Swap Data Repository and Clearinghouse Indemnification Correction Act of 2013

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (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.)

Madam Speaker, this should be a simple rule. Every year, this House considers the annual National Defense Authorization Act. It's a bill that reauthorizes our Nation's defense programs and a place where we should have the opportunity to debate some of the most important issues facing this country and the world.

The process is typically broken up into two parts: a rule providing for general debate on the National Defense Authorization Act and a rule providing for consideration of amendments to that bill. It's generally not a controversial process; although, the decisions made by the Rules Committee in allowing and preventing amendments from being considered can be controversial.

And that's where this rule goes wrong. This is not the normal rule providing for general debate for the defense authorization bill. No, Madam Speaker, this rule is much more than that.

Over the past 3 years, we've seen the Republican leadership in the House fixated on several things:

They want to take health care away from millions of Americans by repealing ObamaCare;

They want to destroy the social safety net through mindless budget cuts; and

They want to weaken our financial system by repealing the Dodd-Frank Act that came out of the greatest fiscal crisis since the Great Depression.

This rule, the rule that should be a simple general debate rule for the Defense Authorization Act, also makes in order H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act. Not only does this rule cram in this controversial bill, it does not allow one single amendment. That's right. This is a closed rule. That's not an open and transparent process, certainly not the one that Speaker Boehner promised.

H.R. 1256 would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities Exchange Commission to jointly issue rules on the regulations of swaps transactions between the United States and foreign entities.

H.R. 1256 automatically exempts transactions in countries with the nine largest swaps markets from U.S. regulations unless the CFTC and the SEC jointly determine that the regulations aren't broadly equivalent. Because many large U.S. financial institutions have subsidiaries outside of the United States, there are serious concerns that banks will seek to conduct swap transactions in countries with looser regulations to avoid U.S. oversight. And, Madam Speaker, it is important to note that many countries are far behind the United States in promulgating their rules on swaps.

Why are we looking to allow foreign regulations to govern transactions involving U.S. companies that could ultimately impact our economy?

During the markup in the Financial Services Committee, Ranking Member Maxine Waters offered an amendment to strike the presumption that foreign regulatory requirements satisfy U.S. swaps requirements, allowing the CFTC and the SEC to determine whether foreign regulatory requirements are comparable to U.S. requirements. Unfortunately, under this closed rule, the full House will not have the opportunity to consider a similar amendment to strengthen this legislation.

Madam Speaker, this is yet another attempt to slow down the Dodd- Frank rulemaking process, undermine the CFTC's work in regulating derivatives trading, and weaken the financial market regulations needed to protect our economy.

Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.

This rule also allows, believe it or not, the Agriculture Committee to file a supplemental report to H.R. 1947, the

farm bill reauthorization. Madam Speaker, this is a bill that cuts $20.5 billion from SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. While this report is just technical, and fulfills the committee's responsibilities following the markup of H.R. 1947, this rule is not the place for this report. And, more importantly, I want to make it crystal clear that I do not support these egregious cuts. It's a rotten thing to do to poor people during this tough economic time.

Finally, Madam Speaker, let me discuss the least controversial part of this rule, the defense authorization bill. This rule allows the House to begin general debate on H.R. 1960, the FY 2014 National Defense Authorization Act.

There is much to admire and support in this bill, and I commend the chairman and ranking member for working together to ensure the programs that provide benefits and support to our veterans and military retirees are adequately funded and that there will be no increases in TRICARE fees. Regrettably, there's also a great deal in this bill that should make every Member of this Chamber pause and think about our national security priorities:

Should we be spending additional billions on Cold War nuclear weapons rather than on our troops, their families, and our veterans?

Should we really be cutting funds and putting obstacles in the way of implementing the New START Treaty with Russia, limiting both our nations' ability to further reduce and verify our nuclear arsenals?

Should we be committing hundreds of millions this year and billions of dollars in the future to an east coast missile defense site that the Pentagon says it doesn't want and doesn't need?

