H.Res. 590

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of the rule, House Resolution 590.

Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules Committee may not waive the point of order prescribed by section 425 of that same act. House Resolution 590 waives all points of order against further amendments printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules.

Therefore, I make a point of order, pursuant to section 426, that this rule may not be considered.

Mr. Speaker, last night, a bipartisan group, Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina; Congressman Adam Smith, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee from Washington State; Congressman Garamendi; and Congresswoman Lee from California; and I, offered an amendment to be able to have a debate on a vote on our policy in Afghanistan--the longest war in American history.

It seemed odd to me that a bill like the Department of Defense authorization bill would come to the floor without the ability for Members to have a vote on Afghanistan. We are at war, and you would never know it by the actions of this House.

I am ashamed of this House that a bill like this would come to the floor and the leadership would block any attempt to be able to have a debate and a vote on what our policy should be in Afghanistan.

The rule that we are going to debate later today makes in order 162 amendments. There are amendments on everything from deferred retirement for military chaplains to charging admission to air shows to public access to Rattlesnake Mountain. I am sure public access to Rattlesnake Mountain is a big deal, but it is not as big a deal as the war in Afghanistan, where we have brave men and women in harm's way because we put them there.

The question is whether or not our policies should remain the same or whether it should change.

The President of the United States has said that he wants to draw down American forces in 2014. I hope he does. But there are also reports that we may be there for a considerably longer period of time.

I don't know what the policy is going to be, but let me read to you what this amendment that the Republican leadership blocked says. This is basically what we are asking here. It says:

In the event that the United States Armed Forces remained

deployed in Afghanistan after December 31, 2014, then no

later than March 31, 2015, the President shall send to

Congress a determination describing the purpose and expected

duration of such deployment and the projected number of

troops to be deployed.

Who could possibly object to that? Basically, it is having the White House inform us of what the policy is. Where is the problem?

The second part of it goes as follows:

No later than 30 days following the receipt of the

President's determination, Congress shall enact a joint

resolution to improve the content of the President's

determination.

Should Congress vote against the President's determination,

the President is directed to remove all troops not required

to protect United States diplomatic facilities and personnel

in a safe, orderly, expeditious redeployment from

Afghanistan.

Does anybody really object to that? Does anybody object to doing what we are supposed to do--to have a say on issues like war? It astounds me that Members of Congress would want to hide behind the Rules Committee blocking bringing this to the floor as though it is a way to avoid a serious debate and a vote on this policy.

By the way, the sponsors of this amendment have different opinions on Afghanistan. Some of us believe we should get out of there right now. That is where I am. Some of those who cosponsored this amendment believe that we should be there and have at least a small force in Afghanistan beyond 2014.

So this is not about right now saying we want to get out of Afghanistan. What this is saying is that if the President decides to change his promise of keeping us there no later than December 2014, then we ought to have a vote. We ought to be informed of what is going on and we ought to have a vote. Who could object to that?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left?

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

I want my colleagues to understand one thing. The amendment that we are talking about is germane. I spent a great deal of time working with the Parliamentarian to make sure that the concerns that the Republican majority had about the germaneness of this amendment were addressed. It is a germane amendment. There is absolutely no reason at all for this not to be on the floor.

Let me just say that it doesn't take any courage to praise the troops and then hide from the vote. It is an act of cowardice, quite frankly. The fact that we are debating a Defense Department authorization bill, we are at war, and we are not allowed to be able to consider an amendment about what our policy should be in Afghanistan, well, what do you tell the troops? What do you tell their families? This war is on auto-pilot and we will just let it go?

I mean, we have a responsibility. This Chamber voted to send young men and women into harm's way. We have a

responsibility and we are not living up to it. There is no reason in the world why this amendment should not be made in order. It is germane. It complies with all the rules.

The only reason why it isn't made in order is because someone in the Republican leadership said, no, we are not going to have a debate; we are not going to have a vote. Maybe they are afraid they are going to lose. I heard last night that they don't want to embarrass the President.

Really?

I mean, select committees on Benghazi, 53 votes to overturn the Affordable Care Act. They don't want to embarrass the President? Well, with friends like you, the President doesn't need any enemies.

The bottom line is this an important issue, and how dare we come to the floor on the defense bill and be silent and indifferent when it comes to Afghanistan.

I am ashamed of this process. There is no reason in the world why we shouldn't be debating this issue. We owe it to those young men and women who are over there, those who have sacrificed their lives, those who are at Walter Reed Hospital.

How dare we bring a bill like this to the floor without addressing this most important issue. We are at war, and no one in this place seems to want to talk about it.

Well, it is our responsibility just as much as it is the President's responsibility. To do nothing means we are complicit in continuing this war. I have had enough, and I think Members of this Chamber who agree with us ought to stand with us and vote against this rule.

This process stinks. We played by the rules, we did everything right, and we got nothing--nothing on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the consideration of the rule, House Resolution 590.

Clause 9(c) of rule XXI of the rules of the House specifically states that the Rules Committee may not waive the earmark disclosure rule prescribed by paragraphs (a) or (b) of clause 9 of rule XXI. House Resolution 590 waives all points of order against consideration of H.R. 3361.

Therefore, I make a point of order pursuant to clause 9(c) of rule XXI that this rule may not be considered.

