Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1960) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 260 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, House Resolution 260 is a structured rule that provides House consideration of amendments to this year's National Defense Authorization Act.

As I explained when I was down here yesterday, the Rules Committee receives hundreds of amendments to the NDAA every single year. This time we had 299 amendments to make our way through.

While the volume of amendments was massive, the Rules Committee evaluated each and every one in developing this rule. We were not able to make every amendment in order, but I believe this rule will allow for the exhaustive debate of a vast majority of the issues presented in committee.

Yesterday's rule provided for 1 hour of general debate on the underlying bill, H.R. 1960. Today, we're considering a structured rule that provides Members of the House with the opportunity to have copious and free-flowing debate on many of the issues contained in the underlying legislation.

As a member of both the Rules Committee and the Armed Services Committee, I know how complicated and far-reaching the National Defense Authorization Act can be. I've sat through multiple subcommittee marks on this legislation. We had a nearly 16-hour-long full committee markup on this bill, a meeting that started early Wednesday and lasted into Thursday morning. And now we've had two Rules Committee hearings on this bill, including yesterday's hearing, which took almost 10 hours from start to finish.

Having spent as much time with this legislation as I have, I can promise you this: the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014 is a good bill. That's why the Armed Services Committee passed it with an overwhelming vote of 59-2. And we need to acknowledge Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for fostering such a bipartisan and collaborative approach. This rule is the next step in that transparent and cooperative process.

Of the 299 amendments that we received in the Rules Committee, H. Res. 260 makes 172 of them in order. To use a technical term, that's a lot of amendments. Despite that, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will remind us that even with 172 amendments allowed on the floor, it's still not an open rule; and, clearly, they're right. But let me assure you that this is also a fair and inclusive rule.

Having considered each of the amendments that was offered in the Rules Committee, I can honestly say that what we have here today is a rule that gives the House the opportunity to debate all of the major topics contained in the underlying legislation without duplicating efforts and having multiple amendments on the same issue.

For example, we heard many Members speak on the House floor yesterday about sexual assault in the military. The underlying legislation takes significant and necessary steps to combat, prosecute, and prevent this heinous crime. But given the importance of this issue, the Rules Committee understandably received five different amendments all related to sexual assault. So I'm proud to say that H. Res. 260 provides the House with the opportunity to debate this issue and ask ourselves if there isn't more that we can do.

Another major topic, one that none of us can ignore, is the nature of our military's operation in Afghanistan. We need to ask ourselves what's going to happen at the end of 2014, at which time President Obama has indicated we will have moved strictly to a security operation in that country.

The Rules Committee received no less than four different amendments on Afghanistan. I'm happy to say the rule allows for debate on the issue by way of an amendment offered by my colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, and I look forward to that. I look forward to having the opportunity to join the gentleman from Massachusetts in supporting that important--and I think commonsense--amendment, and my hat's off to you for that.

And the list goes on--energy, the use of drones, Guantanamo Bay, missile defense. The rule allows for amendments on all these important topics. I am going to vote for some of the amendments that this rule makes in order; I'm going to vote against others. But first and foremost, I'm going to vote for this rule.

The bill was done the right way. It went through the subcommittee process; it had a thorough and lively markup in the full committee; and it went to the Rules Committee, where we were diligent about making sure we gave it the consideration it deserves and provided it with two rules.

H. Res. 260 is the next step in a thoughtful, bipartisan process. I'm proud of this rule and the underlying legislation and the process that has gotten us to where we are today. For that reason, I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in passing this rule, passing the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014, and making sure our men and women in uniform have the tools and resources they need to complete the mission safely and successfully.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), my colleague on both the Rules Committee and the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

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

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I have none.

Mr. Speaker, this may be my third National Defense Authorization Act as a Member of Congress, but it's my first NDAA as a member of the Armed Services Committee. Let me tell you, it's been an experience. It's an educational, time-consuming and sometimes an exhausting experience, but it's always been a gratifying one.

As the father of three sons that currently serve in the United States Army, I never forget the overarching purpose for all of our work on the Defense Authorization Act. I know that my HASC colleagues never forget it either.

I've had sons that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, sometimes simultaneously. I know what it's like to send a son or a daughter off to war. As a family, it's something that causes you anguish all the time. It's not something that should be done lightly. So I appreciate the McGovern amendment because it's going to provide the opportunity to actually discuss and put on the floor an ability for this House to actually authorize or continue authorization of any force.