Should we continue to set up roadblocks and obstruct the President's efforts to resolve the issue of how to effectively and safely close the detention facilities at Guantanamo Naval Station, appropriately release and return to their families those prisoners who have been cleared of all charges, and bring to justice once and for all those few remaining prisoners who were indeed engaged in heinous acts of terrorism?

And once again, Madam Speaker, the committee provides $85.8 billion for the war in Afghanistan through the Overseas Contingency Operations account. That's $5 billion more than what the President and the Pentagon asked for.

Now let me just say a couple of words about the OCO account. It is an off-budget account. It is another $85 billion on the Nation's credit card--deficit spending, pure and simple. It is the lingo of ``emergency spending,'' as if it were an unexpected surprise that we will still be in Afghanistan throughout all of FY 2014.

I have always been concerned that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the ever more amorphous and hard-to-define global war on terror, have not been included in the Pentagon's base budget but always outside that budget, with an ``emergency'' designation so that we don't have to figure out how to pay for it now. We'll just pay for it later and later and later. I'm increasingly concerned that, even after we transition all combat military and security operations over to the Afghan Government by the end of 2014, the OCO will still go on.

It is time to phase out the OCO, put this spending back into the base spending bill, and if we want to make war, then we ought to figure out a way to pay for it or make the appropriate cuts in other Pentagon programs to make room for the funding of these operations.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say a few words about the strong concerns this Congress has, on both sides of the aisle, about the epidemic of sexual assault in all branches of our military. This bill includes several measures that will strengthen the investigation and prosecution of these heinous crimes inside our military. It also provides new protections for victims of military sexual assault. It reflects the bipartisan work of Representative Turner, my Massachusetts colleague, Representative Tsongas, as well as Representatives Walorski, Noem, Castro, and Loretta Sanchez. However, Mr. Speaker, there is still much more that should and can be done to ensure these brutal rapes and assaults are fully investigated and prosecuted, the victims treated with respect, and to advance education in our military academies and among our ranks and our officer corps.

Several amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee, and I hope that they will be made in order so that we can more fully debate this critical issue and how to end rape and sexual assault within our Armed Forces.

Let me just add, Mr. Speaker, that while the NDAA looks to strengthen protections and prosecutions inside our military, we here in Congress are also to blame for having failed in our oversight responsibilities. Congress has not given the attention to military sexual assault that it deserves. So I think that we do need to clean up our own House and ensure that Congress does a far better job of oversight to ensure that the Pentagon and all our military members are held accountable for preventing, reducing, and prosecuting cases of sexual assault and abuse in our Armed Forces and providing victims with the services and support that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I'm always ambivalent about the annual defense authorization bill. I support the programs for our veterans and our retirees, and I support providing for the genuine needs of our servicemen and -women, whether they are based here at home or abroad. But I cannot support the amount of waste, the spending on unnecessary and often ridiculous programs, on more nukes, on outdated weapons, and on wars that never end.

As we begin general debate on the defense bill later today, I ask my colleagues to keep these questions in mind.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, this rule is unnecessarily complicated and misguided. There is no reason to include yet another bill gutting Dodd- Frank in this rule, and there's no reason to cram into this rule a report from the Agriculture Committee about a bill that will make hunger worse in America.

For these reasons, I oppose this rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule for these three measures, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises, Mrs. Maloney.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, Mrs. Lowey.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the ranking member of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

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

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Small Business, Ms. Velazquez.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Florida how many additional speakers he may have.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?

I yield 1 additional minute to the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I get it. The Republican majority wants to repeal Dodd- Frank, and they're using every possible vehicle they can to undermine Dodd-Frank, which puts consumers at risk by their constant attack on protections that, I think, most people in this country think are reasonable.

