Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2397) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2610) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), my friend, 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, we're here today to consider one rule for two appropriations bills, the Department of Defense appropriations bill and the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill.

While the T-HUD bill will be considered under an open rule--that is, if it's ever considered in this House at all--the Defense appropriations bill is another story. That's because the FY 2014 Defense appropriations bill is not an open rule. This bill is structured. Many good amendments were denied. The Rules Committee cherry-picked amendments that could be considered and prevented many germane amendments from being considered today. In fact, Mr. Speaker, last month, Speaker Boehner touted Republican use of open rules for appropriations bills. But now, just 1 month later, this Tea Party-run House is limiting debate on the Defense bill just to avoid taking some tough votes.

My colleague said that they made exceptions and limited amendments with regard to Egypt, Syria, and the NSA. Those were the only three areas, he said, that they purposefully made exceptions. Well, those are the three most important areas before us. Those are the things that our constituents want to make sure that we are debating and deliberating on.

Let me note another area where this structured rule inhibits having a robust debate on a critical issue, namely, the debate on the need for greater transparency and oversight of NSA collection of telephone and email records from people who are not under any suspicion or investigation whatsoever.

I'm grateful that a couple of amendments were made in order on this subject, but they were only given 15 minutes of debate apiece. That's it. This is a pretty big issue. We all want to provide our law enforcement officials with the tools they need to safeguard our country from potential terrorist attacks. But we also want to protect the basic rights and liberties guaranteed to all Americans from unwanted and unwarranted searches and invasion of privacy by government agencies.

Issues of transparency, accountability and oversight are critical duties and responsibilities not just of the executive branch but of Congress. Who is providing the necessary oversight of all of this massive data collection? Who is watching the watchers? Isn't it time for Congress to take a serious review of how the law is being implemented, how it is touching and affecting all Americans, and whether any of those laws and their implementation now require changes? I, for one, welcome such a debate, which I hope will occur at least in a limited fashion on the amendments that were made in order under this structured rule.

I believe a far better debate would have occurred under an open rule, where all Members could have voiced their concerns and outlined proposals for change. Regrettably, this will not happen under the time restrictions of this structured rule.

Turning to the T-HUD appropriations bill, I am disappointed and concerned with the committee's proposed funding level for the Community Development Block Grant program, known as CDBG. The bill cuts CDBG from $3.071 billion in FY13 to $1.637 billion in FY14, almost halving the program and bringing it to a historic low in terms of funding. CDBG funds are working in neighborhoods throughout our country, and this proposed reduction will negatively impact local economies and economic development projects all over the country.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record a bipartisan letter signed by 101 Members of the House of Representatives expressing support for effective CDBG funding levels. If this bill is actually considered by this body before the end of the fiscal year, I hope there will be an attempt to restore funding for this critically important program.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, June 25, 2013.

Hon. Tom Latham,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban

Development, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC.

Hon. Ed Pastor,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Transportation Housing and

Urban Development, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Latham and Ranking Member Pastor: We write to

share our concern about the impact the proposed funding

levels for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)

program in House Transportation, Housing and Urban

Development Subcommittee-passed bill would have on

redevelopment authorities and local municipalities. While we

understand the difficult fiscal decisions we must make in

Washington, the proposed bill reduces CDBG formula grants by

nearly 50 percent, from $3.071 billion in FY2013 to $1.637

billion in FY2014. This proposed funding level also marks an

historic low since the program's beginnings in the 1970s.

As you know, 144 Members signed a bipartisan letter in

April for your review in developing FY2014 legislation. The

letter supported maintaining the funding levels that the

subcommittee recommended last year. The now proposed,

substantial reduction--essentially halving the program--would

impact local economies, threaten the program's national

scope, curtail on-the-ground lead-abatement projects helping

to revitalize our older cities, and reduce ongoing

capabilities to aid veterans and other workforce training

services.

We are concerned about the implications of this reduction,

especially as the program's funds have already fallen

substantially--by nearly $1 billion since FY2010. As you

know, CDBG is largely managed by local municipalities,

providing flexibility and tailored needs in our local

economies and remains a lifeline for families and

communities. For example, HUD reports that between FY2007 and

FY2011, CDBG helped over 174,000 businesses expand economic

opportunities and over the last decade, CDBG programs have

rehabilitated more than 1.4 million homes for low- and

moderate-income homeowners and renters. As a proven program

with an effective track record, it serves an ongoing,

continual need that not only impacts lives, but provides a

documented return on its investment to leverage local

dollars: Every $1.00 of CDBG leverages an additional $3.55 in

non-CDBG funding, according to the U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD).

The pressing need in the current economy for these funds

remains critical. We look forward to working with you to

maintain effective funding levels for this work. If we can

provide any further information, please contact Kate

Ostrander, Legislative Director of the Northeast-Midwest

Congressional Coalition, at 6-6106 or kate.ostrander@mail

.house.gov. Thank you for your consideration and support.

Sincerely,

Mike Kelly; Michael R. Turner; Robert A. Brady; Lou

Barletta; Peter T. King; David B. McKinley; James P.

McGovern; Chaka Fattah; Christopher P. Gibson; Emanuel

Cleaver; Niki Tsongas; Jim Gerlach; Stevan Pearce; Marcia L.

Fudge; Peter Welch; Elijah E. Cummings; John K. Delaney; Tony

Cardenas; Matt A. Cartwright; Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan.

Colleen W. Hanabusa; Nick J. Rahall, II; Wm. Lacy Clay;

John D. Dingell; Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.; Chris Van

Hollen; Juan Vargas; Mark Takano; Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott;

Mike Doyle; Ann M. Kuster; William R. Keating; Danny K.

Davis; Jim Matheson; Bobby L. Rush; Carolyn McCarthy; Alcee

L. Hastings; Janice D. Schakowsky; Linda T. Sanchez; Doris O.

Matsui.

Brian Higgins; Louise McIntosh Slaughter; Eliot L. Engel;

Ruben Hinojosa; Albio Sires; Yvette D. Clarke; Charles B.

Rangel; Diana DeGette; John Conyers, Jr.; Richard M. Nolan;

Paul Tonko; Gene Green; James A. Himes; Anna G. Eshoo; Suzan

K. DelBene; Sander M. Levin; Ron Kind; David Loebsack; Grace

F. Napolitano; Michael H. Michaud.

Corrine Brown; John F. Tierney; Lloyd Doggett; Bradley S.

Schneider; Joyce Beatty; Steven A. Horsford; Judy Chu; Carol

Shea-Porter; Gloria Negrete McLeod; Jerrold Nadler; Louis

Capps, Gwen Moore; Tammy Duckworth; David N. Cicilline; John

A. Yarmuth; Cedric L. Richmond; Pete P. Gallego; Suzanne

Bonamici; Theodore E. Deutch; Loretta Sanchez.