I think this House has been, unfortunately, somewhat derelict in its duties because of what we've done in the past and what we've called the President to do when we went into Libya, even though limited by air support only. We should never put our men and women at risk unless this House has a say in that which is so precious to us, and that's our sons and daughters.

You heard Mr. Turner speak as relates to sexual assault, and I heard a lot on the floor about Ms. Speier. She had the ability in the Armed Services Committee--the committee I serve on--she had the ability to bring that up in committee and have unlimited debate--unlimited debate--within that body in regards to her amendment. She chose not to do that. Instead, she chose to bring it in front of the Rules Committee that has a limited time slot.

Of the 299 amendments that were brought forward, 172 were made in order that are going to be heard on this floor today. That's what this rule is about, about giving everybody access and to be heard on all the important aspects of the NDAA. So to say that she was locked out just isn't so. The ability was there. As a Member of the HASC Committee, she had the ability to have unlimited debate.

Remember, the NDAA passed out of that committee 59-2. That's about as bipartisan as you can get, and it really talks about the issues that are important to America and particularly as it relates to protecting our sons and daughters that are called upon to protect this Nation and called upon to go out and sacrifice for this Nation. We owe them that much. We want to make sure that they're successful in any mission that they're sent forward to participate in to protect the interests of this Nation and our Allies.

The American people hear in the news media about how partisan Congress is today. Although we have our disagreements, and I know those reports and folks back home can't be looking at the work we're doing on the Armed Services Committee if all they see is partisanship, because it's not there. If they were looking at the Armed Services Committee and this year's National Defense Authorization Act, they'd see the kind of collaboration that legislation is supposed to be about. They'd see a chairman and a ranking member who work together on a common goal. They'd see staff that works to benefit our warfighters and not a political party. They'd see an

NDAA that was passed out of the largest committee in the House of Representatives with only two people opposing it.

And, tomorrow, I hope they'll see a House of Representatives that can put politics aside and support our troops by overwhelmingly passing the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014.

It's a good bill. H. Res. 260 makes it even better by allowing the House to consider amendments covering all the major issues covered by NDAA and the Department of Defense at large. I always like to say that nobody has a monopoly on good ideas. And that truism is evidenced by the 299 amendments that were offered to this legislation. The rule provides time for a vote on the majority of those ideas. That's why I support the rule, I support the underlying legislation, and I hope the House, as a whole, can do the same.

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

I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, the rule for the defense authorization bill is a structured rule. Over 300 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee, and 172 were made in order.

This was a very difficult task, made even more difficult because the majority scheduled only 2 days for debate on amendments to this 850- page bill. But I would like to add a special word of appreciation for the Rules Committee staff, both majority and minority, who worked tirelessly for long hours to prepare this bill and its amendments for debate. I think most of my colleagues do not have the appreciation for what the staff and even the members of the Rules Committee have to go through, but I think they should appreciate their work even more after this rule that is being brought before the floor today.

I am pleased that one of the amendments included in this rule is my amendment on the war in Afghanistan. This is a bipartisan amendment which will be debated and voted on later today. It is cosponsored by Walter Jones of North Carolina and Ranking Member Adam Smith of Washington, along with Representatives Lee and Garamendi of California.

A very similar amendment was not allowed debate last year; and I want to particularly thank Chairman Sessions, members of the Rules Committee, my good friend, Mr. Nugent, and the Republican leadership of the House for allowing a debate on the war to occur this year. It is the right thing to do; and I appreciate that they take seriously the responsibilities of the House to debate issues of war and peace and to sending and keeping our servicemen and -women in harm's way.

However, I'm a little disappointed that the debate will only last for 10 minutes. That's the amount of time designated for this amendment. Ten minutes is not really enough time for a genuine debate on the war in Afghanistan and what might next be required of our troops, and how much staying in Afghanistan will cost us.

Afghanistan has turned into the longest war in American history--over 12 years so far. And heaven only knows, Mr. Speaker, it has cost us dearly in both blood and treasure. Those costs will haunt us for decades to come, as so many of our veterans have returned wounded in body, mind, and soul: 2,235 American military personnel have been killed in Afghanistan, and even more will be sacrificed before our troops come home. Over 17,000 have been wounded. It's estimated that over 30,000 Afghan civilians have been killed since 2001; 349 of our veterans committed suicide last year, more than the 310 servicemen and -women who were killed in theater in Afghanistan.

