our troops, their families, and to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I am tired of endless wars. I am increasingly anxious as I listen to talk shows where politicians and pundits rattle their sabers and advocate for more full-scale war in Iraq, and many other places around the world.

It is especially galling to listen to the people who got us into this mess in Iraq in the first place. In The Wall Street Journal today, Dick Cheney actually had the audacity to write:

Rarely has a U.S. President been so wrong about so much at

the expense of so many.

Are you kidding me? How pathetic. If it is possible to have less than zero credibility, then Dick Cheney has it on Iraq.

I believe in our military, Mr. Speaker. I believe in our men and women in uniform. I believe we should have a military second to none. I believe we shouldn't hesitate to use that military when our Nation is directly threatened and when the cause is serious enough to warrant the sacrifice of American lives.

But there are many problems--indeed most problems--in the world where sending the U.S. military is not the solution. The crisis facing Iraq has been years in the making. It is not happening because Iraq does not have a well-trained and well-equipped military. The United States took great pains to make sure that it is.

No, Mr. Speaker, Iraq is facing this current crisis because a corrupt, exclusive, power-hungry, sectarian government, headed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, deliberately chose to exclude ethnic and religious minorities and other factions of Iraqi society from government decisionmaking. Indeed, the Maliki government often went out of its way to deliberately fan the flames of sectarianism and extend the power of the Shiite majority. Now it is reaping the whirlwind that it created, but in ways it likely never imagined.

If Iraq is to be saved from this crisis, then Iraqi leaders need to learn real fast how to lead--not just their own faction, but how to lead a Nation, to stand up for all their people, and to order their troops and their militias to protect all the Iraqi people: Sunni, Christian, Jewish, Bahai, north, south, and center. They know how to do it. They just have to choose to do it and pray it is not too late. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is time for the governments and powers in the region to stand up against the vicious militias and violent jihadists wreaking havoc in their own countries and among their neighbors. They are the ones who need to lead the way to a political solution to the challenges facing the entire region, or watch it go up in flames around them.

Several of our generals and commanders have commented in recent news articles that it is difficult for the U.S. to respond with air power or drones or special operations because the Iraqis rebelling against the central government are not just made up of extremist ISIS members, but they include local Sunnis and other disenfranchised Iraqis. So who do you target? How do you target them? Should you target groups at all?

If one thing has become clear after watching the crisis unfold and listening to all the pundits, the solution to the crisis in Iraq will depend on Iraqis, not on American bombs or firepower, let alone manpower.

Mr. Speaker, as we take up the Defense Appropriations bill, these matters weigh heavily on the minds of all of us who serve in this House. While we work to ensure that our uniformed men and women have what they need to carry out their duties and missions, let us also be clear that there are many problems confronting the world today that, unfortunately, our military simply cannot fix.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield an additional minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

May I inquire of the gentleman as to how many more speakers he has.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of my remarks I will insert in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy on this bill, but first I would just highlight a couple of points.

The administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 4870, as it now stands--and so do I--for a number of reasons. I want to highlight one. There are provisions in this bill that make it difficult, if not impossible, for the President to close down Guantanamo.

Let me read from the administration's statement in reference to some of these restrictive provisions that prevent them from shutting down something that I think does nothing to enhance our security:

Operating the detention facility at Guantanamo weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and partners, and emboldening violent extremists. These provisions are unwarranted and threaten to interfere with the executive branch's ability to determine the appropriate disposition of detainees and its flexibility to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees based on the facts and circumstances of each case and our national security interests.

There are other issues as well, but that is something that Members ought to know. This bill does contain these extraneous provisions.

Let me close by saying to my colleagues that it is no secret to people in this House that I believe that the war in Afghanistan--the longest war in U.S. history--should be brought to a close.

It is also no secret that I have expressed my frustration loudly on this House floor over the fact that we have not been given the opportunity to discuss that war in an open debate.

When the defense authorization bill came up before us, a germane bipartisan amendment was offered that would give Members of Congress the ability to vote on whether we should continue to maintain troops there or not. That is an important question. That is an important issue, certainly, as we discuss the defense authorization and the Defense Appropriations bills.

We were denied that opportunity in this House of Representatives, which my friend is saying is a festival of democracy, on the most important issue that is confronting this country right now, the fact that we are at war. We were denied the opportunity to be able to deliberate on that issue.