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

What I found interesting about the exchange that we have just had is that nobody can explain to me why we cannot have a vote on the bipartisan amendment that Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith, Mr. Garamendi, Ms. Lee and myself have brought before the House. Nobody can give us a reason why, other than it is not in order because they have the power to not make it in order.

I want my colleagues to understand a few facts. 2,320 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001.

19,718 U.S. troops have been wounded in Afghanistan since 2001.

127 soldiers were killed in 2013.

1,687 have been killed since the surge of 2009.

An estimated 30,000 Afghan civilians have been killed since 2001.

The VA estimates that approximately 22 veterans will die by suicide every day. At least 30 percent of veterans have contemplated suicide.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a say in the future of America's longest war. We all know that there is no military solution in Afghanistan. The American public is sick and tired of war. American interests are not advanced by another decade of war.

And yet, what does this House of Representatives do when we consider the Department of Defense authorization bill? We do nothing. We do nothing. The only thing that happens is we bring germane amendments to the Rules Committee to be able to debate this issue so the Members will have a say when the President outlines his policy for Afghanistan beyond 2014.

But it seems that the leadership of this House is perfectly satisfied just sitting back and just being okay with whatever happens.

All we are asking for is that if we are going to stay beyond 2014, the President has to tell us what his plan is. That is not radical. That is not out there. He needs to tell us what his plan is, and we need to vote on it. That is our job. And if you don't want to take responsibility for issues like this, maybe you ought to think about retiring because it is an insult to the men and women who are serving our country for us to be silent and indifferent, to not do the proper oversight, to not debate these issues.

It is an insult to the American taxpayer that we are letting the most corrupt government in the world--that is how the Karzai government has been rated, the most corrupt government in the world--continue to steal our money.

We cut food stamps for poor people. We don't have enough money to take care of our veterans in the VA facilities. We are cutting back on moneys for roads and bridges. We can't extend Unemployment Compensation for people who have lost their jobs, and yet we just hand over millions and millions and millions of dollars.

Let me just tell you this, Mr. Speaker. Right now, we authorized in FY13 spending $87.2 billion for Afghanistan. We authorized in FY14 spending $85.2 billion. Proposed FY15 spending, $79.4 billion. Total since 2001, $778 billion. And when you add in the cost of the veterans care that will be needed and all the other associated costs, the total cost of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq are about $4- to $6 trillion. And we are not even paying for most of it. We are borrowing it. It is going on our credit card.

My friends wail about the deficit and the debt, but when it comes to just dumping money into this money pit called Afghanistan, they say nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, when Speaker Boehner became the Speaker of the House, he made a pledge that he would allow the House to work its will on major issues.

This is a major issue. This is a major issue. If my friends want to know why the majority of the American people think that this place is dysfunctional, this is the reason: we can't get a vote on an issue as important as the war in Afghanistan.

Now, there is really no excuse. It is germane. We spent a lot of time working with the Parliamentarian to make sure it is germane to satisfy the concerns of the majority. We did that. It is bipartisan. It is bipartisan. And of people who are cosponsors of the amendment, some want to end the war now and some believe that we need to keep troops there for a period beyond 2014. I mean, we have jumped through every hoop. What else can we possibly do?

And for some reason, somebody in the leadership here said, no, the House of Representatives will not be able to work its will when it comes to Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record an article entitled ``CNN Poll: Afghanistan war arguably most unpopular in U.S. history.''

[From CNN Political Ticker]

CNN Poll: Afghanistan War Arguably Most Unpopular in U.S. History

(Posted by CNN Political Unit)

Washington (CNN).--Support for the war in Afghanistan has

dipped below 20%, according to a new national poll, making

the country's longest military conflict arguably its most

unpopular one as well. The CNN/ORC International survey

released Monday also indicates that a majority of Americans

would like to see U.S. troops pull out of Afghanistan before

the December 2014 deadline.

Just 17% of those questioned say they support the 12-year-

long war, down from 52% in December 2008. Opposition to the

conflict now stands at 82%, up from 46% five years ago.

``Those numbers show the war in Afghanistan with far less

support than other conflicts,'' CNN Polling Director Keating

Holland said. ``Opposition to the Iraq war never got higher

than 69% in CNN polling while U.S. troops were in that

country, and while the Vietnam War was in progress, no more

than six in 10 ever told Gallup's interviewers that war was a

mistake.''

The U.S. timetable for Afghanistan calls for the removal of

nearly all troops by roughly this time next year, and that

can't come fast enough for the vast majority of Americans.

Just over half would rather see U.S. troops withdrawn earlier

than December 2014. Only a quarter say that America should

still have boots on the ground in Afghanistan after that

deadline.

Fifty-seven percent say the conflict is going badly for the

U.S. and only a third say America is winning the war in

Afghanistan.

``Independents have a much gloomier view of the war in

Afghanistan than Republicans or Democrats,'' Holland said.

``That may be because a Republican president started the war

and a Democratic president has continued it, so there may be

some residual support among people who identify with either

party.'' Some 2,300 U.S. troops have been killed in

Afghanistan since the war began in the autumn of 2001. The

U.S. is quickly drawing down its forces in Afghanistan. If a

bilateral security agreement that would keep up to 10,000

U.S. troops in Afghanistan after the end of 2014 isn't signed

in the near future, the U.S. could withdrawal all forces from

Afghanistan at the end of next year.