Since 2001, including the money in this bill, we have spent $778 billion for Operation Enduring Freedom, nearly all of that in Afghanistan. Right now, as we speak on the floor of this House, we're spending over $7 billion each month in Afghanistan. Every hour costs us nearly $10 million. And all this time we have helped support a corrupt Karzai government, a government that gets billions of dollars each year and billions more under the table.

Surely this war and the possible extended deployment of our brave troops for an indefinite period of time are worth a little bit more time than has been given for debate.

But, Mr. Speaker, Members will have the opportunity to debate and vote later today on ensuring the President completes his timeline to transfer all combat military and security operations to Afghan control by the end of 2014, at which time U.S. involvement in combat operations is to end; and to express that should the President determine to extend the deployment of U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014, then the United States Congress should specifically vote to authorize that mission.

I would urge all of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--to join us in supporting this very, very important amendment.

Again, I do want to express my appreciation to my colleagues on the Rules Committee for making it in order. While I am pleased that my amendment was made in order under the rule, several other amendments on very serious military security issues were excluded from debate. I would just like to mention a couple of them.

In a bipartisan fashion, Members of Congress have expressed their shock and outrage over the epidemic of rape and sexual abuse and assault in all branches of our military and at all ranks and military institutions. It is unacceptable, and it is intolerable. While H.R. 1960 has many provisions that address aspects of this crisis, there were several amendments that were not allowed, in particular, amendments dealing with military sexual assault offered by Representatives Speier and Gabbard.

These amendments were serious efforts to advance this debate and to let Members of this House as a whole decide whether more needs to be done to prevent and reduce the level of military sexual assault, to prosecute and to bring to justice the perpetrators of sexual abuse, and to hold accountable the military chain of command and institutions that have allowed, facilitated, or tolerated this abuse. They should have not been excluded from this rule, and they deserve our most serious attention.

So because these and some other important issues fail to be included in the rule, I reluctantly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Again, I thank my colleague, Mr. Nugent, for his courtesies and for his kind words about my amendment, and I will now reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from my friend how many more speakers he has on his side?

Okay. Then I will yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge that we defeat the previous question. And if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to make this an open rule so that Members have the opportunity to offer any amendment allowed under the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include for the Record the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I think the Rules Committee had a difficult task given the fact that the leadership of this House has kind of only allocated 2 days for debate on the defense authorization bill. They had to deal with 300 amendments. They made 172 in order. I know that everybody worked hard to try to be fair. I appreciate, again, the courtesy extended to me on my amendment with regard to Afghanistan, and I appreciate my colleagues on the Republican side for their support.

I think the controversy still is around the issue of sexual assault in the military. A number of amendments, particularly those offered by Ms. Speier and Ms. Gabbard, were not made in order. That, unfortunately, makes it very difficult for many on our side to support this rule.

But I want to thank, again, the staff of the Rules Committee and the Members for work on this. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment, No. 208, cuts $250 million from the Defense Rapid Innovation Program--or commonly called DRIP--and moves the money to alleviate training and readiness shortfalls.

The DRIP program is a relatively new program started by Congress in the wake of the earmark ban in 2010. The funding was not requested by the Department of Defense, and Congress uses the program through DOD to provide grants to small businesses. The funding can be better applied.

Yesterday, Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter said the sequester hits particularly hard in the operations and maintenance accounts. As a result, training is hurt and our Nation's military readiness plummets. This is unacceptable.

But we can't just bemoan this fact; we have to address it. It is our duty to our men and women in uniform and our Nation's security to ensure that we spend our defense dollars in the most efficient and critical way possible. A quarter billion dollars for the DRIP program is not the wisest use of our tax dollars.

As a former small business owner, I am naturally very protective of our Nation's small businesses. I understand the pressures they operate under.

But I am also aware of the effect sequestration is having on our military's operations and maintenance accounts. We are seeing across- the-board cuts to vital operational funding. The Air Force grounded 13 squadrons for the year. The Navy has canceled ship deployments and deferred maintenance. The Army has canceled major training exercises for the year.

While I am sure that there have been good results from some of the spending in the DRIP program, I am sure that this program is duplicative of many other efforts in the Department of Defense.

There is already $76 million for quick reaction special projects, $62 million for emerging capabilities technology development, $174 million for joint capability technology demonstrations, and $34 million for the Defense-Wide Manufacturing Science & Technology program.