As I said in my opening statement, we have Members of Congress and pundits that are rattling sabers and trying to get us recommitted to a war in Iraq. I think that would be a horrible mistake.

I want to close by making a plea to the leadership of this House to let us discuss these issues openly on the House floor. Let us deliberate on those issues. Let us live up to our responsibilities, as Members of Congress, to have a role in some of these discussions. Let's not abdicate that responsibility.

In fact, it has become a habit with this leadership to just kind of brush aside those issues, to allow no debate, to allow no deliberation. I find that appalling.

When you go to Walter Reed and talk to those veterans who have been wounded and who suffered enormously as a result of their service, when you talk to their parents and their loved ones, we owe those men and women a hell of a lot better than they have received on this House floor. The least we can do is deliberate on those issues.

I make a plea to this leadership to let us talk about these things. This is important. If this isn't important, I don't know what is.

I oppose the final passage of the bill for a number of reasons, but I do want to commend the chairman and the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for their hard work, as well as their staff, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 4870--Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015

(Rep. Rogers, R-KY, June 17, 2014)

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.

4870, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for

the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other

purposes. The Administration appreciates the bill's continued

support for providing funding that assists the warfighter in

operating in unconventional and irregular warfare and

countering unconventional threats, supports capacity-building

efforts with foreign military forces, and supports on-going

operations, as well as the support for programs that would

improve the health and well-being of the force, including

sexual assault prevention. While there are a number of areas

of agreement with the bill, the Administration has serious

concerns with provisions that would constrain the ability of

the Department of Defense (DOD) to align military

capabilities and force structure with the President's defense

strategy and to reduce unneeded costs.

The Administration will soon submit a budget amendment to

request funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).

This request will reflect the President's decision on troop

levels in Afghanistan and include funding for the U.S.

military mission in Afghanistan, DOD's supporting presence in

the broader region, as well as the recently proposed

Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund and European Reassurance

Initiative. The Administration looks forward to working with

the Congress on this request.

The Administration looks forward to working with the

Congress on an orderly appropriations process that supports

economic growth, opportunity, and our national security while

avoiding unnecessary fiscal crises that hold the Nation's

economy back. This process should include reconciling funding

levels for individual appropriations bills to promote

economic growth and national security, and passing bills

without ideological provisions that could undermine an

orderly appropriations process.

The President's fiscal year (FY) 2015 Budget provides a

roadmap for making investments to accelerate economic growth,

expand opportunity for all hard-working Americans, and ensure

our national security, while continuing to improve the

Nation's long-term fiscal outlook. At the same time, the

Budget takes key steps to both continue and enhance the

Administration's efforts to deliver a Government that is more

effective, efficient, and supportive of economic growth.

The President's Budget adheres to the FY 2015 spending

levels agreed to in the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) and shows

the choices the President would make at those levels.

However, the levels agreed to in the BBA are already below FY

2007 funding levels adjusted for inflation and are not

sufficient--either in FY 2015 or beyond--to ensure the Nation

is achieving its full potential. For that reason, the Budget

also includes a fully paid for Opportunity, Growth, and

Security Initiative--evenly split between defense and non-

defense priorities--that presents additional investments to

grow the economy, expand opportunity, and enhance security.

The Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative would

provide $26.4 billion for DOD to make progress on restoring

readiness lost under sequestration, accelerate modernization

of key weapons systems, and improve DOD facilities across the

United States.

In the Administration's view, the risk to the Nation will

grow significantly should the Congress not accept reforms

proposed in the FY 2015 Budget. Without congressional support

for meaningful compensation reforms and other cost saving

measures, force structure changes, and flexibility to manage

weapon systems and infrastructure, there is an increased risk

to the Department's ability to implement the President's

defense strategy, which will contribute to a military that

will be less capable of responding effectively to future

challenges.

The Administration would like to take this opportunity to

share additional views regarding the Committee's version of

the bill and urges the Congress to resolve these issues

during the FY 2015 appropriations process.

Department of Defense

Prohibition on Retirement, Divesture, Realignment, or

Transfer of Aircraft. The Administration appreciates the

Committee's support of the Air Force's A-10 fleet divesture

plans. Divesting the A-10 fleet will help the Air Force meet

near-term readiness and achieve long-term modernization

objectives. However, the Administration strongly objects to

provisions that restrict the Department's ability to retire

other weapon systems and aircraft platforms in accordance

with current strategic and operational plans. These

divestitures are critical and would provide funding for

higher priority programs.