The poll was conducted for CNN by ORC International between

December 16 and 19, with 1,035 adults nationwide questioned

by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or

minus three percentage points.

The discontent evident in the CNN poll is also seen in two

other national surveys conducted earlier this month.

Two-thirds of those questioned in an ABC News/Washington

Post poll said the war has not been worth fighting, and an

Associated Press/GfK. survey showed 57% saying the U.S. did

the wrong thing in going to war in Afghanistan.

The American people deserve better than what is on display here.

Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal not just to Democrats but to Republicans. I want to appeal to the fairness of Members in this Chamber. I want to appeal to their sense of making sure that what we do here is right.

On this issue, we ought to have a vote, and the only way to get a vote is if you vote down the rule so we can go back to the Rules Committee and insert this amendment, that is totally germane, into the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to close by simply saying, it is moments like this where I feel a great sadness for this institution. Again, there are a lot of things in this Defense Department bill that we are going to debate that really, I think, one would fairly characterize as somewhat trivial, and I mentioned some of them earlier.

The fact that we are at war and we can't vote on this war--we are being told that we can't have a say on what the future of our policy is--that is shameful. I am ashamed of this place for running such a closed system on the war.

This is the defense bill. We are not talking about the education bill. We are not talking about the small business bill. This is the Department of Defense authorization bill. This is where we should have the debate. It is germane, and it should be made in order.

I will just finish, Mr. Speaker, by saying that we are approaching Memorial Day. We are all going to go home and give great speeches. When people ask, What are you doing for our troops in Afghanistan, what are you doing to try to get them home, you will be able to say, nothing, because that is exactly what we are going to do if we can't consider this amendment. Nothing. What a shame. What a tragedy. What an insult to those men and women who are serving. What an insult to their families. What an insult to the American people.

When you are in charge, you can do whatever you want, but I would urge my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to reject this rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I, once again, rise in strong opposition to this rule, which fails to make in order the bipartisan McGovern- Jones-Smith-Garamendi-Lee amendment on Afghanistan, and I will include the text of my amendment following my remarks.

Mr. Speaker, ours is a very straightforward amendment. We worked very hard to make it thoughtful, bipartisan, and germane. It reiterates the President's commitment to complete the transition of U.S. combat, military, and security operations to Afghan authorities by the end of this year.

It requires the President to send to Congress by the end of March next year a determination that describes the mission, duration, and level of troops of any post-2014 deployment of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and the Congress then has 30 days to enact a joint resolution to approve the President's determination.

In the event that Congress votes against the President's determination, then the remaining U.S. troops in Afghanistan would be withdrawn in a safe, orderly, and expeditious manner, taking into consideration the security of U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel.

Last year, 305 Members of this House voted in support of an amendment calling for just such a vote, but under this rule, those same Members will be denied the opportunity to make sure that the President presents clearly to Congress what he intends our troops to do in Afghanistan after the end of this year and for how long. Under this rule, Congress is denied the opportunity to vote on whether they approve the President's plan or not.

I don't know how a vote on our amendment would turn out, and I certainly have no idea how a vote next year on keeping our troops in Afghanistan would turn out, but here is what I do know: I know that the men and women who will be asked to serve and perhaps to die in Afghanistan deserve a debate and a vote. I know their families deserve a debate and a vote.

I know that the American people, who have spent billions and billions and billions of dollars on this war, deserve a debate and a vote; and I know that this Congress has not only the right but the responsibility to make our views known on this important issue.

We are at war, Mr. Speaker. I know that some of my colleagues would rather not think about that. They would rather the issue of Afghanistan just go away, but wishing and hoping doesn't make it so.

This is already the longest war in American history. The American people are tired of it. Our troops and their families have been stretched to their very limits. We have lost over 2,000 servicemembers and spent over $700 billion.

What in the world is the Republican leadership afraid of, Mr. Speaker?

Last night, some of my Republican colleagues told me that they were refusing to make this amendment in order because they didn't want to upset the President. Are you kidding me? Since when does this leadership care one iota about upsetting the President?

We can vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act over 50 times. We can have investigation after investigation after investigation about Benghazi, but we can't take 10 minutes to debate the war in Afghanistan? Give me a break.

Besides, this amendment doesn't upset any plans or negotiations the President is currently carrying out on Afghanistan--not a one. It doesn't interfere with funding for the war, and it doesn't interrupt the deployment of our troops.

I know, in their hearts, that many of my Republican colleagues agree with me, so I am going to give them one more chance to do the right thing. I urge you to support the McGovern-Jones-Smith-Garamendi-Lee amendment on Afghanistan.

Strike section 1217 and insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to include my amendment calling for a vote on keeping troops in Afghanistan after 2014, and that this amendment receive 10 minutes total debate like every other germane amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Speier).

I now yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) to talk about her very important amendment dealing with Boko Haram, as we all know, a significant problem that needs to be addressed.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I offer the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this is the amendment that will enable us to eventually close the Guantanamo Bay prison. There are several compelling reasons to do this.

First of all, we have reached a point where we are now spending $2.7 million per inmate at Guantanamo Bay. To contrast that, an inmate at a supermax Federal prison facility here in the U.S. costs roughly $78,000 a year. This is only going to become more expensive as the temporary facility at Guantanamo Bay is forced to last longer and longer. So the cost alone is reason, I believe, to close it.