There is over $1 billion for Department of Defense Small Business Innovation Research funding, and so on, DARPA, joint programs, and technical support programs. Transferring this money will not leave small businesses or technology development without funding. What it will do is signal to the American people that we are willing to make the hard choices necessary to prioritize our men and women in uniform by supporting the operations and maintenance accounts they rely on, which are a higher priority than the potential DRIP results.

I repeat, the DRIP program was set up in 2010 as a way to get around the ban on earmarks. In today's restrictive fiscal climate, we have higher defense spending priorities that we should fund instead. I ask for your support for this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, every dollar wasted in the defense budget is a dollar not spent on defending this country. This is not a program that was ever requested by the Department of Defense. This is a jobs program. I think, given the fact that the Defense Department is under incredible stress, that we've got to fund the priorities that our men and women on the front lines need. And that is putting this $250 million to operations and maintenance--$250 million to the spending program that is already duplicated in other parts of the Department of Defense budget.

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

Mr. Chairman, the question before us, in an environment of limited resources, is whether we fund an economic development program for small business. And as a former small business owner, I certainly would think under normal circumstances that would be important. But we're doing it out of the Department of Defense budget, and we're doing it at the expense of priorities within the Department of Defense.

The Department of Defense is not asking for this program. What the Department of Defense is saying is that there are shortages in funding operations and maintenance. So I believe that it's critically important to take this $250 million that the Department of Defense is now requesting and put it into an area where they are requesting.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, in this bill, there's already $76 million for Quick Reaction Special Projects, $62 million for emerging capabilities technology development, $174 million for joint capability technology demonstrations, and $34 million for the Defense-Wide Manufacturing Science and Technology program. The Department of Defense Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs spend about $1 billion per year in research and development funding for our Nation's small technology companies. The issues that they're talking about are already addressed in multiple ways; and this is,

unfortunately, wasteful Pentagon spending that should be cut.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, over the past few years, the prevailing trend within the Department of Defense has been an overreliance on Federal employees to perform commercial services. Given our Nation's need for fiscal austerity, a problem made more acute by mandated sequester cuts, it is important that Congress provide the Pentagon with the necessary tools to drive efficiencies and cost savings. Public- private competitions are one such tool.

Public-private competitions are an effective way of injecting performance and accountability into government operations. The private sector constantly competes for new business opportunities. When the Federal Government performs commercial functions, they, too, should be required to compete. Unfortunately, Congress has placed a moratorium on public-private cost competitions, effectively granting monopoly power to the Federal Government when it comes to providing commercially available goods and services. We all know that without competition, both innovation and quality suffer.

The amendment does not mandate the use of public-private competitions. It simply unlocks an essential tool that the Defense Department can use to drive cost effectiveness and efficiencies, and save valuable taxpayer dollars.

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

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

I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Adam Smith for their efforts. They had given to Representative Tsongas and myself the task of doing a bipartisan package to address the issue of sexual assault in the military.

We all know and people have spoken on this House floor eloquently of the tragedy of the issue of sexual assault in the military. We have to do something both to change the culture and to change the legislative regime that affects the prosecution and the prevention of sexual assault and the protection of victims.

Many times victims report they are revictimized by the system. It is our effort in changing the system so that the perpetrator fears the system, not the victim.

There is one other thing that we need to address. Mr. Chairman, many people have taken this House floor and say we need to go further. The Turner amendment is what we need to do to go further.

We have put in this bill currently a mandatory minimum, meaning if you commit a sexual assault, you are subject to a statutory minimum. That minimum in this bill, unfortunately, is only that you're out of the military. We want to increase that to include 2 years of confinement.

Mr. Chairman, 22 States have mandatory minimums that include confinement, incarceration. Of those 22 States, we took the minimum of those so that we're not going higher than any State.

But here is the issue, Mr. Chairman, that we need to remedy: unfortunately, under current law, if you commit a sexual assault on a base that's in a State that has a mandatory minimum, you might actually avoid a mandatory minimum. That has happened.

In the case of Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant Nicholas Howard, he committed a rape on a 23-year-old woman. He was a recruiter in Alaska. He was convicted of sexual assault due to DNA testing, and he was found guilty of first degree sexual assault. He was given a dishonorable discharge but no jail time. In Alaska, he would have been subject to incarceration.

Mr. Chairman, we should not have people who are in uniform or on base committing sexual assaults actually avoid jail time because they're in the military. We shouldn't have a lower standard.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mrs. Walorski.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Do I have the right to close, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concern that I have heard from the other side of the aisle. The issue, I think, comes down to being in a military uniform should not be a get-out-of-jail-free card. Basically the state of the law is that if you're in a State that has a mandatory minimum and you commit a sexual assault or a rape, you're going to jail. But yet under our law, you could be a member of the military and commit a sexual assault or rape and be free from incarceration even if you commit the assault or rape off base.