Specifically, the Administration strongly objects to

sections 8122, 8133, and 8136 of the bill, consistent with

previously stated objections to provisions in the FY 2015

National Defense Authorization Act. Section 8122 of the bill

would prohibit the cancellation or modification of the C-130

Avionics Modernization Program (AMP). DOD plans to replace

the C-130 AMP with a less expensive, fully capable

alternative that has been validated by independent study to

ensure that the fleet continues to meet future requirements.

Section 8133 would prevent the Air Force from using funds to

divest or to disestablish any units of the active or reserve

component associated with E-3 airborne warning and control

system aircraft. This provision would force the Air Force to

take funding from higher priority defense needs in order to

operate, sustain, and maintain aircraft that are not needed

and are unaffordable in today's constrained fiscal

environment. Section 8136, which limits the transfer of

Apaches from the Army National Guard to the active Army,

would result in gaps in the Army's armed reconnaissance units

that would require approximately $4 billion to fill. As DOD

transitions out of a decade of war, aircraft force structure

changes are necessary to shape a force that is more agile and

ready to respond to the requirements of the defense strategy.

Compensation Reform. To achieve a proper balance between

DOD's obligation to provide competitive pay and benefits to

servicemembers and its responsibility to provide troops with

the training and equipment they need to do their jobs, it is

imperative to slow the growth of basic pay and housing

allowances, modernize military healthcare, and reform how

commissaries operate. The Administration strongly urges the

Congress to support these reforms, which would save

$2 billion in FY 2015 and $31 billion through FY 2019.

While the Committee restored funding to offset the FY 2015

savings associated with proposals that were not supported,

the rejection of these proposals will likely require DOD

to find over $27 billion in additional reductions to

readiness, modernization, and force structure for FY 2016

through FY 2019. The Administration looks forward to the

recommendations of the Military Compensation and

Retirement Modernization Commission on long-term

compensation and retirement issues, but delaying DOD's

holistic package of proposed initial changes will only

result in increased costs, degradation in training and

modernization efforts, and risks to the force.

Guantaanamo Detainee Restrictions. The Administration

strongly objects to sections 8107, 8108, 8139, and 9015 of

the bill, each of which would restrict the Executive Branch's

ability to manage the Guantaanamo detainee population. The

President has repeatedly objected to the inclusion of these

or similar provisions in prior legislation and this year has

reiterated his call to the Congress to lift such

restrictions. As the President said in his State of the Union

Address, ``this needs to be the year Congress lifts the

remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the

prison at Guantaanamo Bay.'' Operating the detention facility

at Guantaanamo weakens our national security by draining

resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and

partners, and emboldening violent extremists. These

provisions are unwarranted and threaten to interfere with the

Executive Branch's ability to determine the appropriate

disposition of detainees and its flexibility to determine

when and where to prosecute Guantaanamo detainees based on

the facts and circumstances of each case and our national

security interests. Sections 8107, 8139, and 9015 would,

moreover, violate constitutional separation-of-powers

principles under certain circumstances.

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). The Administration

strongly objects to the proposed $4.8 million reduction in

funds that would support a BRAC 2017 round. This impairs the

ability of the Executive Branch to plan for contingencies or

make other needed adjustments that would improve military

effectiveness and efficiency. The Administration strongly

urges the Congress to provide the BRAC authorization and

funding as requested, which would allow DOD to rightsize its

infrastructure while providing important assistance to

affected communities. Without authorization for a new round

of BRAC, DOD will not be able to properly align the

military's infrastructure with the needs of our evolving

force structure, which is critical to ensuring that limited

resources are available for the highest priorities of the

warfighter and national security.

Limitation on Funds Available to Procure Equipment. The

Administration objects to section 8116 of the bill which

would continue and expand prohibitions on using funds to

procure certain equipment, including maintenance for the

Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). This section would

severely limit DOD's ability to sustain military-use

helicopters and other equipment that is already in ANSF's

inventory and is critical to their ability to continue the

fight against extremists who threaten the security of

Afghanistan, the United States, and our allies. If enacted,

this section could force DOD to seek more costly alternatives

than contracting with the Russian helicopter industry to

sustain ANSF aircraft, increasing costs to the U.S. taxpayer.

