Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4870) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 3230) making continuing appropriations during a Government shutdown to provide pay and allowances to members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces who perform inactive-duty training during such period.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the expense of so many.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield an additional minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement of Administration Policy

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

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

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.

4870, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for

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

purposes. The Administration appreciates the bill's continued

support for providing funding that assists the warfighter in

operating in unconventional and irregular warfare and

countering unconventional threats, supports capacity-building

efforts with foreign military forces, and supports on-going

operations, as well as the support for programs that would

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

sexual assault prevention. While there are a number of areas

of agreement with the bill, the Administration has serious

concerns with provisions that would constrain the ability of

the Department of Defense (DOD) to align military

capabilities and force structure with the President's defense

strategy and to reduce unneeded costs.

The Administration will soon submit a budget amendment to

request funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).

This request will reflect the President's decision on troop

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

military mission in Afghanistan, DOD's supporting presence in

the broader region, as well as the recently proposed

Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund and European Reassurance

Initiative. The Administration looks forward to working with

the Congress on this request.

The Administration looks forward to working with the

Congress on an orderly appropriations process that supports

economic growth, opportunity, and our national security while

avoiding unnecessary fiscal crises that hold the Nation's

economy back. This process should include reconciling funding

levels for individual appropriations bills to promote

economic growth and national security, and passing bills

without ideological provisions that could undermine an

orderly appropriations process.

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

roadmap for making investments to accelerate economic growth,

expand opportunity for all hard-working Americans, and ensure

our national security, while continuing to improve the

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

Budget takes key steps to both continue and enhance the

Administration's efforts to deliver a Government that is more

effective, efficient, and supportive of economic growth.

The President's Budget adheres to the FY 2015 spending

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

the choices the President would make at those levels.

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

2007 funding levels adjusted for inflation and are not

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

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

also includes a fully paid for Opportunity, Growth, and

Security Initiative--evenly split between defense and non-

defense priorities--that presents additional investments to

grow the economy, expand opportunity, and enhance security.

The Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative would

provide $26.4 billion for DOD to make progress on restoring

readiness lost under sequestration, accelerate modernization

of key weapons systems, and improve DOD facilities across the

United States.

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

grow significantly should the Congress not accept reforms

proposed in the FY 2015 Budget. Without congressional support

for meaningful compensation reforms and other cost saving

measures, force structure changes, and flexibility to manage

weapon systems and infrastructure, there is an increased risk

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

defense strategy, which will contribute to a military that

will be less capable of responding effectively to future

challenges.

The Administration would like to take this opportunity to

share additional views regarding the Committee's version of

the bill and urges the Congress to resolve these issues

during the FY 2015 appropriations process.

Department of Defense

Prohibition on Retirement, Divesture, Realignment, or

Transfer of Aircraft. The Administration appreciates the

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

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

near-term readiness and achieve long-term modernization

objectives. However, the Administration strongly objects to

provisions that restrict the Department's ability to retire

other weapon systems and aircraft platforms in accordance

with current strategic and operational plans. These

divestitures are critical and would provide funding for

higher priority programs.

Specifically, the Administration strongly objects to

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

previously stated objections to provisions in the FY 2015

National Defense Authorization Act. Section 8122 of the bill

would prohibit the cancellation or modification of the C-130

Avionics Modernization Program (AMP). DOD plans to replace

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

alternative that has been validated by independent study to

ensure that the fleet continues to meet future requirements.

Section 8133 would prevent the Air Force from using funds to

divest or to disestablish any units of the active or reserve

component associated with E-3 airborne warning and control

system aircraft. This provision would force the Air Force to

take funding from higher priority defense needs in order to

operate, sustain, and maintain aircraft that are not needed

and are unaffordable in today's constrained fiscal

environment. Section 8136, which limits the transfer of

Apaches from the Army National Guard to the active Army,

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

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

transitions out of a decade of war, aircraft force structure

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

ready to respond to the requirements of the defense strategy.

Compensation Reform. To achieve a proper balance between

DOD's obligation to provide competitive pay and benefits to

servicemembers and its responsibility to provide troops with

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

imperative to slow the growth of basic pay and housing

allowances, modernize military healthcare, and reform how

commissaries operate. The Administration strongly urges the

Congress to support these reforms, which would save

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

While the Committee restored funding to offset the FY 2015

savings associated with proposals that were not supported,

the rejection of these proposals will likely require DOD

to find over $27 billion in additional reductions to

readiness, modernization, and force structure for FY 2016

through FY 2019. The Administration looks forward to the

recommendations of the Military Compensation and

Retirement Modernization Commission on long-term

compensation and retirement issues, but delaying DOD's

holistic package of proposed initial changes will only

result in increased costs, degradation in training and

modernization efforts, and risks to the force.