Michael E. Capuano; Donna M. Christensen; Debbie Wasserman

Schultz; Ann Kirpatrick; Janice Hahn; Gerald E. Connolly;

Filemon Vela; Julia Brownley; Timothy J. Walz; Jim Costa; Joe

Garcia; Raul M. Grijalva; Stephen F. Lynch; Earl Blumenauer;

Jared Huffman; Xavier Becerra; Maxine Waters; Bill Pascrell,

Jr.; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Jared Polis; Patrick Murphy.

Now, as for the Department of Defense appropriations bill, everyone in this House on both sides of the aisle supports our men and women in uniform. We want to make sure that they have the equipment, the training, and

the logistical support they need to carry out their duties and missions, and that they have peace of mind that their families are being taken care of when they're deployed to perilous places abroad.

We want the most effective and efficient modern military in the world. There is no argument and no debate over these priorities in this House. However, that doesn't mean we should just throw money at the Pentagon, which is infamous for wasting tens of billions of taxpayer dollars each and every year for as long as I can remember.

In these tough budget times, we need to be smart with our money, and that includes with our defense dollars. I strongly believe that we could make better choices if the Republican majority would recognize that we need to negotiate a balanced approach to our national budget in order to get rid of the harsh and indiscriminate cuts caused by sequestration and I appeal to them to appoint conferees so that we can begin negotiations with the Senate on the budget. Now, I thought that was a priority for the House Republican leadership, but clearly I was wrong, as they have let budget negotiations languish for months.

Now, in the absence of a balanced approach to the budget, which would have provided greater clarity to our defense priorities, I have several concerns about the fiscal year 2014 Defense appropriations bill.

First, the bill neither reflects the current levels of defense spending that are the result of the current sequestration, nor does it reflect the next round of potential sequestration cuts that will go into effect for FY 2014. This would be easier to understand if the Republican majority showed any inclination to go to conference with the Senate on the budget resolution or return to serious negotiations with the White House on an overarching budget agreement. But the Republican leadership has stated clearly, time and again, that it will not negotiate a balanced and comprehensive solution to resolve our overall budget spending, revenue and deficit issues.

While critical domestic priorities are facing deep cuts in other appropriations bills, and the Appropriations Committee is demanding sequestration cuts be included in these bills, the Defense bill sails on through relatively untouched. In reality, it's those painful and draconian cuts in the other appropriations bills that allow this Defense bill to emerge relatively unscathed.

So let me share with my House colleagues a few words from the Statement of Administration Policy on the Defense appropriations bill:

Enacting H.R. 2397--while adhering to the overall spending

limits in the House budget's top-line discretionary level for

fiscal year 2014--would hurt our economy and require

draconian cuts to middle class priorities. These cuts could

result in hundreds of thousands of low-income children losing

access to Head Start programs, tens of thousands of children

with disabilities losing Federal funding for their special

education teachers and aides, thousands of Federal agents who

cannot enforce drug laws, combat violent crime, or apprehend

fugitives, and thousands of scientists without medical

grants, which would slow research that could lead to new

treatments and cures for diseases like cancer and

Alzheimer's, and hurt America's economic competitiveness.

The statement goes on to say:

Unless this bill passes the Congress in the context of an

overall budget framework that supports our recovery and

enables sufficient investments in education, infrastructure,

innovation, and national security for our economy to compete

in the future, the President's senior advisers would

recommend that he veto H.R. 2397 and any other legislation

that implements the House Republican Budget framework.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record the Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2397.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, July 22, 2013.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 2397--Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2014

(Rep. Rogers, R-KY)

The President is committed to our national defense and

funding other important priorities within a budget framework

that strengthens our economy and advances middle-class

priorities. The Administration believes H.R. 2397, making

appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes, funds

critical priorities, and looks forward to working on its

provisions as part of an acceptable budget framework.

However, enacting H.R. 2397, while adhering to the overall

spending limits in the House Budget's topline discretionary

level for fiscal year (FY) 2014, would hurt our economy and

require draconian cuts to middle-class priorities. These cuts

could result in hundreds of thousands of low-income children

losing access to Head Start programs, tens of thousands of

children with disabilities losing Federal funding for their

special education teachers and aides, thousands of Federal

agents who cannot enforce drug laws, combat violent crime or

apprehend fugitives, and thousands of scientists without

medical grants, which would slow research that could lead to

new treatments and cures for diseases like cancer and

Alzheimer's, and hurt America's economic competitiveness.

More than three months have passed since the deadline for

action and the Congress has yet to appoint conferees and

agree on a budget resolution. Prior to consideration of

appropriations bills the Congress should complete an

appropriate framework for all the appropriations bills.

Unless this bill passes the Congress in the context of an

overall budget framework that supports our recovery and

enables sufficient investments in education, infrastructure,

innovation and national security for our economy to compete

in the future, the President's senior advisors would

recommend that he veto H.R. 2397 and any other legislation

that implements the House Republican Budget framework.

The Administration would like to take this opportunity to

share additional views regarding the Committee's version of

the bill.

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response. The Administration

appreciates the support of the Committee in working to

eliminate the threat that sexual assault in the military

presents to our Service members and our national security.

Detainee Matters. The Administration strongly objects to

the provisions of sections 8107 and 8108 that limit the use

of funds to transfer detainees and otherwise restrict

detainee transfers, which, in certain circumstances, would

violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 8107 undermines national security and this

unnecessarily constrains the Nation's counterterrorism

efforts, particularly where Federal courts are the best--or

even the only--option for incapacitating dangerous

terrorists. For decades, presidents of both political parties

have leveraged the flexibility and strength of this country's

Federal courts to incapacitate dangerous terrorists and

gather critical intelligence. The continued prosecution of

terrorists in Federal court is an essential element of

counterterrorism efforts--a powerful tool that must remain an

available option. Additionally, the restrictions in section

8108 on the transfer of detainees to the United States and to

the custody or effective control of foreign countries or

entities in the context of an ongoing armed conflict may

interfere with the Executive Branch's ability to determine

the appropriate disposition of detainees and to make

important foreign policy and national security determinations

regarding whether and under what circumstances such transfers

should occur.

In addition, the Administration strongly opposes section

8109, which would prohibit the use of funds to construct,

acquire, or modify a detention facility in the United States

to house individuals held in the detention facility at

Guantanamo Bay. This would constrain the flexibility that the

Nation's Armed Forces and counterterrorism professionals need

to deal with evolving threats, intruding upon the Executive

Branch's ability to carry out its mission.