Liquid Rocket Engine Development. The Administration

objects to the unrequested $220 million for a new rocket

engine. An independent study recently concluded that such a

program would take eight years to field and could cost $1.5

billion with another $3 billion needed to develop a suitable

launch vehicle. This approach prematurely commits significant

resources and would not reduce our reliance on Russian

engines for at least a decade. With a goal of promptly

reducing our reliance on Russian technology, the

Administration is evaluating several cost-effective options

including public-private partnerships with multiple awards

that will drive innovation, stimulate the industrial base,

and reduce costs through competition. The Administration

looks forward to working with the Congress on this issue once

the analysis is complete.

Limitations on Phased Modernization of Weapon Systems.

While appreciative of the bill's overall support for cruiser

modernization, the Administration objects to the unnecessary

limitations on the current plan, which would preclude

modernization in the most cost effective and timely manner

and may hinder the Navy's ability to retain 11 modernized

cruisers into the 2040s.

Reducing the Force Structure at Lajes Air Force Base. The

Administration objects to section 8123 of the bill, which

would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from reducing

the force structure at Lajes Air Force Base and is

duplicative of section 341 of the FY 2014 National Defense

Authorization Act. Because DOD is nearing completion of the

section 341 requirements for Lajes, duplicating and

amplifying these requirements is unnecessarily onerous.

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The Administration objects to

finding reductions for the LCS program. The reductions leave

the program with insufficient funds to procure three LCS in

FY 2015, delaying the delivery of much needed capability to

the Fleet. Deferring additional ships into FY 2016 would

compound the already significant challenges the Navy faces in

funding the shipbuilding account in a fiscally constrained

environment while increasing overall costs to the Navy and

increasing risk to the industrial base, including sub-tier

suppliers.

Reallocation of Missile Defense Agency Funding. The

Administration objects to the reallocation of $370 million

from the FY 2015 Budget request. These changes would reduce

capability and capacity, and may possibly hinder the

Department's ability to effectively manage the Agency.

Specifically, this reallocation of funds would delay critical

engineering, testing, command and control, and weapons system

development, and would affect homeland and regional

commitments, including a likely delay of one year for the

European Phased Adaptive Approach Phase 3--a national

commitment to our allies. Also, the reduction in advanced

procurement funding for the Standard Missile-3 IB could

increase its planned procurement cost by about $140 million.

Opposition to Unrequested Funding. The Administration

objects to the billions of dollars provided for items DOD did

not request and does not need, such as additional EA-18G

aircraft, High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, M-1

Abrams upgrades, and a significantly larger amount of funding

for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account than

provided in recent years. The Administration is also

concerned that section 8006 of the bill makes spending on

these and other unnecessary items statutorily required,

diverting scarce resources from more important defense

programs and limiting the Secretary's flexibility to manage

the Department efficiently.

Classified Programs. The Administration looks forward to

providing its views on the adjustments contained in the

Classified Annex to the bill once it becomes available.

The Administration looks forward to working with the

Congress as the FY 2015 appropriations process moves forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 628 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 628 provides for the consideration of H.R. 4870, the Department of Defense Appropriation Act for FY 2015 under a modified open rule.

This resolution will give Members on both sides of the aisle the opportunity to offer as many amendments to the bill as they wish, provided they comply with the rules of the House. It ensures that all Members can be active participants in shaping this bill. I think my colleague on the Rules Committee from Georgia described it best when he called this process a ``festival of democracy.''

The underlying legislation will give the Department of Defense the resources it needs to protect our country at home and abroad. I am encouraged that both sides of the aisle can usually unite around this cause. This bill is another example of that bipartisanship, as it was reported out of the committee unanimously.

The DOD Appropriations Act will also provide support for our warfighters, the 1 percent who risk all in defense of this Nation. It is critical that we give our troops the tools they need to carry out their mission abroad and the resources they need to support their families here at home. This legislation will fully fund a 1.8 percent pay increase for the military instead of the 1 percent raise requested by the President.

Secondly, this rule allows us to begin ironing out the differences between the House and the Senate attempts to address the VA scandal. While we have yet to uncover the full scope of this scandal, it is apparent the problems are systemic to that institution.

There have been secret wait lists, unacceptable patient wait times, inadequate care, backlogs, a culture of retaliating against whistleblowers, and a serious lack of leadership, to name only a few of the issues plaguing the VA.