Guantaanamo Detainee Restrictions. The Administration

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

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

ability to manage the Guantaanamo detainee population. The

President has repeatedly objected to the inclusion of these

or similar provisions in prior legislation and this year has

reiterated his call to the Congress to lift such

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

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

remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the

prison at Guantaanamo Bay.'' Operating the detention facility

at Guantaanamo weakens our national security by draining

resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and

partners, and emboldening violent extremists. These

provisions are unwarranted and threaten to interfere with the

Executive Branch's ability to determine the appropriate

disposition of detainees and its flexibility to determine

when and where to prosecute Guantaanamo detainees based on

the facts and circumstances of each case and our national

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

moreover, violate constitutional separation-of-powers

principles under certain circumstances.

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). The Administration

strongly objects to the proposed $4.8 million reduction in

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

ability of the Executive Branch to plan for contingencies or

make other needed adjustments that would improve military

effectiveness and efficiency. The Administration strongly

urges the Congress to provide the BRAC authorization and

funding as requested, which would allow DOD to rightsize its

infrastructure while providing important assistance to

affected communities. Without authorization for a new round

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

military's infrastructure with the needs of our evolving

force structure, which is critical to ensuring that limited

resources are available for the highest priorities of the

warfighter and national security.

Limitation on Funds Available to Procure Equipment. The

Administration objects to section 8116 of the bill which

would continue and expand prohibitions on using funds to

procure certain equipment, including maintenance for the

Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). This section would

severely limit DOD's ability to sustain military-use

helicopters and other equipment that is already in ANSF's

inventory and is critical to their ability to continue the

fight against extremists who threaten the security of

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

this section could force DOD to seek more costly alternatives

than contracting with the Russian helicopter industry to

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

Liquid Rocket Engine Development. The Administration

objects to the unrequested $220 million for a new rocket

engine. An independent study recently concluded that such a

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

billion with another $3 billion needed to develop a suitable

launch vehicle. This approach prematurely commits significant

resources and would not reduce our reliance on Russian

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

reducing our reliance on Russian technology, the

Administration is evaluating several cost-effective options

including public-private partnerships with multiple awards

that will drive innovation, stimulate the industrial base,

and reduce costs through competition. The Administration

looks forward to working with the Congress on this issue once

the analysis is complete.

Limitations on Phased Modernization of Weapon Systems.

While appreciative of the bill's overall support for cruiser

modernization, the Administration objects to the unnecessary

limitations on the current plan, which would preclude

modernization in the most cost effective and timely manner

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

cruisers into the 2040s.

Reducing the Force Structure at Lajes Air Force Base. The

Administration objects to section 8123 of the bill, which

would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from reducing

the force structure at Lajes Air Force Base and is

duplicative of section 341 of the FY 2014 National Defense

Authorization Act. Because DOD is nearing completion of the

section 341 requirements for Lajes, duplicating and

amplifying these requirements is unnecessarily onerous.

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The Administration objects to

finding reductions for the LCS program. The reductions leave

the program with insufficient funds to procure three LCS in

FY 2015, delaying the delivery of much needed capability to

the Fleet. Deferring additional ships into FY 2016 would

compound the already significant challenges the Navy faces in

funding the shipbuilding account in a fiscally constrained

environment while increasing overall costs to the Navy and

increasing risk to the industrial base, including sub-tier

suppliers.

Reallocation of Missile Defense Agency Funding. The

Administration objects to the reallocation of $370 million

from the FY 2015 Budget request. These changes would reduce

capability and capacity, and may possibly hinder the

Department's ability to effectively manage the Agency.

Specifically, this reallocation of funds would delay critical

engineering, testing, command and control, and weapons system

development, and would affect homeland and regional

commitments, including a likely delay of one year for the

European Phased Adaptive Approach Phase 3--a national

commitment to our allies. Also, the reduction in advanced

procurement funding for the Standard Missile-3 IB could

increase its planned procurement cost by about $140 million.