Topline Funding Levels. The Administration strongly objects

to unrequested Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding

in the bill and the reduction of base budget funding relative

to the President's request. The FY 2014 Budget carefully

aligns program priorities and resources based on the

President's strategic guidance, and it fully funds OCO

requirements.

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). The Administration

strongly urges the Congress to provide BRAC authorization and

funding as requested so that the Department of Defense (DOD)

can right-size its infrastructure while providing appropriate

transition assistance to affected communities. Without a new

round of BRAC, DOD cannot properly align the military's

infrastructure with the needs of its evolving force

structure, a critical tool for ensuring that limited

resources are available to the highest priorities of the

warfighter and national security.

TRICARE Fees and Co-Payments. The Administration strongly

urges the Congress to support its proposed TRICARE fee

increases, because military retirees deserve an excellent,

sustainable health care benefit. The Administration is

disappointed that the Committee has consistently failed to

support requested TRICARE fee initiatives that seek to

control DOD's spiraling health care costs while keeping

retired beneficiaries' share of these costs well below the

levels experienced when the TRICARE program was implemented

in the mid-1990s. While the bill restores the projected FY

2014 TRICARE savings associated with the initiatives, the

Department will be forced to make deeper reductions to troop

levels, readiness and modernization accounts in order to

offset higher health care costs of over $8 billion through FY

2018.

Military Pay. The Administration strongly urges the

Congress to include the proposal to set the military pay

raise growth at 1.0 percent in FY 2014. Consistent with the

views of the uniformed military leadership, the President's

Budget requests a 1.0 percent increase to basic pay, a 4.2

percent increase in the Basic Allowance for Housing, and a

3.4 percent increase in Basic Allowance for Subsistence. This

total compensation level recognizes the sacrifices made by

the men and women in our Armed Forces, while adhering to the

current budget constraints faced by DOD. The bill provides

$580 million in additional appropriations to fund the pay

raise in FY 2014, but it would increase costs by a total of

$3.5 billion from FY 2014 through FY 2018. After FY 2014,

these future costs would need to be offset by deeper

reductions to troop levels, readiness and modernization

accounts at a time when statutory spending caps require

defense reductions.

Building Partner Capacity. The Administration strongly

objects to reductions in funds for programs to build partner

capacity, which would limit the Department's ability to

address current and emerging threats to our national

security. The bill provides $83 million less than the $358

million requested for the Global Train and Equip program and

does not fund the request for $75 million for the Global

Security Contingency Fund.

National Intelligence Program Consolidation. The

Administration strongly objects to section 8105 because the

provision's prohibitions would impinge on the President's

prerogatives to seek efficient budget structures and unduly

constrain the President in future budget decisions.

Unrequested Funding. The Administration is concerned about

the billions of dollars provided for items DOD did not

request and does not need, such as Light Utility Helicopters,

National Guard High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles

(HMMWV), additional medical research, and the modernization

of seven cruisers and two amphibious ships. The

Administration is also concerned that 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.

C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (C-130 AMP). The

Administration objects to the $47 million in unrequested

funding provided for the C-130 AMP, which would start initial

production of C-130 AMP kits for the modernization of earlier

generation C-130 airlift aircraft. The President's FY 2013

Budget canceled the C-130 AMP because of its high total

program cost of $2.7 billion, and because the aircraft would

still be able to perform their missions with less expensive

upgrades. In addition, as required by the FY 2013 National

Defense Authorization Act, DOD is conducting an independent

cost-benefit analysis of the C-130 AMP, and it would be

premature to reinstate the program before that study is

complete.

Advanced Innovative Technologies. The Administration

objects to the $115 million cut for Advanced Innovative

Technologies, an 88 percent reduction from the President's

request, which funds on-going research and development

efforts that support the new Defense Strategy and the

rebalance to the Asia Pacific. Specifically, this program

supports initiatives that would provide cost-effective and

cost-imposing capabilities that are critical for meeting the

Combatant Commander's objectives in the region. This

capability is needed to address real world threats and full

funding is required to research, develop and test performance

of the Electromagnetic Railgun system.

Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund (JUONF). The

Administration objects to the elimination of funding

requested for the JUONF. This funding is critical to DOD's

ability to quickly respond to urgent operational needs of

Combatant Commanders. Elimination of funding may delay

fielding of important capabilities that help accomplish

critical missions.

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)

Programs. The Administration objects to the restoration of

funding for the STARBASE program, which would perpetuate the

Federal Government's fragmented approach to STEM education,

whereby more than 220 programs are scattered across 13

agencies. The Administration's proposed reorganization of

STEM programs would improve STEM education quality and

outcomes across the Federal Government.

Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (DAWDF). The

Administration opposes the reduction of $205 million from the

FY 2014 Budget request for the DAWDF. Failure to provide the

full request would require DOD to collect the shortfall

between the appropriation and the statutory minimum for DAWDF

from other budget accounts. In addition, the Administration

opposes appropriations language that would not allow use of

prior year expired funds for the FY 2014 DAWDF collection.

Components should be allowed to use these funds per the

authority provided in current law.

Civilian Pay Raise. The Administration urges the Congress

to support the proposed 1.0 percent pay increase for Federal

civilian employees. As the President stated in his FY 2014

Budget, a permanent pay freeze is neither sustainable nor

desirable.

Missile Defense. The Administration appreciates the support

for DOD's air and missile defense programs, as well as

support for the government of Israel's Iron Dome rocket

system.

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund. The Administration

appreciates the Committee's continued strong support for U.S.

efforts to build and develop the security forces of

Afghanistan. However, the Administration strongly urges the

Congress to make $2.6 billion of the $7.7 billion request

contingent upon pending policy decisions and the progress

made by the Afghan National Security Forces during FY 2014,

as requested in the President's Budget.

Limitation on Funds Available to Procure Equipment. The

Administration appreciates the support of the Committee for a

responsive and flexible program to train and equip the

security forces of Afghanistan. However, the Administration

is concerned that some of the limitations proposed in section

8119 will prevent the Department from meeting critical

equipment requirements and delivery timelines for the Afghan

National Security Forces and will unnecessarily increase

costs for the U.S. taxpayer. The Administration urges the

Congress to work with the Department to develop an

alternative approach.

The Administration looks forward to working with the

Congress as the FY 2014 appropriations process moves forward.

Finally, and most importantly, Mr. Speaker, this bill not only continues funding for the war in Afghanistan; it also increases the Overseas Contingency Operations account, adding $5 billion more above the Pentagon's request, for a total of $85.8 billion.