When we talk about wanting to make certain that we uphold the victims and make certain that the perpetrator is the person who feels insecure and threatened by the system, you can't have a system that threatens the perpetrator when the perpetrator knows that being a man or woman in uniform or by being on base and a member of the military that you're subject to a lower standard in conviction and sentencing.

The case we have in Alaska where a member of our military, a member of the Marine Corps, committed a rape and then received no jail time whatsoever--no jail time whatsoever--and if he had been off base or if he been a civilian in Alaska, he would have been subject to a significant mandatory minimum of incarceration.

When people ask what's different in the military, this is different. We need a mandatory minimum that says if you commit a sexual assault and you're convicted, you are out of the military, you are dishonorably discharged, and you are going to jail. And that mandatory minimum will be at least 2 years of incarceration.

I was just at a facility where I asked the commanders what had occurred on their facility with sexual assault, and they reported there had been a sexual assault and there was currently someone in jail, in the brig for 7 months. They didn't get a dishonorable discharge. That's all they got, 7 months. They were going to be out walking among their fellow men and women, and they will have committed a sexual assault. That has a chilling effect both on reporting, and it also creates an environment where people who are perpetrators feel they could be safe.

Our law, this amendment, would make it: you're out, mandatory, dishonorable discharge, 2 years in prison, and that's it. We urge support for the Turner amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, although I'm not in opposition, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

I yield myself the balance of my time just to say I agree with the chairman. These are technical corrections that we have agreed to, and I urge support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, there are two very compelling reasons to oppose this amendment.

First of all, this is, again, not recognizing the reality of sequestration and the defense budget. The way Congress seems to have reacted to the reality of the fact that the defense budget has already been cut substantially and that because of sequestration--which nobody seems to want to put forward a plan to get rid of or certainly won't pass the House and the Senate--the defense budget is going to be cut. So the way Congress reacts is, okay, fine, but I have to protect mine. Don't close my base, don't shut down a ship, don't shut down a plane, and don't move anything out of the National Guard.

All of this is an effort to preserve, in these three States, their military presence, which means money. And I get that. But the Pentagon is going to have to reduce their budget. Every time we pass one of these things that says you can't do this and you can't save money here and you can't save money there, we are creating a hollow force. The Pentagon will not have the funds necessary to train our troops to be ready to perform the missions that we need to if they can't save money anywhere because Congress has stepped in and said you can't because it's mine and I don't want to give it up.

The second reason is we have well over 5,000 nuclear weapons. We will be amply able to scare the living crap out of everybody in the world for a very long time even if we reduce that somewhat and sensibly.

This amendment just cramps the ability of the Pentagon to make those types of sensible decisions. It will not eliminate our nuclear deterrence. Our nuclear deterrence is overwhelming. There is money to be saved in the nuclear programs. The Pentagon can sensibly do that. But here comes Congress, again, to say, I have to protect my own, and I don't care what it does to the budget.

Fiscal conservatives should not support this amendment. We've got to get our budget in order. We've got to do it logically, and logically is not ``protect mine and I don't care about the big picture.'' That's not the way to approach this budget if we're going to have an adequate national security.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

While I understand the importance of the Department of Defense's role in all this, there are other agencies that also have an important role.

The National Resources Committee minority has expressed concerns about this because the Bureau of Land Management has their interests, as well as a bunch of other Federal agencies. So this basically gives the Department of Defense a veto power over land use. I want to make sure that the Department of Defense's interests are looked after, but they're not the only interests that exists in our country. So a proper balance of those interests I think would be a proper approach.

This amendment just says Department of Defense basically gets the ultimate veto, and I think that gives it too much power. So I'd prefer to see a more balanced approach and oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and just say I think the gentleman from Utah makes a very reasonable point. Certainly, one agency shouldn't be shutting something down that has a negative impact on another without consulting them. Perhaps if we work on this amendment to figure out some way where consultation is required, there is some sort of balance. It's just the way this amendment is written, it gives the Department of Defense the ability to do what the gentleman from Utah just said the other agency did, which is just whack it and not talk to anybody else.

So we're happy to continue to work on this going forward. In its present form, I am still opposed to it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

As I have no further speakers either, I yield back the balance of my time.