As you heard from Ms. Waters, the ranking member on the Committee on Financial Services, and from Mr. Ellison, there is controversy around this bill. The thought that you would bring a bill like this to the floor that would weaken Dodd-Frank under a closed rule is really unforgivable, quite frankly. We ought to debate this. This is important stuff. There ought to be debates, and there ought to be amendments.

On the defense authorization bill, I just want to say this for the record: while I have no opposition to your bringing the DOD bill up for general debate, I do want to express my concern that when the Rules Committee considers the amendments that they be fair-minded about it and that all major issues, including the issues raised by a number of my colleagues on sexual assault, are addressed.

I also want to say that the war in Afghanistan ought to be debated on this floor. A central part of our defense budget right now is going to this war, and last year, we were shut out. I'm hoping that this year we will at least have the opportunity to bring an amendment to the floor, debate what our policy should be, and will let Members on both sides vote up or down.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' because this does allow H.R. 1256 to come to the floor under a closed rule. That is wrong. This should be a more open and transparent process, especially when it comes to an issue that is so important.

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

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 256 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam 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

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

House Resolution 256 provides for House consideration of two separate pieces of legislation. The first of these bills is H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act, which will be considered for 1 hour, with time divided between the Committees on Financial Services and Agriculture, under a closed rule.

Secondly, and the reason why I am so proud to be the sponsor of this rule, H. Res. 256 provides for 1 hour of general debate for this year's National Defense Authorization Act.

The Rules Committee traditionally receives hundreds of amendments to the NDAA; and with just under 300 submitted by the end of the day yesterday, this year is no different. Therefore, as is the tradition for this bill, this first rule in the NDAA consideration process provides for general debate while a second will provide for consideration of the plethora of amendments we have before us.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have had the

honor of helping craft this legislation for the past few months. As I think anybody can imagine, when you're talking about a bill that authorizes the Department of Defense, there is a lot to discuss and consider. That point was illustrated by our full committee markup in the Armed Services Committee last week, which started first thing Wednesday morning and went through to almost 3 a.m. on Thursday, 16 hours. We worked long and hard, and I'm proud of the product we've presented to this House for consideration.

But for as much time and effort that we on the Committee on Armed Services put into the Defense Authorization Act, I know that other Members who don't serve on our committee will want to make their mark on this bill, too. To ensure that the House has an opportunity to really have a comprehensive, free-flowing debate on such an important topic, we've decided to break the rule for the Defense Authorization Act into two parts.

That's why today's rule provides us with 1 hour of general debate time. It gets us started on the path to consideration. It also allows Members from both sides of the aisle to have a full discussion about the broader themes running through this base legislation. There are important debates, and the sooner we get them started, the better. But with nearly 300 amendments submitted to the National Defense Authorization Act, the truth is we on the Rules Committee couldn't give each and every amendment the full weight and consideration it deserves and produce a comprehensive rule that starts debate on the full bill and all amendments today.

If something's worth doing, it's worth doing it right. Therefore, while the House works on the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act and starts general debate on the NDAA, we, on the Rules Committee, will return to the committee room and we'll continue to sift through all the amendments that Members have offered on this bill.

We want to make sure the House has the opportunity to weigh in on each and every important issue in the NDAA. That's why we need to take our time. And once we have a full understanding of the amendments submitted to the committee, we'll come back with a second rule setting the universe of amendments for this legislation.

I know that we all share the same commitment to making this a fair and collaborative process. Quite frankly, it's the spirit of cooperation and the knowledge that we're serving a common purpose that has been one of the most gratifying parts of serving on HASC to date. As Chairman McKeon said to the Rules Committee yesterday, we may disagree sometimes, but it doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable. We're able to put partisanship aside, and we know that our work directly impacts the life of each and every servicemember and his or her family in a personal and direct way.

We're providing for the common defense, which is part of the Federal Government's most fundamental roles, part of our core mission, as I like to say. And if you want proof of how collaboratively we worked on this bill as a committee, you only need to look at the fact that we passed this bill out of committee 59-2. And as the father of three sons serving in the Army, I'm heartened to know that politics can be set aside when it comes down to making sure our troops are equipped with the tools that are required, funded at the levels they need, and trained for the mission at hand.