Tragically--tragically--veterans have died because of these problems. Mr. Speaker, it is disgraceful. The fact that a veteran died waiting for care from this country that they fought for, it is just tough to come to grips with that reality, but it is a reality.

As a father of three sons serving in the military, I am appalled, I am horrified, and I believe the American people are, too, as to the treatment of our veterans. Our veterans deserve a whole lot more, a whole heck of a lot more from their government than to have the government turn their back on them. They deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and the House will make every effort to ensure that these problems never happen again.

One of the ways we can begin this effort is by giving the VA the authority to terminate employees for performing poorly, much like the private sector, much like I had as sheriff. It is what most employers have the ability to do. This will give the Secretary of the VA the ability to quickly remove bureaucrats who falsified, in this instance, wait times.

As we have come to find out with all other scandals this administration is engulfed in, it is difficult to hold people accountable in the executive branch, try as we might. Therefore, the provisions are sorely needed.

We can also require the VA to reimburse private health care for veterans who live more than 40 miles from a VA facility or those who have not received timely medical treatment at the VA.

This will allow our veterans to get the care that they need when they need it.

Finally, it is a bit discouraging that we even have to codify this into law, but we need to end the bonuses and awards at the VA for at least the next two fiscal years. Incredibly, the Phoenix VA--where veterans actually died waiting for care--felt it was appropriate to pay out $10 million in bonuses over the last 3 years.

By prohibiting this practice, we can ensure that the funds we provide to the VA are going where they are needed: toward the care of our veterans and not to fatten bureaucrats' pockets.

I stand in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

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

I have none.

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

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us allows for an open and transparent consideration of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015. Chairman Frelinghuysen has done an excellent job in the appropriations area, working with his minority member, to craft this appropriations bill to fit the needs of our military. They have done an excellent job.

Providing for the common defense is a constitutional responsibility that we share with the President. This Congress shares that with the President. Without a strong defense, we have no way of ensuring that our liberties we enjoy and the safety of our citizens from threats, both foreign and domestic, keep us safe here at home.

The underlying legislation helps fulfill Congress' responsibility to provide for our national defense by funding the Armed Forces and addressing critical readiness gaps.

The DOD Appropriations bill provides $1 million to be used exclusively for improving military readiness. That commitment is vital because we need to give our warfighters the best possible chance to complete their mission and make it home safe and sound.

As a father of three soldiers, I can only tell you that the ability to train and equip our men and women that have volunteered to serve this country is the utmost responsibility that this country has to them to make sure that they have the ability to come back. We need to give them the best possible fighting chance to come home to their families.

As a father who has sons serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we have got to make sure this country provides the best possible military, second to none in the world.

We want to make sure that our men and women have the ability to have the medical treatment that they so rightly

deserve when they come back after serving their country. I think that we have taken the steps in the Rules Committee to do just that.

This rule and this appropriations bill actually rejects, again, the President's proposed cuts to TRICARE. Once again, in the last 4 years, TRICARE has come under fire.

We don't believe that we should balance the budget on the backs of our men and women who fight for this country. We need to make sure of our priorities that we owe our troops, which is a debt we can never repay, but you don't repay it by cutting their benefits, and you don't repay it by cutting their pay, you don't repay it by ignoring them as it relates to when they come back with a service-connected disability, go in front of the VA, and be denied the service they rightfully earned.

Finally, the rule provides for the motions necessary to go to conference with the Senate because, if you remember right, the Senate passed a bill, the House passed a bill as it relates to the VA, in regards to trying to fix the VA. It is a good first step.

Those bills have already been passed. Now, it is the opportunity to provide an opportunity to conference with the Senate to come up with a compromise that puts our veterans first--not last, not behind bureaucrats, but in front of the line, not the back of the line.

We can quickly resolve those issues between the House and the Senate by going to conference, and that is what this bill helps us do.

I think we all agree the treatment of our veterans has been shameful. It is a complete disservice to those who risked their lives for us. The severity of this issue, the sheer gravity of it, demands input from both Chambers.

We have heard about how keeping GTMO open makes us less safe. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that releasing five members of Taliban's senior leadership positions makes America less safe--which we just did, without input from this House or without input from the Senate, as required by law. It was just done.

