A bill to designate the new Interstate Route 70 bridge over the Mississippi River connecting St. Louis, Missouri and southwestern Illinois as the "Stan Musial Memorial Bridge".

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his leadership on this issue.

My opinion is that we have done what we can do in Afghanistan. A substantial portion of the mission, which was very clear, was to try to contain the Taliban and contain al Qaeda so they could never again use it as a base to attack our country. And it is not easy work. As Mr. Jones pointed out, and others, there are many, many problems and challenges in Afghanistan, not the least of which is the corruption within the government.

Our goal has always been clear: whatever the minimum is to get a government that can stand and deny a safe haven to those who threaten America. That was a fight worth doing. But we have done what we can do. We have trained hundreds of thousands of Afghan national security forces, and it is time to turn that responsibility over to Afghanistan.

It will always be a challenging part of the world. In both Afghanistan and Pakistan, violent extremists are abundant, and we'll have to keep an eye on it. But we do not need to have the troop levels that we have now. We need to draw down in a very responsible way, and I think the gentleman's amendment lays out a plan to do that.

Therefore, I support it, and, again, I support him for his efforts to get us out of Afghanistan as soon as we responsibly can.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it, even with this amendment, the President of the United States and the Department of Justice will still have the ability to indefinitely detain people captured in the U.S.--be they U.S. citizens or not--without the normal due process of law. Habeas will be available, but even with this increased standard, it is a very minimum standard; and it does not afford the normal article III court rights that are in the Constitution for everybody else. The President will still have the ability to indefinitely detain people here in the U.S.

This amendment is insufficient, first of all, to deal with the concerns that I think people legitimately have about excessive executive power over people in the U.S. The Executive will continue to maintain, under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the ability to indefinitely detain anyone who is deemed to be a covered person, an enemy combatant; and, yes, it is a slightly higher standard, but it is not the beyond-a-reasonable standard that is normally required to incarcerate somebody.

The President doesn't need this power. President Obama has never exercised it. President Bush only briefly exercised it in three instances. He doesn't need the power. But to keep it on the books is a threat to liberty and a threat to freedom here in the U.S.

The specific problem with this amendment is it carves out U.S. citizens, whereas the constitutional protections--and deliberately-- were for any person. If you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it doesn't say any U.S. citizen. It says any person.

Now, on habeas, you will have two different standards. You will have the standard to hold a noncitizen--which will be, I gather, still the preponderance of the evidence. The government

will still have the presumption that what they're saying is true, but for a U.S. citizen you will have a different standard. That really messes with the Constitution.

There's a very simple way to do this. I will have an amendment in a couple of amendments that gets rid of the ability to indefinitely detain anyone captured in the U.S.--straight forward, no question, no weasel words, no back and forth between U.S. citizens and not. It gets rid of indefinite detention.

I would urge support for that amendment and opposition to this one, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

This has happened a couple of times.

Isn't it the normal order that one person speaks, then they reserve, and then the opposition speaks? A couple of times they just moved on to their next speaker and have gone through. As I understand it parliamentarily, that is not the way it is supposed to happen.

At the discretion of the Chair. That's fine.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, even though I am not in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I think it is very straightforward. Certainly we should acknowledge and have this bit of information made available to us, and I don't oppose that.

I just want to take the time to raise the issue of the next amendment--the Smith-Gibson amendment--that's coming up on this whole broader issue. This is a very simple, straightforward debate, that is, the militarization of U.S. law enforcement.

That's really what we're concerned about with indefinite detention. There are some who believe that any terrorist act committed within the U.S., that the U.S. military should basically take over. You should have indefinite detention; you should basically get rid of the normal due process contained in the Constitution.

I think that is dangerous, wrong, and wholly unnecessary. I think the U.S. Constitution and the Department of Justice have proven themselves more than capable of investigating, capturing, prosecuting, trying, convicting, and incarcerating all the terrorists in the U.S.; and I think it is a dangerous step towards executive and military power to allow things like indefinite detention under military control within the U.S.

That's the heart and the essence of this issue. We are dancing around the U.S. citizen question. I take Mr. Goodlatte at his word. I believe that the Constitution doesn't apply to everybody, but it doesn't just apply to U.S. citizens either, as he acknowledged. It applies to U.S. persons, broadly speaking, people who have a connection to this country. We shouldn't just protect U.S. citizens; we should protect U.S. persons under that constitutional definition.