Also, we have the larger issue. President George W. Bush wanted to close Guantanamo Bay, as did Secretary Gates, as did Senator McCain. Many very conservative Republicans came out in favor of closing Guantanamo back in 2008. Why? Because the military told them that it was harming our ability to effectively fight al Qaeda and affiliated forces, that the presence of Guantanamo Bay was recognized as an international eyesore that undermined U.S. credibility with our allies abroad as we tried to prosecute that fight. There is no need for Guantanamo. So argument number one is all of the problems with it.

Argument number two is that there is no need for it, because what we could do would be--154 inmates who are in Guantanamo Bay, first of all, some number of them, I think it is roughly half, have been deemed not to be a threat to the United States. We just don't have anyplace to send them. So we can do foreign transfers, which we are beginning to work on. The rest of them that are a threat can be housed in supermax facilities in the United States of America.

Now, we constantly hear the argument that we can't bring terrorists to the United States. The way that argument is stated, it is like we are bringing them here and setting them free. We are not. We are going to lock them up and hold them. In fact, there was a recent ruling of the courts that made it clear those inmates would not be freed in the United States under any set of circumstances.

In addition to that, we have the ability in the United States of America to hold dangerous people. I will submit to you that if we didn't have that ability, we would be in a whole lot of trouble regardless of the people at Guantanamo Bay.

We currently house over 300 terrorists here in the U.S., including Ramzi Yousef, The Blind Sheikh, and a number of others. We have been able to successfully hold terrorists in the United States. We also hold mass murderers and gang leaders and mobsters. We have the ability to safely hold these people in the United States of America. So there is no downside to doing this.

The upside is to finally do what President George W. Bush recognized back in 2007 and 2008 that we needed to do, to close down Guantanamo Bay because of the international perception that it goes against our values and because of the very fact that it does go against our values to have people locked away in a prison that was originally set up under the hopes that somehow we would be able to avoid habeas corpus. Well, the Supreme Court said no, Guantanamo Bay is effectively under U.S. control, so habeas corpus applies anyway, so same amount of rights, same everything. It is simply an international eyesore that we keep open for no good reason.

This bill has prohibitions on closing it. My amendment would put in place a plan to close Guantanamo Bay by the end of 2016 and enable the steps necessary to accomplish that.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chair, how much time is left in the debate on both sides?

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This amendment would eliminate indefinite detention in the United States and its territories. So basically anybody who we captured who we suspected of terrorist activity would no longer be subject to indefinite detention, as is now currently the law.

The basic reason for this is our Constitution works, and we ought to value it and we ought to let the Constitution work. We have gone through article III courts to try, convict, and incarcerate terrorists successfully for decades. Yet, because of the 2001 AUMF, we still have on the books a law that would allow the President, any President now or in the future, to indefinitely detain any person in the United States if they determine that that person is affiliated with al Qaeda or affiliated forces. If they are acting in support of those organizations, they would be subject to indefinite detention and would not be allowed to due process rights that are in our Constitution.

That is an enormous amount of power to give the Executive: to take someone and lock them up without due process. It is not necessary. This President has not used the authority. President George W. Bush did not use it after about 2002 and then only in a couple of instances. It is not necessary. It is an enormous amount of power to grant the Executive, and I believe places liberty and freedom at risk in this country.

We need to eliminate indefinite detention in the United States. This amendment would do that clearly and unequivocally, and I urge support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

The language within the NDAA about preserving rights is very confusing. I think it is very clear that the President does have the power right now to indefinitely detain people. So arguing that rights are protected, they are not. Indefinite detention is the law of the land. The President has the power to do that. Habeas corpus is one right. It is not due process. This law currently allows for due process to be ignored and for the Executive to indefinitely detain people.

The other big problem with this is it goes on forever. We have at different points in our Nation's history suspended habeas corpus-- during the Civil War and other times of extreme danger. But in this case, al Qaeda and terrorism have been with us for a while. They are going to be with us for a long time to come in some form or another.

So to grant the President the power to indefinitely detain people is a long, long-term issue. Again, it is not necessary. Our article III courts have arrested, tried, convicted, and incarcerated hundreds of terrorists. It works. We don't need to give the President the power to throw out portions of the Constitution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.

First of all, Guantanamo Bay would not apply in this case. None of the people being held at Guantanamo Bay were captured in the United States, so this would have nothing to do with that. That is a vexing and difficult question. This applies to people captured from this point forward in the United States. It would not apply to Guantanamo Bay inmates.

Second, I want to deal with this argument about intelligence. It is an argument that has been made repeatedly that does not make any sense. This notion that somehow under the normal judicial process, under the normal law enforcement model you cannot collect any intelligence. Well, that would be a surprise to the FBI. It would be a surprise to every law enforcement agency in the United States of America that has been giving suspects Miranda rights, investigating crimes, and gathering intelligence for decades. Just because you tell someone they have the right to remain silent doesn't mean that they will, first of all.

Second of all, even if you don't tell them, everybody is aware of the fact

that they don't have to talk. We have used Miranda successfully to gather intelligence in a variety of different ways repeatedly. You will not lose that ability if you go through article III courts using Miranda rights.

Again, I want to emphasize, the idea that when you capture a terrorist, it never occurs to them that they don't have to give up information until you give them Miranda rights makes no sense whatsoever, number one.

Number two, over and over and over again domestic law enforcement officials have been able to give Miranda rights and gather an enormous amount of intelligence. That is a red herring in this argument.