Are we safer because we released these five Taliban leaders? They are not the trigger pullers. They are not the guys on the ground. These are the guys that actually helped design and implement the Taliban and the attacks on us. Some of those leaders are purported to be members of that group that helped design and implement those.

I agree with my good friend from Massachusetts. We agree on a lot of issues, particularly as it relates to our military and open-ended conflicts. We do agree on that.

Having sons that have served both in Iraq and Afghanistan, I want to make sure that this body has a say in what happens. I want to make sure this body hears from the President in a cohesive way in regards to what he expects to accomplish and what our mission is.

I have two sons in Iraq in the conflict. I happened to travel there and got to see my two kids. The night that I was there, a U.S. base was struck by an IRAM, which is an Iranian rocket warhead.

The only place you get that is from Iran. You don't find it on the shelf at a store. Iran provided a warhead that killed five troops the night I was in Iraq. They were part of the division where my youngest son served.

Here we are, talking about working with Iran, who has been the most destablizing country in the world, as it relates to Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a sectarian issue going on between the Sunnis and the Shiites.

I don't know what the best way forward is, but I want to hear from the President what his plan is. We sent more troops to Iraq. I want to hear specifically what we expect to get out of that. What do we expect?

I will tell you that the ISIL in the media, they want to hurt America. They are the ones that are advancing towards Baghdad. They have the ability, from what I am reading in the press, to reach out and touch America.

Do we have a vested interest in seeing what happens in Iraq? I believe we do, but I want to hear from this President about how you move forward and how you fix something that my good friend from Massachusetts talked about, the corrupt government within Iraq.

We have some of the same issues in Afghanistan. How do we do that?

I think he hit it on the head. The people of those countries have got to stand up and take control. The problem is we don't want terrorists to take control. The ISIL is a terrorist organization; there is no doubt about it.

Lastly, I just want to touch on the conference allowing us to give instructions to conferees as relates to the Senate. We want to make sure that that gets done--and it gets done right and done in a timely fashion. It is amazing that the Senate, when motivated, can do the right thing and move a piece of legislation through.

I support this straightforward rule and the much-needed underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same,

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I certainly appreciate the gentleman's very expansive assessment on the two underlying bills that we are about to address today.

Let me, first of all, say that I live in a community of a very major veterans hospital. In fact, I carried the legislation to name it after Dr. Michael E. DeBakey, who created the MASH units in World War II. We care about veterans, as do my colleagues across the aisle in both the House and the Senate.

I believe that it is important to move the Veterans' Access to Care Through Choice, Accountability, continue through the process, and to make sure that our veterans, after the many audits that we have received on the individual hospitals, know that there is a long period of time for those veterans newly accessing veterans health care.

Who does that include? That includes the recent returnees of Afghanistan veterans or Iraq veterans or even those veterans who have maintained good health and now find themselves in senior years, such as Vietnam veterans, and are coming to the system for the first time. It is intolerable for them to have to wait. I believe this is a very important initiative. If we are to send soldiers overseas or in the line of battle, as many are promoting now in light of the violence in Iraq, can we not without shame stand and provide them the kind of health care for them and their families?

I rise as well to comment on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, and I am glad that there has been attention to PTSD. I intend to offer an amendment addressing resources for PTSD and resources for the epidemic of breast cancer among military women in the Appropriations Act.

But I do think it is important that again we have a prohibition against the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States. That means that this facility continues to be open.

Then, of course, we have appropriations for the overseas contingency operations, for which the President has not yet made a request. But I think in the context of providing an increase in wages for our military personnel, I congratulate the chairman and ranking member for working so cooperatively.

But I raise a point in the backdrop of the crisis in Iraq, the ISIS, and all of the disjangled chords of calling for troops on the ground and to do airstrikes when in actuality we live in a world family, we live in a family with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan, we live in a family with NATO alliances, and we need to be able to work together to demand why an untoward leader in Iraq, who was given an opportunity for a consensus government, never made any effort. Yes, these individuals are horrific, they are radicalized, they are vicious, they are vile. But there are Sunnis and Shiites who have worked together, there are Sunnis who are moderate, who want to be in the government, who want their children to have an opportunity for education, they want their young people to have jobs, they want an Iraq where they can pledge allegiance to their flag, a united Iraq. Where was the leadership, the selfish leadership of Maliki, to be able to do that--and now we must clean up his dirty kitchen? I think not.

I thank the gentleman.