Now, let me see if I understand this correctly, Mr. Speaker. During the time period when the United States is significantly reducing the size of our forces in Afghanistan, and when we are withdrawing from the war, this bill actually adds $5.1 billion to the OCO account above and beyond what the Pentagon asked for.

That is simply crazy, Mr. Speaker. Maybe those extra billions will pay the $70-plus million exit tax that Afghanistan is demanding of the United States to pull out our military equipment. That's not fuzzy math, Mr. Speaker. The word for that is ``extortion.''

My colleague from Vermont (Mr. Welch) had an amendment that simply said that the American taxpayers aren't going to pay this extortion tax that Mr. Karzai is demanding. His amendment wasn't even made in order. It was germane, but it wasn't even made in order.

While I appreciate the language in the bill that none of these funds can be used for President Karzai's personal benefit, since we found out earlier this year that he was lining his pockets from a U.S. taxpayer- dollar slush fund, it certainly won't stop Karzai's government from squeezing every last dollar it can from the United States to carry out the military drawdown over the next 15 months.

Mr. Speaker, I am sick and I am tired of asking our brave servicemen and -women to fight and die for this corrupt government. While I hope to be surprised, I really have little faith that next year's parliamentary and presidential elections in Afghanistan will be free and fair, let alone usher in a new order committed to eliminating corruption and cronyism.

I am sick and tired of U.S. tax dollars being wasted in Afghanistan on military headquarters that will never be used, only to see them built and torn down.

I am sick and tired of building roads to nowhere or having our convoys pay a tax to transport troops and much-needed supplies to provinces outside of Kabul.

In brief, just like the overwhelming majority of the American people, I want to see this war brought to an end and our troops safely home, reunited with their families and loved ones, and contributing to home communities right here in the United States.

Let us be clear, Mr. Speaker: the $85.8 billion total for the OCO account is still designated ``emergency funding.'' That means it is all put on the national credit card. Not a penny of the hundreds of billions of dollars for this war has ever been paid for or offset or balanced with revenues from someplace else in the national budget.

We certainly do not need to add even more billions to the OCO account. What we need to do is to end this war as quickly as possible and bring our troops home.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues again why these are tough budgetary times. This Defense bill is being treated differently than appropriations bills that actually fund needs right here in the United States.

I would remind my colleagues that national defense also includes what happens here in the United States--whether people have housing, whether people have food, whether or not people have good health care, whether or not we have good roads and good bridges, whether or not we have jobs. All these domestic needs are being ignored. In fact, they are being obliterated by the Republican numbers in the appropriations process.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

I want to build on something that Mr. Welch of Vermont said here on the House floor about the lack of debate on Syria. As somebody who was here when the Afghanistan war began and when the Iraq war began, I believe that both of those wars were unnecessary. We ended up getting Osama bin Laden not in Afghanistan with 100,000 troops, but with a small well-trained group of Navy SEALs in Pakistan.

This notion that somehow our strength can only be measured by the number of troops we have overseas or the number of weapons that we send overseas I think is just crazy. I think the amount that we have spent on these wars that have been added to our debt have weakened our security. I think the fact that we have lost so many incredibly brave men and women to these conflicts is a tragedy.

What the gentleman from Vermont raised was the issue that I think is on a lot of our constituents' minds, and that is what is going to happen in Syria. The real problem with this rule, Mr. Speaker, can be seen in the debate surrounding Syria. There is a real split when it comes to Syria. There are some who don't believe we should get involved at all; and there are others, like Senator McCain, leading the Republicans over in the Senate, saying we ought to do more, we ought to get more involved in Syria.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the consideration of H.R. 2397, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Madam Chairman, the subcommittee has produced this bill after months of bipartisan cooperation, months of hearings, and months of classified briefings. We present a bill today that includes a base funding of $512.5 billion--$3.4 billion below the CBO estimate of the President's request and approximately $28.1 billion above the estimated fiscal year 2013 sequestration level. For Overseas Contingencies Operations, OCO, the bill includes $85.8 billion, which is $1.5 billion below last year's level.

We have worked closely with all parties. Mr. Visclosky has been involved in every step of the way on producing this legislation. Our committee staff is unrivaled anywhere in this Congress, and they have done a tremendous job for the subcommittee.

These are some highlights of the bill:

There is $580 million to fully fund the authorized military pay raise; $536 million to fully fund the anticipated fuel costs; $950 million to fully fund the 2nd Virginia class submarine; $922 million to restore Facility Sustainment, Modernization and Restoration funding; and $692 million for military medical research, including $246 million for cancer research and $125 million for traumatic brain injury research.

During the next couple of days we are going to consider 100 amendments. So everybody be prepared: it's going to be a long day and a long night. And Madam Chair, to get us started off on the right track, I'm going to reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY13.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY13.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY13.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY13.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY13.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY13.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY13.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY13.008

Madam Chairman, first, I would like to thank Mr. Visclosky for his much more detailed description of this legislation.

I would now yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, who has strongly committed to making sure that we pass all of our appropriations bills, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to an important member of our subcommittee, the very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Will the gentleman from Indiana yield?

Madam Chair, I am aware of the gentleman from California's deep interest, and I appreciate his proposed solution in finding ways to address this issue.

Like my good friend from Indiana, I agree that we should work with our friend Mr. Farr to ensure that the Department of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence leverage the security clearance research at PERSEREC in order to improve the precision and speed of investigations, and that is exactly why we included it in our report.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, the gentleman is correct. The administration's budget request for fiscal year 2014 includes no funds for the production of Abrams tanks, and the committee bill provides none. The Army is only now addressing the funds added for fiscal year '13, and production of the M1A2s will actually continue until December of 2014.

Foreign military sales have helped sustain a warm tank production line. Despite the delays and uncertainties in the FMS process, it is very likely that FMS sales will continue to play an important part in sustaining the tank line.

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the points raised by my colleague.

We will continue to monitor the overall requirement for tanks in both the active Army and the Army National Guard. We intend to relook at the issue of additional Abrams upgrades as we move forward in the appropriations process. We will have the benefit of more complete information on foreign military sales and of the Army's force structure analysis. Protecting the industrial base will remain a critical issue.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I do agree and the gentleman is correct.

I will tell the gentleman that I do agree. I would add that the ending of the Space Shuttle Program has also exacerbated the hardships of the industrial base, and I agree that the Navy's D5 program is now the cornerstone of the Nation's solid rocket motor production.

I feel that it is essential that the Navy sustain a steady production rate of 12 rocket motors per year as the minimum level to ensure that replacement motors are available to replace aged-out motors as well as to keep this unique and highly skilled engineering and workforce viable into the future. The industrial base has done a Herculean effort in downsizing and in becoming more efficient in the face of the declining workload as enhanced by the attractive pricing they provided the Navy on a recent motor contract.