Again, we come back to what the law does. The law gives the President of the United States the power to indefinitely detain people without due process. The Republican Party is always talking about freedom from government intrusion. They are concerned about the health care law, they are concerned about all manner of different things. This is a law that gives the President the power to lock you up and take away your basic freedom without due process. It strikes me that nothing could be more fundamental to those basic freedoms from government intrusion that we always hear about from the other side of the aisle than this issue.

I urge Republicans and Democrats alike to support this amendment. Take away the President's ability to lock people up indefinitely without due process. That is a gross, gross violation and an individual right that none of us in this country should stand for any longer.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to quickly agree with Congressman Heck.

I used to represent Joint Base Lewis-McChord. It is the worst traffic in the State of Washington. The base more than doubled over the course of 7 to 8 years. It is a significant quality of life issue for our men and women and their families who are serving on Joint Base Lewis- McChord, and I am sure this is a situation that is repeated around many bases across the country.

So I strongly support his efforts to try and deal with this. This is something that directly impacts our troops and their families. I thank him for his effort.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

First of all, on the trust issue, you wouldn't have to negotiate with people that you trusted.

Unfortunately, regrettably, we have to negotiate with people all the time who are not entirely trustworthy. That is why Ronald Reagan always said, ``Trust but verify,'' which I think was wrong. Let's verify. Trust is a very difficult thing.

Obviously, Russia has proven itself untrustworthy, but they have consistently reduced their nuclear weapons arsenal as a result of treaties that were first negotiated by Ronald Reagan, and many others.

They have also worked cooperatively with us to contain nuclear material, which has been enormously important. They would be a huge terrorist threat if they were to ever get their hands on nuclear material. Outside of the United States, the former Soviet Union--and now Russia--is the number one place where you have that nuclear material.

So having some measure of cooperation with them to contain and reduce that material is enormously important. That is the goal of the START Treaty.

It is not a matter of whether or not you trust Putin or Russia. I don't trust many people, just in general, and I certainly don't trust them. The question is: is the START Treaty, an effort to reduce the number of nuclear weapons that Russia has and to contain and control the fissile material that they have, is that in our best interest?

It is. And we should negotiate that.

Certainly, what Putin is doing in the Ukraine is reprehensible and violates all manner of treaties. I support the President and the efforts of others to condemn and sanction them as a result.

But to walk away from an effort to contain nuclear weapons I don't believe is in the best interest of the U.S. It is not a matter of whether you trust Russia; it is a matter of what it is in our best interest. I believe it is in our best interest to try to contain the nuclear fissile material available out there in the world. START is one way to do that. Walking away from this just because we don't trust Putin--and we don't--is not sound policy.

I urge opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I agree completely with my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). How can we possibly be having a meaningful debate about our national defense policy when we are not even allowed to have a vote or a debate on the war that this country happens to be engaged in at this given time? It is a pretense for a discussion that while still important is omitting the single largest public policy issue that our constituents are interested in and that men and women are putting their lives at risk for related to defense.

There were 131 germane amendments, including the amendment offered by my colleagues, Mr. McGovern and Mr. Jones, relating to the war in Afghanistan, and 130 others that are rejected

under this rule--not even allowed a minute of discussion on the floor, no less a vote. What would it take to allow a full discussion of those issues? Well, 131 amendments, and customarily, even if we gave each 10 minutes, that is just 2 or 3 days of legislative time about our entire national defense policy. Isn't that what we owe this country as our Nation's deliberative body here, as Representatives of the United States Congress, to discuss for 2 or 3 days all the issues that Members on both sides of the aisle have brought forward relating to defense? I am including, first and foremost, the obvious issue of the war that we are currently engaged in and the demands from our constituents that whatever side prevails in that vote--and in the past, I have joined my colleagues, Mr. McGovern and Mr. Jones, on that issue--at least we should be able to debate and discuss whether an ongoing American presence in Afghanistan is in our national security interests.

The process under which these bills have come to the floor prevents open dialogue and debate, and, frankly, continues to undermine the reputation of this body, the United States Congress, as a deliberative and representative body. One need not wonder why congressional approval ratings are so low. Here we are having a debate for a day on national defense, and we are prohibited from debating and voting on the single largest issue relating to national defense.

In addition, this bill brings up a very weakened form of the USA FREEDOM Act. Not only was this bill weakened in the Judiciary Committee, but, in addition, it was weakened just 24 hours ago before the Rules Committee. Nonetheless, Members from both sides of the aisle submitted amendments to improve the bill, but, unfortunately, every single one of those 20 amendments are blocked under this rule. So we block 131 amendments by Members on both sides of the aisle from debate and from a vote, and we blocked 20 amendments for Members on both sides of the aisle with regard to the USA FREEDOM Act.

Look, this underlying rule also blocked amendments relating to military preparedness. It blocked a widely popular amendment that I think would have more than enough votes on the floor of the House, according to its chief sponsor, Mr. Denham, that would allow our aspiring Americans to enlist in the military to ensure that we have the very best and most capable aspiring men and women to defend our country. Absent that amendment, the military will have to essentially go to the next best person on their list, have a harder time meeting their recruitment goals, and have to accept something less than the very best to defend our country and protect our national security. The majority blocked this important bipartisan amendment that would allow aspiring Americans who seek to serve our country and know no other country and owe no other allegiance to any other country to earn their legal status through military service.