Opposition to Unrequested Funding. The Administration

objects to the billions of dollars provided for items DOD did

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

aircraft, High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, M-1

Abrams upgrades, and a significantly larger amount of funding

for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account than

provided in recent years. The Administration is also

concerned that section 8006 of the bill makes spending on

these and other unnecessary items statutorily required,

diverting scarce resources from more important defense

programs and limiting the Secretary's flexibility to manage

the Department efficiently.

Classified Programs. The Administration looks forward to

providing its views on the adjustments contained in the

Classified Annex to the bill once it becomes available.

The Administration looks forward to working with the

Congress as the FY 2015 appropriations process moves forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4870, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. Chairman, as we begin consideration of this important legislation, all of us in this Chamber want to pay tribute to the men and women of our Armed Forces--all volunteers. They deserve our heartfelt thanks for their incredible service and sacrifices, and that of their families. Everything we do over the next few days should be dedicated to them.

My colleagues, the fiscal year 2015 Department of Defense Appropriations bill was reported out unanimously by the full Appropriations Committee on June 10. This recommendation is a product of countless staff hours, 10 official briefings, and 13 hearings.

Most of our hearings related to assuring success and reducing risk for our warfighters in their mission. It is worth noting that one of these hearings was exclusively dedicated to taking testimony from Members of the House on their views, opinions, and priorities for this year's Defense Appropriations bill.

I want to thank those Members who took time to inform and educate the committee, as well as other Members who made specific requests.

At the outset, I would also like to thank Chairman Hal Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey for their support of our committee's work. As they know, this bill is a product of a bipartisan and cooperative effort, for which I thank my good friend, the ranking member, Pete Visclosky. He has been a valuable partner throughout this whole process. Thanks to all members of the committee and to our incredible staff.

The base funding recommendation is $491 billion, which is $202 million above the President's request and $4.1 billion above last year's enacted level.

As many Members are aware, the committee has not yet received the President's recommendation for overseas contingency operations--the OCO budget, as it is known--so we are forced to include a $79.4 billion placeholder in our legislation.

Our committee operates in a completely transparent and accountable manner, so clearly, this is not the way we wanted to proceed to the floor--with no details, with no context, with no facts for those accounts.

We have pressed the administration at every opportunity to get us the OCO plan. The administration has told us for months that it is finalizing its plan for the enduring U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, which will have a serious impact on the size of that funding request.

Three weeks ago, the President announced his plans for U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan beyond this year. The Army and Marines have already closed down bases and removed tons of equipment. Still, we have no request and are forced to debate a placeholder of nearly $80 billion.

While the Afghan Presidential elections are still unsettled, the leading candidates support the bilateral security agreement, supposedly the anchor for this funding request.

What is the holdup? We need to get on with it. I have to say that many people find it just a bit bizarre that the administration has proclaimed its opposition to the bill yesterday, when they have failed to do their job and lay out their game plan for overseas operations.

Whatever the recommendation we ultimately receive, we will closely examine their request because we still have troops and civilians on the ground, and no matter the number, they need to be protected.

Of course, we will also consider the deepening war and conflict in Iraq, the continuing disintegration of Syria, the aggressiveness of Russia in Eastern Europe and China in the Pacific, and the growing influence of Iran, increased terrorist attacks around the globe, especially in Africa.

While the administration feels the pending OCO request will have a great deal to do with our enduring U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, in reality, their request will have a great deal to do with our enduring role in the fight to protect Americans and our homeland from a growing list of global threats.

Even though we have returned to regular order this year, the committee faced many challenges in crafting this year's defense bill, but we have held firm to two guiding principles: ensuring that our men and women in uniform have the resources they need to defend our Nation and support their families; and, secondly, ensuring that the Department of Defense and our intelligence community have the resources they need to carry out their mission in the most efficient and effective manner.

Our goal throughout this bill is to support our warfighters, now and in the future, whenever the next crisis arises.

At the same time, our committee clearly recognizes the Nation's debt crisis. We found areas and programs where reductions were possible without adverse impact. Finally, it is important to note that we make every dollar count, without harming readiness or increasing risk incurred by our warfighters.

The bill before you attempts to meet those responsibilities within current fiscal restraints, while leaving no question for our allies and adversaries about our will and our ability to defend ourselves and our interests around the world. America must continue to lead, and this bipartisan bill enables that.