I will work to ensure that the Navy has sufficient funding to maintain at least the minimum production required to sustain this critical industrial base.

Madam Chairman, I am happy to yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I claim the time.

Madam Chairwoman, for the reasons that the gentleman has already outlined, the committee had already added $30 million for the special purpose MAGTF, Crisis Response teams, as well as an additional $35 million for the new Marine Corps Embassy Security program.

The gentleman is exactly right that we're not doing enough on this issue, and we are certainly in support of his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time.

Madam Chairman, the Fisher Houses program is a real success story. It was initially started by Mr. Zach Fisher. After his death, the family continued.

The need was so great at the military hospitals; but also at the VA hospitals, there were no Fisher Houses. So the program was expanded, and we increased our involvement. The Congress had not been involved up to this point. The Congress appropriated money, and we've been appropriating $4 million a year to add to the Fisher House Foundation for the purpose of the Fisher Houses. We also allow for $11 million for transfers to the Fisher House operations.

I say, again, it's a real success story; and while it's additional money, we're happy to support the gentleman's amendment and make sure that the Fisher Houses continue.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Reclaiming my time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I would like a clarification on the time issues.

Since the time is structured, is it possible for the person offering the amendment to reserve that time when they have completed their statement?

Madam Chairman, very simply, most of this

money would be taken from the Special Operations Command funding. It's not a good idea. We're using the Special Operators more and more, all the time. We are finding them involved in places where you might be surprised, and I just don't think it is wise for us to be taking this funding from Special Operations. Special Operations are the Navy SEALs and the Special teams that go into difficult places. We prefer not to put limitations that this amendment would cause.

I yield to Mr. Visclosky.

I thank the gentleman for his comment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, although we're going to support this amendment from my colleague from Florida, I take this time to point out that we've already included an additional $20 million for the program, the same amount that was included in fiscal year 2013. Prior to 2013, the subcommittee typically included $8 million to $10 million annually for this program. But this bill, this year for 2014, has an additional $20 million, but it is a serious issue, and it is one that we can't take lightly, and so we do support the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, actually, this amendment moves money around within the Defense health program for something the committee has worked a long and hard time over the years dealing with: the subject of traumatic brain injury and psychological health research. In fact, we included an additional $125 million in the bill above the President's request because of the importance of the issue that we're facing. We are seeing more and more cases of TBI, traumatic brain injuries, than we had expected, I believe. So we added the additional money that the gentleman's amendment would move around in the DHP, so we have absolutely no problem with this amendment.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 312, I offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Chairman, the en bloc amendment has been agreed to by the minority and the majority. They are noncontroversial amendments that cover topics such as suicide prevention, traumatic brain injury, and National Guard issues. The sponsors of the amendments have agreed to the amendments being considered en bloc, and I would ask for the adoption of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairman, as much as I want to support my friend's amendment, I can't, so I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chairman, the money that he would use for a large part comes from the Special Operations Command, and I just don't think that we can restrict them, like some of the amendments that we're seeing, in their ability to move about the world as they have to move about the world and do the exciting things that they do.

But the gentleman's amendment adds $22 million to the $32 million that we already included for this program. Now, that is a 63 percent spike in funding for fiscal year 2014. That makes it very difficult for the program managers or anybody involved with the program.

To assume a 63 percent increase means there may be a lot of new jobs this year, but then the next year they'd all be fired and laid off because the money is not there. This is not a consistent program, except for the $32 million that we have included in this bill.

And so as much as I would like to support his bill, his amendment, I really can't. I just don't think the program managers can handle a 63 percent increase in this or, frankly, any program.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I'm not exactly sure how this is targeted or how it would support the $125 million increase already in this bill. PTSD is a serious issue. It's becoming more serious as time goes on and as our men and women return from the battlefield. And so we understand the importance of the program. We did increase it by $125 million.

This amendment, I think, is positive, and I'm not going to oppose it.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Madam Chairman, PTSD is going to be with us for a long time because there are men and women returning from the battlefield who believe they don't have PTSD or don't want to admit to the fact that they have it. I can certainly understand why they do not want that on their record. But, nevertheless, it is going to show up; and when it shows up, we need to be prepared to care for those who have fought this battle.

And so I support the gentlelady's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This amendment would add $25 million for the purpose of restoring these Formerly Used Defense Sites by cutting the same amount from the Army RDTE account for research and development.

As important as this amendment might be, Army research and development is extremely important to the soldiers on the battlefield. In today's battlefield in Afghanistan, we're facing an enemy that is constantly moving. As we move one direction, they move another direction. As we present a new device, a new weapon, a new system, they develop a way to get around it. It's important that we continue to fund Army research and development.

The President requested $237.4 million for this purpose. We added an additional $25 million for the cleanup of these sites over the President's budget request. The funding provided in the RDTE Army account supports critical research in Army laboratories and in colleges and universities across our country to ensure that our soldiers have the best that we can provide them as they face an enemy that is constantly moving on the battlefield. Unnecessary reductions to Army research and development is just not right, especially when we have already added the additional money over and above the President's budget request.

We understand the importance of restoring these sites, but we also understand the importance of maintaining our research and development for the soldier on the battlefield to have the most advanced technology and the most advanced weapons that he or she can possibly have to carry out their mission and to protect themselves while they're doing it.

So I must oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 312, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

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

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

I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to Chairman Young, and to congratulate him on the bipartisan and transparent manner in which he has crafted the fiscal year 2014 Defense bill.

I also want to express my gratitude to Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, and all of the members of the Defense Subcommittee for their efforts. We would not be here today but for their outstanding effort.

I would also note that this will be the last Defense appropriations bill we bring to the floor with the membership of Mr. Bonner from Alabama. With his leaving this institution, we are losing a very serious and thoughtful Member who has worked assiduously every day to leave the world better, and I certainly want to recognize his individual contribution.

The bill also could not have been written without the dedication, hard work, and sound judgment of the staff that Mr. Young has already referenced. I do want to thank Tom McLemore, Sherry Young, Tim Prince, Jennifer Miller, Walter Hearne, Paul Terry, BG Wright, Brooke Boyer, Ann Reese, Adrienne Ramsey, Megan Rosenbusch, Maureen Holohan, Paul Juola, Rebecca Leggieri, Kent Clark, Michael Rigney, and Joe DeVooght.

The bill at hand is fundamentally aimed at restoring readiness and training for the services to areas that have suffered greatly in the budgetary upset of the current year.