This is an important time for our country and an important time for those members of the military who serve us every day. These young men and women put their lives on the line for us so we could be here today and debate the issues of the day. So they deserve our undivided attention and support when it comes to making sure that they have everything that they need, and there's no more essential role for our Federal Government, in my opinion, as to what we are doing today.

H.R. 1960 fulfills the promise to our warfighters and to their loved ones. I'm proud of this rule, which gets us on the road towards considering and passing this essential bill. For that reason, I support the rule. I support the underlying pieces of legislation and look forward to coming back here tomorrow in the next step of getting the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 passed.

I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that everybody knows that there were almost 300 amendments that have been submitted, and they'll be discussed later today, and Mr. McGovern is a part of that process and will be discussing those amendments today.

But I agree with both of my colleagues as it relates to sexual assault in the military. Having only been on Armed Services now for 6 months, I will tell you that I agree with Mr. McGovern, particularly as it relates to oversight. And I believe that this Congress should exhibit and utilize its oversight capacity to the fullest, especially as it relates to sexual assault within the military.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I have none.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well. It allows the House to take action on two different but very important pieces of legislation.

It provides us with an opportunity to force the SEC and the CFTC to finally and jointly promulgate rules governing the U.S. institutions' use of swaps and other financial derivatives while accessing international markets. This action will help ensure that we have a vibrant financial system and that American companies can manage the risks while remaining competitive in an international market. Additionally, it begins our consideration on the National Defense Authorization Act, providing the House with an hour of general debate on programs that make up our Department of Defense.

As a Member of Congress, as a three Blue Star parent, and as an American, I can think of nothing more important than providing our military the tools that they need to carry out their missions. These brave men and women put their lives on the line for our Nation each and every day. This legislation isn't a thank-you to the troops, it's our duty as citizens to acknowledge that we live in the land of the free only because of the service of the brave.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot of discussion here on the floor, particularly as it relates to Dodd-Frank. First of all, this does not repeal Dodd-Frank. If it were a vote for a repeal of Dodd-Frank, I'd vote for it, but it's not a repeal of Dodd-Frank. As a matter of fact, this piece of legislation, the Swap Act, was actually voice voted out of the Agriculture Committee, which has joint jurisdiction over this piece of legislation. It was voice voted. In the Committee on Financial Services, 100 percent of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats voted for its passage, so it isn't exactly as one would hear the other side say.

When we talk about open rules, I think one of the things that distinguishes this Congress versus the 111th Congress is that this is one of the most open Congresses in the 112th Congress versus the 111th, which had absolutely zero open rules. I will remind my colleagues of that just because, as we talk about this and move forward on both of these issues, it's important to know that we have an open rule coming up in which we have almost 300 amendments that we are going to be considering in the Rules Committee in just a short period of time with the NDAA.

Lastly, I hear my colleagues talk about how for 25 years they have allowed sexual assault to go unabated. I can hardly stomach the fact that this body would allow that to happen over the last 25 years. As a former law enforcement officer, as one who vigorously prosecuted cases of sexual assault and rape, it should be no different for our armed services.

That is where my good friend Mr. McGovern had mentioned the oversight of armed services and of this House to make sure that we hold people accountable; to make sure, as other Members have talked about, that members of our military are kept safe, and that those who would prey upon members of their own military unit will find swift justice so that nobody can say there is not justice in regards to the fact, if you commit a rape or a sexual assault in the military, that you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; that we make sure that we have victim advocates for those who are assaulted, and that we have good investigators who focus on those types of crimes and have the forensics to back it up so you have a strong prosecution. I think that's what this NDAA bill is an attempt to do.

I strongly support the bill and the underlying legislation.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 742) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Commodity Exchange Act to repeal the indemnification requirements for regulatory authorities to obtain access to swap data required to be provided by swaps entities under such Acts.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 742.