The majority also blocked an amendment by Mr. Castro that would have allowed aspiring Americans who are DACA-qualified to become eligible to attend, train, and serve at U.S. service academies. I have had the deep honor of having been appointed by then-Speaker and now-leader Pelosi to serve on the board of governors along with my colleague, Mr. Lamborn of Colorado, of the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.

Members from across the country undergo--like we do in our office--a selection process where we interview the very best and brightest young men and women from across our districts for appointment to that academy, and one of the greatest honors I have as a Representative is being able to make the phone calls to the talented young individuals that our panelists have chosen to say, yes, we are providing you an appointment to one of our officer universities, and you will be able to serve as an officer in the United States military, one of the U.S. service academies. However, again, as a result of the failure of this rule to allow for even a debate or a vote on the Castro amendment, once again, our military academies are being forced to accept the next best, the less prepared student, rather than the most prepared and the very best officer that we need in today's and tomorrow's military to keep our Nation's national security interests safe.

Both the Denham and Castro amendments would strengthen our service morale, our national defense, and our military preparedness. And those are an example of the 131 amendments to this bill that are blocked from discussion or votes under this restrictive rule.

In addition, this rule makes in order H.R. 3361, the USA FREEDOM Act. Now, this bill was supposed to rein in the NSA's illegal and far- reaching wiretapping programs. Though I have never in my time here supported the PATRIOT Act, even many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have believe that the interpretation of that act was overly broad, and therefore, it is desirable for Congress to assert itself on behalf of the American people and rein in some of the worst excesses. But I am dismayed to find that the final text on the floor was not only weakened in the committee process but was weakened just 24 hours ago behind closed doors with less than just about 24 hours for Members of this body to even read the new version of the weakened USA FREEDOM Act.

Mr. Speaker, last year's revelations that the NSA had been collecting detailed information about our communication patterns have undermined the trust that my constituents and Americans across the country have in our government. It has created conflicts with our allies abroad, threatening jobs in our country by sullying the reputation of American companies and rifling our international trade waters. The NSA collection of metadata is a clear violation of our constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, and it simply can't continue.

Now, while I am pleased that the Chamber is finally taking up legislation that is aimed at reining in the NSA's activities, however, while this bill does take baby steps towards restoring some of Americans' freedoms that are so inherently part of our constitutional system, I am very disappointed that it doesn't require the government to fully meet the standard, nor does it resolve this issue in any way, shape, or form to the American people.

The USA FREEDOM Act curtails the NSA's ability to monitor Americans' private communications under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. And the legislative intent is clear: to prohibit the collection of bulk data such as the type that was occurring under the secret program revealed by Edward Snowden. However, the language in the bill falls short of accomplishing that, and none of the amendments that were designed to improve this bill and make it work to secure our privacy rights were even allowed to be discussed under this rule here on the floor of the House, which is another reason that this rule simply must be brought down.

This legislation amended the definition of ``specific selection term,'' which is required to conduct surveillance under FISA in a way that creates the possibility that the NSA could misuse the bill. Now, again, a secret government agency that we have acknowledged has had oversight problems in the past, having overly broad discretion, has shown and demonstrated that it has been unable to provide the proper oversight.

So the bill's new definition of ``specific selection term'' can be read to create a loophole permitting intelligence agencies to use selection terms that could permit the collection of large segments of data associated with the particular email domain or IP address.

The American people have seen how broadly in the past the intelligence community has interpreted their authority under surveillance law. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. The new definitions provided in the underlying bill provide a potential loophole almost as wide as the initial loophole in the PATRIOT bill itself and fails to address the privacy concerns of the American people.

In addition, the new language eliminated provisions that strengthened and clarified the ban on reverse targeting in 702 and the minimization provisions for both the 215-based CDR program and the FISA pen register statute.

The language is a major departure from the bill that passed out of two committees. So you might hear Members on both sides of the aisle say, oh,

the bill passed by voice on committee. To be clear, this is not the bill that passed in committee. This bill was changed 24 hours ago and severely weakened. Were the proponents of these changes hesitant to bring these changes forward in committee because they knew they would engender bipartisan opposition? Perhaps. But let it not be said without refutation that these bills have passed committee by a voice vote unanimously. The bill has changed significantly since it passed committee.

Again, while I am encouraged that this Congress is finally taking up a bill designed with the intent of reining in the excesses of the NSA, this process is flawed. Twenty amendments were offered; none are allowed under this rule. If we can defeat this rule, Members from both sides of the aisle will be able to move forward to improve upon the USA FREEDOM Act to ensure that it can be examined and that Congress can engage in their proper oversight role with regard to this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 590 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

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

The question before the House is, Should the House now consider H. Res. 590?

While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any point of order.

The Congressional Budget Office has stated that, while the two underlying bills contained in the rule would impose intergovernmental and private sector mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the mandates would fall well below the threshold in that act.

That said, I know my friend is using this point of order to debate a very important issue that he cares passionately about. I am glad he has had the opportunity to bring it forward because we tend to agree on a lot of what he has said, and he knows that. We have talked on numerous occasions.

But in order to allow this House to continue its scheduled business of the day, I urge our Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, like I said before, I don't disagree with a lot of what my friend from Massachusetts said. As we voted last time, we are not going to have the opportunity to do that this time.