While Chairman Young has noted that the bill's $212 billion in funding is approximately $28 billion more than the fiscal year 2013 post-sequestration level, it does contain a number of significant reductions. The bill cuts $617.8 million from the Joint Strike Fighter program to address unjustified cost growth and unjustified concurrency estimates for the program. It cuts another $112 million due to an overstatement of Army travel requirements. The bill rescinds $443 million for C-27-J aircraft.

The bill and report contain a significant amount of language and robust funding for initiatives to respond to sexual assault in the armed services. Sexual assault in any circumstance is unacceptable and maddening. The fact that it is prevalent within the military is even more so because of the standard to which our men and women in uniform hold themselves. These are individuals who are committed to give their ``last full measure of devotion'' to our Nation, who, in order to be effective, need to unconditionally trust each other. Sexual assault undermines all of this.

Though I strongly support the efforts contained in this bill, they are aimed mainly at offender accountability and caring for victims. Even though the comprehensive solution to this issue lies outside the services, it is imperative that the proper attitudes and training start during the recruitment process for the officers and enlisted and continue throughout each servicemembers' career.

I would also note that the bill includes $20 million above the request for suicide prevention and outreach, consistent with the funding level of the past 2 years. Suicides are another disheartening problem within the services, especially given the emphasis that the Department and Congress have placed on the issue over the past few years. But money is not the only solution. We need to spend the appropriated dollars as wisely and as effectively as possible.

I was taken aback in a hearing earlier this year to learn that the Navy has a collection of 123 programs aimed at addressing suicide and resiliency. While I am sure that each one of these programs is well- intentioned, the sheer number spreads resources too thin and creates confusion. To their credit, the Navy is in the process of implementing task force recommendations to dedicate more resources to the programs that truly work.

Additionally, I would like to express my support for a solution that benefits all future users of the Integrated Electronic Health Record program. I am proud of the efforts of our subcommittee and of the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs Subcommittee to effectuate this long-awaited improvement to medical care for our still-serving military members and our veterans. Additionally, the cooperation between our subcommittees and with our corresponding authorization committees demonstrates the importance Congress places on the issue.

I am pleased that the bill report contains provisions that enhance oversight at the Department. The Office of the Inspector General is funded at $347 million, which is nearly $35 million above the administration's request. This office plays a vital role in moving the Department towards auditable financial statements, which are long overdue and which I attach great importance to.

Also, while the committee increased funding relative to the budget request for environmental cleanup at Formerly Used Defense Sites, this increase is accompanied by additional reporting requirements. In the same vein as my prior comments, the money in this program must be spent more effectively going forward to ensure that we complete cleanup projects, not just continue them.

Regarding missile defense, the bill increases advance procurement funding for additional Ground-Based Interceptors. This funding is accompanied by a requirement to document the adequacy of the testing plan for the Ground-Based Interceptors.

In light of the program's recent test failure, I continue to be very concerned about the concurrency of this program. I believe it is essential to maintain rigorous standards to ensure that the weapons we pursue are fully developed before we begin fielding them, and once fielded, that these weapons effectively perform their missions.

Further, should the review to determine the cause of the latest test failure reveal significant problems, and if we understand that this program needs to be changed, we should reevaluate our position in conference.

While I support the bill, there are a few provisions that I have concerns with, in particular, the three general provisions regarding detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

I believe that the continued operation of Guantanamo Bay reduces our Nation's credibility and weakens our national security by providing terrorist organizations with recruitment material. I do regret that this bill and other relevant appropriations bills continue to thwart any attempts to close Guantanamo by prohibiting viable alternatives.

Further, I am concerned that the bill essentially prohibits a pay raise for civilian employees at the Department of Defense. We rely on the Department of Defense civilians working side by side with our military personnel to provide medical care for our troops, to perform vital logistics, maintenance and acquisition services, and to provide many other essential services within the Department. Even a modest raise that maintains pay equity between civilian and military personnel sends a critical message of support to these employees.

Looking ahead, I am concerned that if the shadows of the future remain unaltered, we will experience serious problems ensuring the continued defense of our Nation.

As Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments has noted:

Rather than getting larger and more expensive over the past

decade, the military just grew more expensive.

This reality makes our future choices even more difficult, and it is imperative that Congress join with the Department in working through these decisions at arm's length and also as a partner.

The Department of Defense did recommend some very difficult reductions in the budget submitted to us earlier this year, as they have done in previous years. We, as legislators, can no longer afford to reflexively reject those recommendations because they affect a specific company, a specific region of the country, or are simply not the most politic of choices to be made.

Our military is at a familiar crossroad, one they have been at before as the end of combat operations nears. The additions and subtractions to Defense funding made today must be carried out with an eye to the future, with a sense of the strategic impact on America's future ability to muster a force of successfully defending and protecting our country.

In closing, I again want to reiterate my appreciation to Chairman Young for his cooperation and assistance in addressing the interests we have expressed. He and his staff have ensured that the subcommittee continues its long tradition of operating collaboratively and effectively and transparently. I am pleased that we are finally considering this bill on the floor and look forward to the debate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would yield such time as she may consume to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

I would note to the gentleman from California that, with the recent concerns regarding security clearance processes for the Department of Defense and intelligence communities, I appreciate his bringing to our attention that the Department can increase the timeliness and quality of investigations and reinvestigations by using the Defense Personnel Security Research Center tools.

I yield to the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

As we have no further speakers, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I do not rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, but to cast a caution over the expenditure of the proposed funds. The bill contains $4 million, and this is a phenomenal program. I am not in any way suggesting otherwise.

But the gentleman's amendment is quadrupling funding in 1 year for this project from $4 million to $20 million. So I would hope that the people that are running this program understand that in a time of great fiscal constraint, they better very carefully, effectively, and wisely spend this additional money that I'm not objecting to, but I am very concerned about quadrupling $4 million that is already in a bill for a very good program.

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

My understanding as well during subcommittee consideration is that the new START proposed--and this is a new START proposed for 2014--provide very little explanation or rationale, and that's from the Department of Defense. The committee recommendation was for a reduction because of the poor justification by the Department itself. I think I am correct in my understanding.

I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I also appreciate having the time to associate myself with the remarks you have made on behalf of the gentleman's amendment.

Secondly, I note, as you point out, the subcommittee itself has done significant work and recognizes the problems that we face in the commitment we need to make to the individuals that the gentleman is trying to help with his amendment. So again, I very much appreciate the gentleman's remarks, as well as support for the issue in this particular amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).