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

I want to thank the cosponsors of this bill, especially Mr. Huizenga, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Maloney, for joining me in this bipartisan effort to help bring transparency to the global swap markets. While I may not agree with every provision of the Dodd-Frank law, today I believe we're working towards its bipartisan goal of giving the regulators the tools they need to improve systemic risk mitigation in the global financial markets.

I think everyone agrees that the lack of transparency in the over- the-counter derivatives markets escalated the financial crisis of 2008. In order to provide market transparency, the Dodd-Frank law requires post-trade reporting to swap data repositories, or SDRs, so that regulators and market participants have access to realtime market data that help identify systemic risk in the financial system. So far we have made great strides in reaching this goal, but unfortunately a provision in the law threatens to undermine our progress unless we fix it.

Currently, Dodd-Frank includes a provision requiring a foreign regulator to indemnify a U.S.-based SDR for any expenses arising from litigation relating to a request for market data. Unlike the rest of the world, the concept of indemnification is only established within U.S. tort law. As a result, foreign regulators have been reluctant to comply with this provision, and international regulatory coordination is being thwarted.

While the intent of the provision was to protect market confidentiality, in practice it threatens to fragment global data on swap markets. Foreign regulators would be forced to create their own SDRs, resulting in a fragmented global data framework where regulators would be unable to see a complete picture of the marketplace. Without effective coordination between international regulators and SDRs, monitoring and mitigating global systemic risk is severely limited.

H.R. 742 fixes this problem by removing the indemnification provisions in Dodd-Frank. This legislation has broad bipartisan support and was unanimously approved by the House Agriculture Committee in March and the House Financial Services Committee in May. Additionally, last year, the SEC testified to the Financial Services Committee that a legislative solution was needed, saying:

In removing the indemnification requirement, Congress would

assist the SEC, as well as other regulators, in securing the

access it needs to data held in global trade repositories.

Many other U.S. and foreign regulators have echoed these same sentiments.

If left unresolved, the indemnification provision in Dodd-Frank has the potential to effectively reduce transparency in the over-the- counter derivatives markets and undo the great progress already being made through the cooperative efforts of more than 50 regulators worldwide. In passing this legislation, we will ensure that regulators will have access to a global set of swap market data, which is essential to maintaining the highest degree of market transparency and risk mitigation.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the lead cosponsor in Financial Services on this bill, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to simply say that by passing and enacting H.R. 742, it would send a clear message to the international community that the United States is strongly committed to global data sharing and is determined to avoid fragmenting the current global data set for over- the-counter derivatives.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 742, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

I again urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 742 and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, sexual assault in the military continues to be a serious problem. Given both the headlines and the reality, this is an understatement. It impacts thousands of servicemen and -women each year. And while Congress has investigated and discussed this problem for more than two decades, the issue remains pervasive. It's time for us to act. Recent reports that assault is happening by individuals who are supposed to protect and command our servicemembers make this all the more concerning.

According to a recent 2012 Pentagon survey, an estimated 26,000 sexual assaults in the military occurred in that year. That's a 35 percent increase since 2010. It means that roughly 70 servicemen and - women are sexually assaulted every single day. And I know from my own long history and experience of working on these issues that where there are 26,000, there are many, many more. And we know that only a fraction of these incidents are reported; fewer than 3,400 reported incidents every year.

Sexual violence has a longstanding impact on servicemen and -women and their families. According to the Service Women's Action Network, while experiences of sexual violence are strongly associated with a wide range of mental health conditions for men and for women veterans, military sexual trauma is the leading cause of PTSD among women. Due to shame, guilt, or fear of not being believed, fewer than 15 percent of these sexual assaults are reported to the proper authorities.

As a former domestic violence and sexual assault advocate, I understand that coming forward is an unimaginably tough thing to do, and I commend every single one of the men and women who had the courage to come forward and name their accused. Their fear of coming forward is not imagined; it's real. Victims of sexual assault face a lack of confidentiality, protection, support, and access to legal counsel once an incident is reported. This is profound in the military and it has profound consequences.