But I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is: Should the House now consider H. Res. 590?

While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any points of order. All of the relevant committees have included earmark statements in their reports filed with the House, so there is no violation of the House earmark rule.

That said, I know my friend is using this point of order to debate an important issue--and I have said this earlier--that he passionately cares about. So I am glad that he has had that opportunity.

But in order to allow this House to continue with the scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, so much has been said. As I said earlier, I agree with a lot of what has been said.

I will be honest with you, I am disappointed. I have sons that have been sent off to war for this Nation: two of them in Iraq at the same time and one in Afghanistan. They didn't ask to go. They went because, long before I got here, a majority of the Members here voted for it.

Now, you can have disagreements about whether or not we should have been involved in Iraq. I have some serious reservations. Or about what our

continued involvement in Afghanistan should be. I actually voted for an amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) put up last year in regards to getting out of Afghanistan.

Listen, what I say is not hallowed words. I have had blood and flesh of my own in those countries. And I agree, there is nothing we can do to change where Afghanistan is going to go in the future. You can't change history, as has been brought up here.

But I will tell you that if you don't vote for the underlying rule, then we won't have the opportunity to support our troops. We won't have an opportunity to override what the President is doing in regards to cutting the COLA for our troops and adding additional costs to our troops that they have to bear out of their own pockets.

So you want to make a statement. Let's not forget about what the NDAA is all about. It is about supporting our troops and giving our warfighters the equipment and the training and the compensation that they and their families richly deserve for what that 1 percent gives to this Nation, the freedom to stand down here and have a difference of opinion.

But, Mr. Speaker, in order to allow this House to continue with its scheduled business for the day, I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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 590 provides for House consideration of two separate pieces of legislation. The first of these bills, H.R. 3361, the USA FREEDOM Act, will be considered for 1 hour under a closed rule. This legislation will prohibit the bulk collection of all tangible things, not just telephone records. It will end a practice that, in my sincere belief and in the belief of so many other Americans, violated our privacy and our constitutional rights. This isn't the end of the issue for me and, I suspect, for a lot of our Members as well.

And secondly, the reason I am proud to be here to sponsor this particular rule is because it provides further consideration of this year's National Defense Authorization Act. The NDAA passed for 52 consecutive years, and I am confident that this will be the 53rd consecutive year that it passes.

Mr. Speaker, this is the very definition of a bipartisan effort. This year's NDAA was reported out of the House Armed Services Committee with unanimous support, 61-0.

For all the infighting that exists in Congress, it is nice to know that we can unite around the common cause of supporting our troops and fulfilling our constitutional responsibility of providing for the common defense of our homeland.

Part of the reason this legislation received so much support is that so many Members have had input into the process, from the committee to the floor. The committee alone, this bill was amended 155 times in committee. And the rule will allow for the consideration of over 160 more amendments, with over 70 of those amendments coming from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Of course, no piece of legislation is perfect to each Member. Even as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I didn't get everything I wanted in this legislation. But I am extremely proud of the work that we have done and the product that we have put forward.

One of the things I would like to highlight in this bill is the 1.8 percent pay raise for our troops. It is definitely more modest than I had hoped, but it is still a good step. And I think we all know our brave men and women have earned it.

We have also rejected, for 4 years in a row now, the President's proposed benefit cuts to our warfighters and their families. In the President's FY12 budget request, he proposed cuts to TRICARE. In the NDAA that year, the committee fully restored those cuts. In the President's FY13 budget proposal, he proposed compensation cuts once again. And, once again, our NDAA restored much of the funding and required the President to find other sources for the remaining funds.

Fiscal year '14 was no different. This President proposed TRICARE cuts and actually reduced the military's pay raise from 1.8 to just 1 percent. Congress again rejected those TRICARE cuts and worked to restore the program with other resources.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to say the President's proposed cuts this year were the most sweeping to date. Those cuts would have included TRICARE, housing allowances, and commissary benefits. These cuts add costly out-of-pocket expenses to those military families, that 1 percent who protect our freedoms, and he was willing to cut that. Our warfighters deserve better, and the NDAA before us ensures that those damaging cuts will not happen.

This NDAA also rejects the administration's insistence on one or more rounds of base closure to conserve resources. It is our opinion that Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, is an ineffective way to produce true savings. Instead, they add large up-front costs. And so in this year's NDAA, we have prohibited another round of BRAC.

We have also expanded sexual assault prevention by reviewing the discharge status for victims who separate from the military. And this is so important to all of us. What we want to do is to ensure that no servicemembers were prosecuted for reporting a crime, and we want to make sure that we hold those responsible for the crime to the highest level that we can.

Finally, the underlying bill ensures the preservation of the National Guard. In every State and territory in this Union, guardsmen are exceptionally well trained and must retain equipment to respond to disasters in their States.

These brave men and women are critical to the operational Reserve of this country--ready to deploy to combat zones in defense of the entire Nation, as they have proudly done over the last 12 years. These are active members of our community who risk their own safety to come to our rescue when we are in need the most.

The Guard also provides for some of the most effective and efficient dollars spent, and that is why it is always frustrating to see proposals that could dramatically cut from their budget.

The NDAA recognizes the importance of the National Guard and the Reserves and preserves their capability to protect us here at home and abroad.

I support the rule and the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) whom I serve with on the Armed Services Committee, but he also serves on the Judiciary Committee.