Madam Chair, it does not appear that we have any other speakers on our side, so I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Again, I would not be opposed to the gentlewoman's amendment but would want to make the observation, given the observation I made in my opening comments, that I do wish she had chosen a different account for the offset.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I appreciate the recognition. And I think I speak for the subcommittee when I will suggest that we would be delighted to accept the gentlewoman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment and would want to make a couple of things clear to all of my colleagues.

The fact is the administration did ask for money. For the ballistic missile defense midcourse section in the bill they asked for $1.033 billion this year, fiscal year 2014. This is not absent an administration request.

Secondly, the gentleman from Arizona said that the bad test and the problems that they indicate are not unresolvable. I would absolutely agree with the gentleman, but this is a procurement account. Let us resolve these problems before we procure something that last month has not worked so we don't have to pull them out of silos, we don't have to invest additional taxpayers' money, and we don't have to waste that hard-earned money.

There are threats, and we ought to make sure the systems we deploy to protect our Nation work before we procure and deploy them.

I applaud the gentleman for his amendment and strongly support it.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I'm hoping to convince my colleagues that, albeit what numbers you may have in this increasing and emerging epidemic of post-traumatic stress disorder, let me give a personal story that comes by way of my interaction often with veterans and, particularly, a post-traumatic stress disorder center that we were able to fund in a hospital that previously had not had the ability to serve Active Duty soldiers and veterans.

It's a small hospital off the campus of our main Veterans Hospital in Houston, Texas, but we established a post-traumatic stress disorder center there that allowed veterans who may not have traditionally been at the Veterans Hospital, not because they did not have benefits, but for a variety of reasons, to find a comfort place to be treated for their post-traumatic stress disorder.

And they were not just veterans of the Afghan and Iraq wars, but these were ones from the Persian Gulf, from Vietnam. And they could not thank the staff and could not thank the work that we had done to secure just a small amount of dollars, which this amendment does.

This takes a small amount of dollars from a very large funding for, certainly, a commendable challenge, but it is one that I believe would benefit, as we seek to create a better quality of life for our soldiers, wherever they might be, and our veterans.

This is a $500,000 deposit, if you will, on the high numbers of post- traumatic stress disorder. I have seen it in our returning soldiers, I have seen it in our veterans, and it is clearly something that is not going away.

I think the poignant story that I want to share is how grateful this particular veteran was, who said he had never been to treatment and his whole life had been turned around. His wife was there with him. She said their lives have been turned around.

So I ask my colleagues to consider the responsible approach that we have taken for just this amount of money to reinvest in our needy, but deserving, men and women who are both Active Duty. In the instance of the story that I gave, because this facility was able to utilize TRICARE, they could serve Active Duty, and they could serve those who were veterans as well.

So I thank the chairman and ranking member and urge support of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I'm overwhelmed and very grateful to Chairman Young, my dear friend who has done so much, as well as the ranking member, likewise, for his great service. He's done so much.

Let me just conclude by saying that PTSD, as both the chairman and the ranking member have agreed, is an invisible wound that you don't often see. One of the best ways to increase access to treatment is to increase the medical facilities and also the medical professionals. These additional dollars, as I understand the intent of both the ranking member and chairman, will be used effectively.

Post-traumatic stress disorder is one of the most prevalent, devastating psychological wounds suffered by the brave men and women. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I withdraw amendment No. 11.

I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and I thank the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Madam Chair, let me, first of all, acknowledge the hard work that it takes to provide for the men and women of the United States military and to secure America. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am well aware of the combined efforts, obviously, in the military and the line of demarcation between civilian, but we all are committed to the national security of this Nation.

This amendment deals with the reduction in funding of the procurement Defense-wide by $1 million. I want to give the good news. The good news is that this money would be put in deficit reduction. But I do want to acknowledge that one of the issues that we must address as we go forward in the collective intelligence agencies, as we have listened to some of the challenges that we are facing in light of the present status of the leaks that have occurred by an American citizen who was working in the capacity as a contractor--this impacts all of us. So as this $1 million would be submitted into the deficit reduction pool, I believe it is extremely important that we look very closely at the extended use of civilian contractors, the extended use of a budget that is responsible for 70 percent of the intelligence of this country.

Now, I know that some of the contractors deal with issues that are not individual personnel, but are dealing with research and dealing with equipment. But I believe that it is important that we look at the question that resulted in the disclosure of leaked and highly sensitive classified information, and the continuing raising of concern of whether or not the national security of this Nation has been impacted because of the outsourcing of intelligence responsibility.

In particular, I think we need to look at the outsourcing of determining top secret clearance. Obviously, the circumstances that resulted in the leaking is an individual that had an interesting resume, from the educational level of a high school GED--of which we respect and encourage people to complete their education--of the military service, and then on to top secret by a contractor who gave out top secret clearances. We hope that there was some kind of review. So my amendment is intended to highlight this issue.

I would hope that as we proceed, that this question will, if you will, have the ability to slow--not halt--the use of civilian contractors out of all of our agencies dealing with the issue of intelligence. We want to assure the American people that we are concerned about the protection of this Nation's national security-- civil liberties as well, but also to prevent the leaks that have occurred.

Let me conclude my remarks and let me just say that I hope this brings about a discussion that will cross jurisdictional lines of the Judiciary Committee, the Intelligence Committee, our appropriators. Let's fix this enormous use and reliance on these contractors' outsourcing. Let's develop a highly trained group of Federal Governmental professionals committed, if you will, to the ongoing service to their Nation. Respecting contractors have the same loyalty, but I think it would be better, Mr. Chairman, if we can frame the utilization of contractors in such a way that we can be assured that everything that deals with the national security of this Nation will be protected.

With that, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

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

Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Young and Mr. Visclosky for their leadership for an important responsibility in this Nation.

My amendment increases funding for the Defense Health Program's research and development by $10 million. These funds will address the question of breast cancer in the United States military.

The American Cancer Society calls several strains of breast cancer as a particularly aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates; in this instance, it's a triple negative. But I raise an article that says: ``Fighting a Different Battle; Breast Cancer and the Military.''

We all know, by the way, that breast cancer can affect both men and women. The bad news is breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women in the military as combat. Let me say that sentence again. Breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women in the military as combat. More than 800 women have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Army Times; 874 military women were diagnosed with breast cancer just between 2000 and 2011. And according to that same study, more are suspected. It grows.

The good news is that we have been working on it, and I want to add my appreciation to the military. This, however, will allow for the additional research. As new young women come into the United States military, as women stay longer in the United States military, as women get older in the United States military, as women ascend to leadership roles in the United States military, these dollars provide research.

Not only is breast cancer striking relatively young military women at an alarming rate, but male servicemembers, veterans and their dependents are at risk as well. With a younger and generally healthier population, those in the military tend to have a lower risk for most cancers than civilians--including significantly lower colorectal, lung and cervical--but breast cancer is a different story.