This must be a unified effort. Frankly, the President is right to be deliberative. We yet do not know, as I speak--there may be some news announcement--what his decision may be. But I do believe he has done the right thing by providing security and safety for the thousands of Americans that are in Baghdad and protecting our Embassy. That is the right thing to do. He has done the right thing by finding one of the perpetrators of Benghazi.

I would ask we do the right thing by not ignoring again another terrorist threat, Boko Haram in northeast Nigeria, that is fueling the flames, taking over municipalities, ready to pounce on places other than the northeast. These are threats that need the collective body of the United Nations--in this instance, the African Union, the ECOWAS, and all the states surrounding Nigeria, and, of course, the Nigerian government, of which we are friends with.

But I will say that America cannot continuously go it alone. We have given our treasure. Our young men and women never say ``no.'' When they are called to duty, they go, reservists and all.

I believe it is time to be responsible, respectful, and cautious in the way we move forward using our troops around the world. I ask my colleague to consider this as we deliberate on this appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule for H.R. 4860, the ``Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015'' and the underlying bill.

I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky for their work on 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.

I also want to extend thanks and appreciation to the men and women in and out of uniform who defend our nation and serve honor and distinction.

My work in the 18th Congressional District of Texas has allowed me the privilege of working with men and women in the military, the workers in aeronautics and space industries that contribute to our nation's defense as well as those in the Department of Defense who work in and around our nation's capital.

Through my work as a Member of Congress I know those who have served and returned home to a tough economy, struggles with physical disabilities and life changing injuries associated with their service to our nation.

The men and women who serve in the military are collection of statistics and data points, but individuals with names and faces--real people who depend on us to ensure they are the best trained, best equipped, and best led defense force in the world.

I appreciate the Committee's continued support for providing funding that assists military men and women's ability in operating in unconventional and irregular warfare and countering unconventional threats, supports capacity-building efforts with foreign military forces, and supports ongoing operations, as well as programs that will improve the health and well-being of the force, including sexual assault prevention.

This bill before us does much but not enough to recognize the sacrifices of the men and women serving in the military.

The fiscal year 2015 Department of Defense military personnel budget request was for $128.95 billion. The Committee appropriated $128.127 billion, nearly $800 million less the request and less than the need.

While we watch Al Qaeda-inspired terrorists in Nigeria in the form of Boko Haram and ISIS in Iraq carry out terrible acts of violence, it is important to ensure that military has the resources needed to respond to any threat to our nation or its allies.

The bill recognizes that the military is changing due to the expanded roles for women who pursue careers in the armed services and it is essential that this change not lead to a diminution of rights or opportunities from what women would enjoy had they pursued a different career path.

That is why I will be offering an amendment (Jackson Lee No. 1) to provide $5 million in increased funding and support for medical research related to breast cancer research. The identical amendment was offered and adopted by the House last year.

This additional funding will be made available for Triple Negative Breast Cancer research. TNBC is one of the most deadly forms of the disease that is extremely difficult to detect, and has an extremely high mortality rate.

I will also be offering an amendment (Jackson Lee Amendment No. 2) to reprogramming $500,000 toward outreach programs targeting hard to reach veterans, especially those who are homeless or reside in underserved urban and rural areas, who suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). An identical amendment was offered by me and adopted by the House last year.

PTSD, along with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), are the signature wounds of the Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The need for treatment and support of those afflicted will be with us long after the conflict ceases and our heroes have returned home.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.

Today, I rise in support of going to a conference committee with the Senate on VA reform. I am pleased that the Senate has followed our lead in swiftly passing legislation that will help the thousands of veterans waiting for care in a dysfunctional VA system.

While I don't agree with everything in the Senate bill, we all agree that our veterans deserve better than the VA has been giving them. Today, Congress will renew its commitment, on a bipartisan basis, to overhauling the VA and working to give our veterans the care they have earned.

I was a surgeon at the VA for 20 years treating our veterans, and today I am

grateful for the opportunity to continue that care by working to get a VA reform bill to the President's desk.

The bottom line is this: we cannot allow the VA to continue operating as a failed, bloated bureaucracy.

I believe we can give the VA the tools to be smarter, leaner, and much more responsive to the needs of our veterans. As a father of a veteran, I am dedicated to making this a reality. The time for excuses is over, the time for action is now.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained today and missed roll No. 315. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''