We have to act and stand together as a Congress and as a Nation to declare that the problem can't go on, and we have to work now to stamp out the violence within the military.

We have to ensure that the Guard and Reserve have response coordinators available at all times regardless of their duty status, and to ensure that each service has a robust investigative team, with clarity and consistency among the services.

Our hope is to ensure that zero tolerance for sexual assault in the military is the norm.

I want to say that some have pointed to a culture issue within the military that contributes to the problem. You know what, that might be true; but we cannot use culture as an excuse. It has to be a challenge and a commitment to change throughout the chain of command.

Some have pointed as well to say that this is just endemic within the military. As somebody who grew up in a servicemember family as one of four daughters, I can't lay this blame on the fact of service. I know that in the civilian sector a relatively small number of perpetrators commit the overwhelming number of crimes. So let's root out the criminals within the military. We have to commit ourselves to making sure that we do that and hold them accountable, hold their commanders accountable, punish people for crime, and stop promoting perpetrators and transferring the problem from one installation to the next installation. This enforceability and accountability has to happen throughout the command structure, no excuses and no exceptions.

It's the service that my father sacrificed for and that millions of others do that we have to honor. We do that by protecting the men and women who serve by saying to them: We want you to serve your country, but we want to make sure that you can do it in safety and that those who are criminals are held accountable.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, while I rise in opposition to this rule, I want to express my strong support for the underlying bill, H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act.

This legislation is not perfect; however, it ensures support for our men and women in uniform who sacrifice so much on our behalf, and includes provisions that are crucial to our military's future capabilities in this fiscally constrained environment.

Now, among other things, it fully supports the President's request for the peerless Virginia-class submarines, as well as critical future enablers such as the Ohio Class Replacement and the Virginia Payload Module.

It also includes the Oversight of Sensitive Military Operations Act which, for the first time, requires prompt notification to the defense committees of any overseas lethal or capture operations outside of Afghanistan, including those conducted with unmanned aerial vehicles.

Furthermore, I'm pleased that this measure begins to tackle the epidemic of sexual assault in our military. Our people in uniform need to know that they are protected from and against sexual assault, and God forbid if there is a sexual assault that occurs, that the perpetrator is held accountable.

While far more must be done, there are important first steps in this bill that are worthy of our strong support.

Mr. Speaker, I'm also proud to work closely with Chairman Mac Thornberry, both in this bill and in numerous other provisions which fall under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities. Together, we have worked hard to increase resources for our Special Operations Forces, who are helping us confront shifting threats and unconventional battlefields, and to support our efforts in the cybersecurity realm.

There are many other positive steps with regard to cyber in this legislation, including incentivizing new cybersecurity standards, ensuring U.S. Cyber Command has the proper authorities and the personnel in coordinating cybersecurity efforts with related disciplines.

However, the reality is that our Nation's cybersecurity challenges cannot simply be handed over to the Department of Defense. With the vast majority of our critical infrastructure in private hands, we absolutely must require minimum standards for their owners and operators. It is way past time for Congress to move aggressively to partner with the private sector and address what I believe is our greatest national security vulnerability.

Meanwhile, though I applaud DHS's efforts to coordinate the various approaches to cybersecurity found across

the Federal Government, I continue to believe that there must be an office within the White House with the policy and budgetary authority to enforce appropriate actions across the whole government. I'm disappointed the procedural and jurisdictional issues precluded offering such an amendment to the NDAA, but I am going to continue to work with my colleagues to enact what I believe to be a crucial provision.

Finally, I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith, as well as Chairman Thornberry and all of my colleagues on the committee, but most especially the tireless HASC, for all of their efforts, which have been really Herculean in bringing this bill to the process of where we are today.

I certainly urge my colleagues to support the National Defense Authorization Act.