Military people in general, and in some cases very specifically, are at a significantly greater risk for contracting breast cancer, says Dr. Richard Clapp, a top cancer expert at Boston University who works at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on military breast cancer issues. He says life in the military can mean exposure to a witch's brew of risk factors directly linked to greater chances of getting breast cancer.

So, my friends, I am asking that we do the right thing. We're on the right track, we're on the right rail, we're on the right road. But with the expansion of women in the military, I can assure you, for long life, a vital service that

these men and women give, it is extremely important to move forward with this amendment.

Researchers point to a high use of oral contraception that's linked to breast cancer among women that would ensure that this particular amendment would be a positive step forward.

So I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me thank the gentlemen, and thank them for their commitment to the men and women of the United States military. And let me thank my colleagues for accepting this amendment.

With that, I know that we will be safer, secure and healthier with this fight against breast cancer that continues to grow in the United States military.

I ask my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

As to the thoughts of the gentlelady from Ohio, I appreciate her comments and her support for the military.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it's always great to hear from Mr. Van Hollen. He has been in front of the Rules Committee, I think, a half a dozen times on this particular issue, but that's not the issue we're talking about today. Today, we are talking about a rule to bring forward two bills. One is the appropriations bill for the defense of this country.

I appreciate his comments, but he also forgets to mention that, in the last Congress, this House passed two pieces of legislation to actually do what he was talking about doing. And guess what? It went over to that place where they have rocking chairs--where they do nothing. They didn't discuss it; they didn't debate it; they didn't even send it back to us, because they just didn't have the time to do it in their busy schedule, and I understand that.

I would be glad to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

In reclaiming my time, regarding shutting the government down, those are the gentleman's words, not ours. I don't think you've heard that at all from this side. It's not about shutting the government down; it's about passing 12 appropriations bills. That's really what we are supposed to be doing, and we are committed to doing that. We don't want to see a government shutdown, and I think our bringing appropriations bills to this House floor shows, in fact, that that's not the intent and that that's not the desire.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have none.

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

I do appreciate the comments my friend from Massachusetts has made in a lot of areas, particularly as it relates to the open rule.

I do want to remind him--and I wasn't here in 2010--but the Rules Committee that my good friend sat on made a determination in regards to a structured rule, and that structured rule only allowed for 16 amendments to come to the House floor. That structured rule locked out a lot of folks' ideas in regards to how to better the appropriation bill for the Department of Defense 2011 fiscal year.

I agree with my good friend that this rule is not perfect, but I do want to point out that it does make over 100 amendments in order that are going to be debated here on this floor: an amendment on Syria; an amendment on Egypt; two amendments on the NSA, which are appropriate to have a debate here. And as we talk about authorization, particularly as we look at the NSA, that debate is going to come up in a very robust way because I truly believe that we need to have that.

As it relates to Syria, I have three sons that currently serve in the United States military. The last thing I want to do is see us arm rebels where my sons may have to face those arms at some point in time. I've had sons deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan; and as a Member of this House, there are very few of us that have served in the military in the same way as it relates to having our family members serve in harm's way. So I take it right to heart that we want to make sure that we don't put our sons or daughters in any jeopardy, particularly as it relates to arming those that we have no idea who they are.

I think I've said enough, but my position on arming the Syrian rebels, those that we don't even know who they are or what we're doing in Egypt or what's going on within the NSA as it relates to our civil liberties here in the United States as American citizens, we certainly are going to address those issues as we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I encourage my colleagues to do so, as well. As a father of three sons in the military, I'm disappointed that we've gotten to this point where ideological factions have divided this House so deeply that we're forced to put a structured rule in place in order to simply consider a bill that funds our Department of Defense.

Just to note, 2 years ago when we were having this discussion, I got a call from one of my sons who was deployed to Iraq, worried that his troopers were not going to get paid because that's what they were being told, because of actions of this House.

The last thing is that when our sons and daughters go off to fight, the last thing they should have to worry about is how they're going to take care of the car payment or feed their children back here at home. They should have one focus, and that's the fight ahead of them and returning back to their families and loved ones in the best possible condition they can be.

To me it's about as pathetic as it gets when these men and women are putting their lives on the line each day and we're playing politics with our national defense and we can't put differences aside long enough not to even agree to a funding bill, but just to agree that we should debate the funding bill at all.

I wish we could have an open rule on both of these appropriation measures. You know I do. But when it comes to funding the Pentagon and when it comes to funding our military, the issue at hand is too important to leave this subject to the political whims of select Members who could tie up the debate for days and end with irresponsible amendments that might ultimately put this Nation and its citizens at risk. That's why we're here. That's why we've taken the three most hot- button politicized issues and selected specific amendments to address each of these concerns while still making in order every other amendment that would not otherwise be subject to a point of order.

I welcome debate on how we need to change the laws of this land. I'm an active proponent in having it. Millions of Americans, including me, are questioning many of the laws right now, especially when it comes to the use of military force and the powers given to the NSA under the PATRIOT Act. It's clear that those are conversations that must happen in this forum here, but we can't let it derail the basic funding of our troops. That's what it comes down to.

This bill cannot possibly give the issues at hand the justice they deserve. It's an imperfect tool, and with only 10 minutes per debate per amendment, it would cut short the conversations that we have. That is why, although it is a departure from the normal appropriation process, this resolution brings up H.R. 2397 under a structured rule.

That said, the second half of House Resolution 312 is proof that this House is still dedicated to the open process. We fulfill our promise to both our constituents and ourselves by providing an open rule on Transportation and Housing appropriations. It's a reminder to us that the Defense bill is an example

of extraordinary times calling for extraordinary measures. At the end of the day, what's most important is that we fulfill our core mission. As anybody in the military will tell you, sometimes we have to adapt.

It's not perfect, but we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, especially when we're talking about keeping our troops and our citizens safe. For that reason, I'm proud to support the rule, and I encourage all my colleagues to do the same.

When the Committee on Rules filed its report (H. Rept. 113-170) to accompany House Resolution 312 the summary of amendment numbered 43 was inadvertently omitted. The summary of amendments should have included the following:

43. Cole (OK), Kilmer (WA), McCarthy, Kevin (CA), Bishop, Rob (UT), Jones (NC), Loebsack (IA), McCollum (MN), Scott, Austin (GA): Provides that none of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to implement a furlough of Department of Defense federal employees who are paid from the Working Capital Fund (WCF) Account, which is a revolving fund and does not receive direct funding from Congressional appropriations to finance its operations. (10 minutes)

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