Let me highlight, briefly, just a few items included in this fiscal year 2015 Defense Appropriations request. It includes an additional $1.2 billion to fill readiness shortfalls; $534 million to fully fund the authorized 1.8 percent pay raise for our troops; $789 million to begin the refueling of the USS George Washington--a vital power projection platform; $5.8 billion for a total of 38 Joint Strike Fighters; $975 million to buy 12 additional electronic attack Growlers; $120 million to upgrade M1 Abrams tanks; $351 million for the very important Israeli Cooperative Program; and an additional $39 million for suicide prevention activities--$19 million of it targeted specifically to our Special Forces.

These are but a few examples of our commitment to the U.S. military dominance across the air, land, and sea, our commitment to our allies and partners, and our commitment to our servicemembers--all volunteers--and their families.

Mr. Chairman, I understand all--all of us do--that Americans are weary after 13 years of war. Despite the proclamations of some that al Qaeda and its followers have been decimated, the American people must understand the reality that terrorism is actually spreading worldwide.

Yes, our enemies have sustained serious damage, inflicted by the most skillful and powerful military intelligence organization on the globe, but in many cases, these enemies have adapted and grown to become even more dangerous.

We are witnessing an alarming collapse in Iraq. The central government now controls less than half of its sovereign territory, as it reels before a full-blown insurgency. The concept of an autonomous jihadi state or caliphate determined to attack the West is an unacceptable development that demands a response. We pivot elsewhere at our peril.

National defense is the priority job of the Federal Government. Our Constitution grants Congress the full range of authorities for establishing the defense of our Nation.

Our task in this House is to ensure that our military is ready to respond when the Commander in Chief calls. This legislation moves us towards a state of current and future military readiness that will protect America, and I urge its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JN14.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JN14.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JN14.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JN14.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JN14.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JN14.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JN14.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JN14.008

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations.

I am pleased to yield to the chairman an additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a member of our Defense Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, my colleague, for yielding on this important issue. I agree that upgrading these legacy aircraft is vital to our Nation's defense. It is our job, as elected officials, to protect our citizens, and the mission of the Aerospace Control Alert aircraft does just that.

I will work to ensure that we include report language in conference, or take other appropriate steps regarding this issue, as we work through the appropriations process.

I thank my colleague and friend from New Jersey for bringing this vital concern to my attention.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New York's kind words.

The committee recognized that suicide remains a very serious problem in the military, particularly among National Guard and Reserve troops.

I am proud to say that our bill strongly supports the efforts of the services to address this crisis. The report includes language which speaks directly to the gentleman's interest in the pilot program that was created to treat servicemembers suffering from mental health disorders in the National Guard and Reserve components through community partnerships.

In addition, the bill provides $158 million in requested funding for suicide prevention, mental health, and risk resiliency programs for the services. This includes an extra $39 million for suicide prevention programs, including the $19 million specifically for our special operators.

All the military services have taken significant steps to make suicide prevention a top priority and to improve the resiliency and health of our servicemembers.

We support those efforts, and I will continue to work with the gentleman from New York and his colleague, Mr. King, to address these important issues.

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

The committee has a long history of support for international sporting competitions. Ranking Member Visclosky and I will work with you to ensure that the remaining prior year balances appropriated for this purpose are spent for their intended purpose.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I understand the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office's mission is to provide the families of servicemembers lost in battle or taken as prisoners of war with information and, in applicable cases, to recover personnel from World War II, the Korean war, the cold war, the Vietnam war, and the Iraqi theater of operations.

I fully support the office and the work they do in searching and reuniting lost soldiers with their families. Returning the fallen servicemembers to their families is a priority, and I support your strong efforts and advocacy on behalf of Major Smith and his family. It is commendable. We honor it, and I thank you for bringing this to our attention.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read.

The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

First, I commend you on your amendment, and I withdraw my reservation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Further, SOCOM has provided no information or data to support this costly new endeavor, and Congress has raised questions in both the authorization bill and the appropriations bill about the affordability and efficacy of this program.

As our mark reflects, we have also raised serious concerns regarding SOCOM's prioritization of its requirements. Again this year, SOCOM proposed to fund their flying hour readiness programs at only 67 percent of their requirement, so they could fund these new contractors and facilities. They then made restoration of flying hours their number one unfunded priority.

I believe it is ill-advised to provide a 50 percent increase to hire personal trainers, sports nutritionists, and sports psychologists for special operators at an average cost in excess of $200,000.

With all due respect, all those who serve in our military--men and women, whether they be Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve or whether they are special operators--deserve the type of equipment and programs that keep them healthy and steadfast.

Mr. Chairman, we have $19 million specifically to address the high incidence of suicide among our special operators, so it is not only servicewide, but we recognize the special burdens that special operators bear through their incredible work.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

I withdraw my reservation.