I do not.

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

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

In 2008, Congress passed legislation to suspend public-private competitions at the DOD through the OMB Circular A-76. That moratorium remains in place today. In 2009, the OMB issued a memorandum which regulated the move to insourcing at the DOD.

Today, nearly half of the Federal Government owns and operates thousands of activities that are commercial in nature. These functions are not inherent or unique to government; rather, they can be found in small and Main Street businesses across the Nation. Not only are these Federal agencies duplicating private business, but many engage in unfair government competition with the private sector.

My amendment seeks to place a moratorium on the insourcing of previously contracted activities within the DOD. Exceptions would be made, number one, if the activity were inherently governmental and, thereby, should never have been contracted out in the first place; or, number two, if the DOD would employ a reverse A-76 to itemize specific costs saved to the taxpayer, should the DOD be able to

perform the commercial activity more efficiently for the taxpayer.

According to the OMB, the act of conducting the A-76 competition alone can generate a savings of 10 to 40 percent on average. That is just the average savings generated from simply going through the process.

While the A-76 process is not perfect, it is the best opportunity we have for a cost comparison. As an accountant, I understand the importance of a cost comparison. This amendment is just the first step. Studies also show that utilizing the A-76 public-private cost comparisons can save up to $27 billion per year. Again, this is just by implementing the cost comparison tool.

In 2011, the Department of Defense completed a report in response to section 325 of the NDAA for fiscal year 2010, which concluded with two major recommendations to Congress, the first of which is to lift the suspension on A-76 competitions. This is the recommendation from the

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

Mr. Chairman, opponents may argue that this is a burden to place on the DOD when they are seeking to insource, but I believe that ensuring taxpayer dollars are well spent and that taxpayers are getting the best value for their money is hardly a burden.

A formal, documented process which shows the cost savings will make sure that this is fair for the small businesses who depend on these contracts to thrive.

The American Legion approves of this proposed amendment. They stated:

The practice of converting functions and services that have

been performed by contractors with government employees

limits the amount of contracts that can go to the private

sector to stimulate and grow the veteran small business

industrial base. When the government takes a couple of

positions away from a small business, they are essentially

crippling the small business' ability to succeed in the

private sector. These practices primarily affect small

businesses, as large contractors are rarely affected by

insourcing policy because of their size and number of

employees.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is also supported by the TRSA, MAPPS, the Business Coalition for Fair Competition, and the American Conservative Union.

Mr. Chairman, I will submit their statements in support for the Record.

Submitted for the Record in Support of Jenkins Amendment #135

Textile Rental Services Association (TRSA): In its 1996

examination of the issue, the Center for Naval Analyses

likewise found benefits of competing work. The visibility and

identification of alternate providers were beneficial aspects

of the process identified by the Center. As a bottom line,

the Center for Naval Analyses determined a 30% average

savings resulted from this beneficial focus on competition,

with savings persisting over time. A leaner, more efficient

government is a worthy goal, and Rep. Jenkins (KS) Amendment

#135 is a means to achieve this goal.

MAPPS: We have seen insourcing take place beyond

`inherently governmental' activities such as commercial

activities like mapping and geospatial activities. The

Jenkins Amendment is the fairest approach by helping defend

business opportunities for the private sector, including

small business.

Business Coalition for Fair Competition (BCFC): The Jenkins

Amendment is the `yellow pages test' personified. This

amendment 1) prevents the outright conversion of ``commercial

activities'' from private sector firms into DOD performance;

2) requires an official cost accounting be performed and

documented to identify whether DOD performance is more cost

effective than the private sector contractor; and 3) helps

protect private sector firms, including small business, from

losing contracts taken away unfairly by the Federal

government.

American Conservative Union (ACU): The Jenkins Amendment is

essential to stopping the government goliath from gobbling up

jobs that belong in the private sector. Rather than wringing

our hands over slow growth and the lack of good paying jobs,

we should start by protecting existing private sector jobs

from further `insourcing' by this Administration. This

amendment will help do that.

In closing, my amendment seeks to strike a balance. If the service is inherently governmental, it should be contracted out. If it is a commercial activity, the Federal Government owes it to the American taxpayer to get the best value, the most efficiency, and the best service available.

We owe this to our warfighters to ensure they are receiving the best possible services as they protect us. This cannot be assured without the use of a fair competitive processes. With a debt of more than $17 trillion, calls for reductions that will erode the end strength of our military and a stagnant private-sector job market, we must find ways to reduce spending and find efficiencies at DOD while boosting job creation in our communities.

This amendment is an opportunity to vote for small business, break up Federal monopolies, ensure more efficient services, empower the warfighter, and maintain funding for DOD.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I submit the following statements in support of Jenkins Amendment #15 to H.R. 4435.

National Veteran Small Business Coalition (NVSBC): ``The

National Veteran Small Business Coalition (NVSBC) has seen

the negative effect of Insourcing on veteran and service

disabled veteran small businesses over the last few years.

Veterans who have fought for this government should not have

to compete for business opportunities with the same

government who ordered them in harm's way.

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI): A leaner, more

efficient government is a worthy goal. Competitive sourcing

provides important, demonstrable benefits for our business

workforce, our economy, and our government's efficiency. The

Competitive Enterprise Institute supports Rep. Lynn Jenkins'

insourcing-and-outsourcing-related amendment to achieve that

goal.