We on the committee commend the gentlewoman for her concern for the health and well-being of all of our brave men and women in uniform. Taking care of the health and welfare of our servicemembers is of paramount importance and a concern to all of us.

I can assure you that both Mr. Visclosky and I will work with you as well as the money we put in our bill to address the concerns you have rightly raised.

I thank you for yielding.

I appreciate the gentleman's interest in defending our borders, appreciate your raising this important issue, and we support your amendment.

Thank you for yielding.

We on the committee thank the gentleman from New York for his concern regarding funding levels for traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, and psychological health research.

Just for the record, you should know that our bill does include $414 million, including a plus-up of $125 million above the request level of $289 million for all of those important issues.

We appreciate his work and his willingness to work with us, and we accept his amendment.

The committee would like to thank you, the gentleman from Massachusetts, the gentleman from North Carolina, and your colleagues for sponsoring this amendment.

The $3 million would be added to the $3 million which the committee, Mr. Visclosky and I, put into our bill for similar purposes.

We on the committee thank you for this amendment. Understanding your professional background and many of our constituents suffering under Alzheimer's, we are supportive of it.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a daunting time to be on the floor of the House during Defense Appropriations, and I add my appreciation to the chairman and to the ranking member for the bipartisan approach with which they have treated our men and women.

As we speak, there are soldiers who have left our soil, and they are in Iraq protecting our men and women at our embassy. There is never a time that we do not call upon our soldiers to stand and to defend our Nation or our citizens. My amendment recognizes that.

My amendment is a budget-neutral amendment. It adds $500,000 by reducing another account by $500,000 for an emphasis on PTSD, for outreach toward hard-to-reach veterans, especially those who are homeless or reside in underserved urban and rural areas.

Let me congratulate the committee for its hard work in recognition of the crisis of PTSD, but let me also cite that Houston is the third largest military retirement community in the United States, exceeded only by San Antonio and San Diego, California.

Houston is the second highest military recruiting district in the United States for all Armed Forces, to include the Coast Guard, and many return back to Houston. Twenty-three percent of the Houston adult homeless population are veterans, and nearly 2,500 men and women. I see them every day in my district. I have several homeless facilities that are particularly for veterans. As I interact with them, I see the clear signs of PTSD.

Over the years, I have had the privilege of working with this committee in establishing a PTSD center in one of our hospitals that was not a veteran facility. An estimated 7.8 percent of Americans will experience PTSD at some point in their lives, with women 10.4 percent and men 5 percent to develop PTSD; as well, estimates of PTSD from the gulf war as high as 10 percent; estimates from the war in Afghanistan are between 6 percent and 11 percent; and current estimates of PTSD in military personnel who served in Iraq range from 12 percent to 20 percent.

Posttraumatic stress disorder is of course something of great concern, and many times I have seen, again, these individuals who are in these very facilities. My amendment will help to ensure that no soldier is left behind and the urgent need for more outreach toward hard-to-reach veterans suffering from PTSD, especially those who are homeless and reside in underserved areas.

Mr. Chairman, I have been to what we call stand-downs. We have a number of them in our community. I started going to stand-downs way before I came to the United States Congress. These are street events that soldiers, retirees, or veterans come together, and particularly those who are homeless. I would say to you they are the most moving experiences that I have ever seen. The soldiers, the veterans are glad to see people who care. Many of them are suffering, but many of them-- all of them--put on that uniform and served us.

Joe, for example, saw a good deal of active combat during his time in the

military. Some incidents in particular have never left his mind, like the horrifying sight of Gary, a close comrade and friend, being blown up by a land mine. Even when he returned to civilian life, those images haunted him. Scenes from the battle would run repeatedly through his mind and disrupt his focus on work. Filling up at the gas station, for example, the smell of diesel immediately rekindled certain horrific memories. At other times, he had difficulty remembering the past, as if some events were too painful to allow back into his mind. He found himself avoiding socializing with old military buddies, as this would inevitably trigger a new round of memories. His girlfriend complained that he was always pent up and irritable, as if he were on guard, and Joe noticed that at night he had difficulty relaxing. When he heard loud noises, such as a truck backfiring, he literally jumped as if he were readying himself for combat. He began to drink heavily.

I am glad that this committee has recognized the importance of providing these services for our soldiers, no matter the long range of time that they have been out, that they are now veterans, that they are still important and they still were willing to put on the uniform.

In light of our crisis with the Veterans Affairs, I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment providing extra outreach to those veterans who did not think for one moment to put on that uniform and defend their Nation. Let's now provide them with that extra comfort.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I don't know if you heard, I thanked you for your caring response, along with the ranking member, putting together a bill that really recognizes service to our veterans.

With that, let me conclude and ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. I indicate that Mr. Conyers of Michigan joins me in this amendment.

I thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our nation safe.

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, which is virtually identical to an amendment that I offered and was adopted in last year's Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 2397).

My amendment increases funding for the PTSD by $500,000. These funds should be used toward outreach activities targeting hard to reach veterans, especially those who are homeless or reside in underserved urban and rural areas, who suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Mr. Chair, along with traumatic brain injury, PTSD is the signature wound suffered by the brave men and women fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and far off lands to defend the values and freedom we hold dear.

For those of us whose daily existence is not lived in harm's way, it is difficult to imagine the horrific images that American servicemen and women deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of war see on a daily basis.

In an instant a suicide bomber, an IED, or an insurgent can obliterate your best friend and right in front of your face. Yet, you are trained and expected to continue on with the mission, and you do, even though you may not even have reached your 20th birthday.

But there always comes a reckoning. And it usually comes after the stress and trauma of battle is over and you are alone with your thoughts and memories.

And the horror of those desperate and dangerous encounters with the enemy and your own mortality come flooding back.

PTSD was first brought to public attention in relation to war veterans, but it can result from a variety of traumatic incidents, such as torture, being kidnapped or held captive, bombings, or natural disasters such as floods or earthquakes.

People with PTSD may startle easily, become emotionally numb (especially in relation to people with whom they used to be close), lose interest in things they used to enjoy, have trouble feeling affectionate, be irritable, become more aggressive, or even become violent.

They avoid situations that remind them of the original incident, and anniversaries of the incident are often very difficult.

Most people with PTSD repeatedly relive the trauma in their thoughts during the day and in nightmares when they sleep. These are called flashbacks. A person having a flashback may lose touch with reality and believe that the traumatic incident is happening all over again.

Mr. Chair, the fact of the matter is that most veterans with PTSD also have other psychiatric disorders, which are a consequence of PTSD. These veterans have co-occurring disorders, which include depression, alcohol and/or drug abuse problems, panic, and/or other anxiety disorders.

My amendment recognizes that these soldiers are first and foremost, human. They carry their experiences with them.

Ask a veteran of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan about the frequency of nightmares they experience, and one will realize that serving in the Armed Forces leaves a lasting impression, whether good or bad.

My amendment will help ensure that ``no soldier is left behind'' by addressing the urgent need for more outreach toward hard to reach veterans suffering from PTSD, especially those who are homeless or reside in underserved urban and rural areas of our country.

I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment.

PTSD Anecdotes

Anecdote #1: (Veteran)

Joe saw a good deal of active combat during his time in the

military. Some incidents in particular had never left his

mind--like the horrifying sight of Gary, a close comrade and

friend, being blown-up by a land mine.

Even when he returned from to civilian life, these images

haunted him. Scenes repeatedly through his mind and disrupt

his focus on work.

Filing up at the gas station, for example, the smell of

diesel immediately rekindled certain horrific memories. At

other times, he had difficulty remembering the past--as if

some events were too painful to allow back in his mind. He

found himself avoiding himself socializing with old military

buddies, as this would inevitably trigger a new round of

memories.

His girlfriend complained that he was always pent-up and

irritable--as if he were on guard, and Joe noticed that at

night he had difficulty falling asleep.

When he heard loud noises, such as a truck back-firing he

literally jumped, as if here were readying himself for

combat. He began to drink heavily.

Anecdote #2: (as told by a Military Spouse)

My husband's PTS manifested itself in different ways. I

remember Fourth of July at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., when we were

all standing outside listening to the band, enjoying the

picnic and listening to fireworks.

The fireworks bothered Adrian because they sounded so much

like gunfire.

It made other soldiers upset too, and we all went inside. I

thought it was ironic because the celebration was supposed to

be for the American soldiers; they couldn't even enjoy it.

He'd see a can on the side of the road and swerve, thinking

it was an improvised explosive device.

When he'd go out to dinner with other soldiers, I'd say it

looked like a ``The Last Supper'' painting because they'd all

sit there with their backs against the wall.

If a room became too busy, he'd want to leave. He'd

suddenly become unfriendly or unapproachable.

At first, I confused his behavior with depression, or I

thought maybe he was just tired. I also couldn't help but

think it had to do with me; I'm only human.

I was fortunate that Adrian was willing to get help once he

got back. Once he was diagnosed, I knew we'd know better how

to deal with his symptoms. I educated myself on PTSD; I went

to his group therapist and reached out to the Real Warriors

Campaign for information. But the most important thing I did

was listen to Adrian.

Anecdote #3: (teen-aged girl)

Maria was only 15 when she was attacked by a group of men

on the way home from school. They took turns screaming abuse

at her and then they each raped her. Finally, they tried to

stab her to death and would almost certainly have succeeded

had the police not arrived on the scene.

For months after this horrifying event, Maria was not

herself. She was unable to keep the memories of the attack

out of her mind. At night she would have terrible dreams of

rape, and would wake up screaming.

She had difficulty walking back from school because the

route took her past the site of the attack, so she would have

to go

the long way home. She felt as though her emotions were

numbed, and as though she had no real future. At home she was

anxious, tense, and easily startled. She felt ``dirty'' and

somehow shamed by the event, and she resolved not to tell

close friends about the event, in case they too rejected her.

Anecdote #4: (civilian woman)

A 35-year-old lady was riding a bicycle in a carpark when

she was hit from behind by a car.

Six months after the accident, she still had frequent vivid

and intrusive memories of the incident.

She described seeing the car's wheels stopping just in

front of her face and hearing the screeching sound of the

brakes.

It felt as if it were happening again each time she

recalled it. She jumped whenever she heard loud traffic

noises and especially when she heard car brakes screeching.

She stayed in her room much more than usual, avoided using

the bicycles at all and avoided travelling in any vehicle as

much as she could.

She felt helpless and useless to overcome her symptoms even

though her family were warm and encouraging to her.

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

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I have none.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation as well to Chairman Frelinghuysen and congratulate him on the collegial and transparent manner in which he crafted H.R. 4870, the fiscal year 2015 Defense Appropriations Act. I also want to express my sincere appreciation for the efforts of Chairman Hal Rogers and Ranking Member Nita Lowey and all of the members of the Defense Subcommittee.

Also, as I think all of my colleagues know, this bill could not have been written without the dedication, long hours, and discerning and thoughtful input by our committee staff and our associate and personal staffs. I want to thank each one of them.

I would like to begin by saying a few words about the overseas contingency operations title that the chairman referred to.

The committee has been placed in a very difficult position of having to provide $79.4 billion as a placeholder. Recent decisions on the post-2014 troop levels in Afghanistan clear up the major policy issue that held back a detailed budget request.

Unfortunately, the clarity gained was quickly muddled by the proposed $5 billion counterterrorism partnerships fund and the $1 billion European reassurance initiative.

At a time when many in Congress are rightfully looking to limit what is an eligible expense in OCO and shift activities to the base budget, these new proposals further complicate the issue. Clarity must be brought to the opaque nature of OCO, and I look forward to the debate on this during the consideration of amendments.

I support the bill we are marking up today and believe it provides for our national security and the protection of U.S. interests at home and abroad. Put simply, the bill provides stability for our military personnel, maintains readiness, and preserves the industrial base.

I am pleased by the subcommittee's continued efforts on sexual assault prevention and response. Specifically, the bill fully funds the budget request for the Special Victims' Counsel, continuing last year's initiative.

The bill increases funding relative to the President's budget request for traumatic brain injury and psychological health research, suicide prevention outreach programs, and several other invaluable medical programs.

Further, the bill and report carry strong language aimed at increasing cooperation between the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs in their ongoing efforts to develop interoperable electronic health records.

Specific to readiness, the bill includes an increase of $1 billion to fill gaps in key programs to prepare our troops, including $135 million for the Army Reserve and Army National Guard. The bill makes investments in programs that are vital to the rebuilding and resetting of the force after 13 years of conflict.

In particular, it increases funding by $720 million for facility sustainment and modernization and provides each military service with additional funding for depot maintenance.

I especially appreciate the chairman's focus on encouraging DOD to meet the FY 2017 deadline for achieving fully auditable financial statements. The measure provides $8 million above the request for the Comptroller's office to improve business and financial systems throughout the Department.

Continuing problems in DOD's strategic forces are also addressed in the bill, and funding is provided to address issues directly impacting intercontinental ballistic missile crews.

With regard to the industrial base, I was dismayed that, in its FY 2015 budget request, the administration proposed the elimination of several longstanding general provisions ensuring that contracts followed Buy America requirements and support domestic manufacturing.

I am pleased to note that the committee chose to reject the administration's inexplicable proposal to jettison these Buy America proposals.

The bill also contains several other provisions and initiatives aimed at securing our industrial base, including $220 million to establish a program for the domestic development of a next-generation liquid-fueled rocket engine. Hopefully, this program will swiftly fill a very troubling void in the U.S. space launch industry.

One other area of the bill I would like to highlight is the funding increase for the Humanitarian Mine Action Program. Albeit a small program, I believe its mission is of immense value.

All too often, innocent civilians are the victims of explosive remnants of war. It is only right to share our military's expertise with host nations on the detection, clearance, disposal, and demilitarization of explosive ordnance. I thank the chairman in particular for his special efforts in this area.

However, I would point out that there are certain aspects of the bill that give me pause. Fundamentally, these concerns have little to do with the detailed work of the subcommittee, which I believe did its very best under the constraints in which it operated; rather, the concerns stem from Congress' continued failure to confront our long- term fiscal challenges.

In its fiscal year 2015 budget request, the Department of Defense proposed some significant initiatives, including military pay adjustments, restructuring TRICARE, and the retirement of several weapons system--such as the A-10 and the Kiowa Warrior--in order to stay under the fiscal year 2015 budget cap, provide for future flexibility, and to meet the national security strategy.

Having said this, one could easily point out that the administration then undercut its own efforts by planning for higher spending in fiscal years 2016 through 2019 and by submitting the disingenuously named ``Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative,'' and subsequently also submitting unfunded priority lists.

Regardless, a number of the proposals the Department put forth for fiscal year 2015 do possess merit. With few exceptions, these proposals have gained no traction within Congress. Most were excluded or had language prohibiting or postponing their support in the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act.

I do not suggest that the administration is uniformly correct, nor do I dismiss the resultant impacts of many of these initiatives, but the alternative of staying the course and hoping for some relief in fiscal year 2016 is very wishful thinking.

The sooner Congress reaches the consensus required to make the difficult decisions that are essential to deal with the reality of finite resources, the better we can provide for our national defense.

In closing, I want to reiterate my appreciation to the chairman for his cooperation, his friendship and diligence. He and his staff have ensured that the Defense Subcommittee continues its tradition of operating collaboratively and effectively. I am pleased to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I would echo the sentiments about the importance of public-private partnerships and including teaching and clinical hospitals in finding ways to provide the best care possible to our servicemembers.

Mental health disorders are a growing trend in our military, and we must use all resources at our disposal to address the demand for treatment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his interest and for the colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, at this point, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I certainly understand the gentleman's concerns and appreciate him making the committee aware of this issue.

I know that the Junior ROTC program has made a difference in the lives of many students, as well as our country. I would be happy to work with the gentleman on providing funding for this important program.

I thank the gentleman and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I certainly understand the gentleman's concerns and appreciate him making the committee aware of this issue. I would be happy to work with him to provide attention and resources to this issue.

I am very pleased that he brought this to our attention today on the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I would want to make it clear to all of my colleagues, first of all, that my good friend from Wisconsin has been working on this issue for a number of years. I remember a meeting we had about a year ago on this issue, and he continues to press ahead, which I appreciate.

I certainly will continue to work with him on the development of lithium ion battery technology and promote battery safety as an important part of this research, and I appreciate the gentleman's concern, as well as his good work.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. The subcommittee

has always done everything we can to take care of our special operators, and that is reflected in the mark.

I do believe the gentleman's amendment is philosophically inconsistent with the underlying bill. I cannot justify devoting significant resources to SOCOM's $1 billion proposal to establish their own separate contractor-staffed facilities, when our services are undergoing tremendous downsizing pressures. It runs contrary to what we are trying to do in the bill.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, the committee chair.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and would also point out that the committee has raised significant questions regarding duplication with service-related facilities and services by the Special Forces.

More importantly--and I think this is key--we must be careful not to create or give the perception that we are treating Special Forces differently than anyone else who serves this country in uniform.

Anyone who puts the uniform of the United States military on, they are all special. I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply close by saying that all members of the military are equal and that this amendment is unwarranted, and I do oppose it.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey if he has anything to add.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank both gentlemen for raising this issue and offering the amendment. I strongly support it.

If supplied with a copy of his amendment, I would appreciate it very much.