In a very straightforward way, do you believe the President of the United States should have the power to indefinitely detain people captured within the U.S. without the normal due process of law? I don't, and honestly I don't think most Americans do, and I don't think most Members of Congress do. We have gotten bogged down in different little subpieces of the debate and U.S. citizens and who counts and who doesn't count.

But the fundamental question is, Do you believe that the President should have the power to indefinitely detain people captured in the U.S. without normal due process of law? If you don't, if you are concerned about that executive power, then the only way to take that out of our law is to vote for Smith-Gibson. The rest of this just sort of moves it around on the edges, but very clearly leaves that power with the President, a power I don't think that he should have.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

There is no incentive for U.S. terrorists to come here. They are trying to attack us. But we capture them successfully, try them, and prosecute them.

Abdulmutallab came here. He was captured. Yes, he was Mirandized. Even after he was Mirandized, he gave out an enormous amount of information that was very helpful. We convicted him.

What this is essentially saying is that we don't trust the Department of Justice to do their job, so therefore we have to give the President the power to detain someone whether they have any evidence of a crime or not. If they come here, the Department of Justice does its job.

We have tried and convicted over 400 terrorists in this country successfully. The only incentive to come here is if they're not going to commit a crime. All of the inmates down at Guantanamo were not captured in the U.S. No one who has been captured in the U.S. as a terrorist have we failed to convict.

Let's trust the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't threaten us. The Constitution protects us. Let us use it, and use it to bring these terrorists to justice, as every single time we have successfully done.

I urge support for the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of amendment No. 13 to H.R. 1960, ``National Defense Authorization Act for FY2014,'' offered by Ranking Member Smith and Congressman Gibson of New York.

The amendment strikes Section 1022 of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act and amends Section 1021 of same law to eliminate indefinite military detention of any person detained under AUMF authority in the United States and its territories and possessions by providing immediate transfer to trial and proceedings by a court established under Article III of the Constitution of the United States or by an appropriate State court.

This amendment would bar any President or any other government official from ordering the military to put anyone in the United States, or its territories or possessions, into indefinite detention without charge or trial, or to put anyone in the United States on trial before a military commission.

Federal criminal courts are open, operating, experienced, and secure--and are the appropriate venue for any proceedings here in the United States itself.

The Bill of Rights applies to all persons within the United States and its territories, this amendment is consistent with 233 years of constitutional precedent as it does not pick and choose between which persons on located on U.S. soil will receive constitutional protections.

Further, the amendment bars the transfer of anyone in the United States to the military for indefinite detention without charge or trial. This provision is consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act, and would provide an additional protection against any misuse of civilian law enforcement as a way to put suspects into military detention without charge or trial.

It is fully consistent with the Constitution, with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, and with the Non-Detention Act of 1971. It will reinforce the protections that most Americans assume apply--and do apply--within the United States.

Since 2001, this executive power has only been utilized 3 times which makes it clear that it is not necessary to protect our national security; however, creates a gap in our civil liberties.

This amendment would repeal section 1022 of the FY2012 NDAA. Section 1022 requires the military to put some civilian suspects into military detention.

The current Administration has waived application of section 1022 to many groups of potential suspects, but it has not foreclosed the

possibility of section 1022 being applied to all categories of civilians, including even within the United States itself. To ensure this provision will not be used against those living in the United States, we must repeal section 1022.

Our military is designed to fight and win our battles overseas and to protect our borders; it is not designed to enforce domestic laws.

The military has not been required to enforce domestic laws since the Civil War. We have a Department of Justice, State and Federal Prosecutors, and local law enforcement that have been successful for hundreds of years.

The amendment reaffirms the importance and availability of due process protections for all persons within the United States. It prohibits the NDAA detention provisions from providing any authority for the military to detain persons under any claim of authority under the NDAA or the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting civil liberties and upholding the constitution by supporting this amendment.

Let me thank the gentleman from Washington for his leadership and the gentleman from California for their work and their work with my office and staff.

One of the efforts that we have been working on--when I say that, Congress and individual Members--is to approach and to continue to work on the issue of breast cancer that impacts women throughout this country, and certainly women and men in the United States military.

I'm very pleased in this en bloc to have an amendment by Jackson Lee that really cements the collaboration between the Department of Defense Office of Health to collaborate with the National Institutes of Health to provide resources, to identify specific genetic and molecular targets and biomarkers for triple negative breast cancer, often not heard of.

I will tell you, in the course of my involvement, I've had daughters of those who lost their lives--triple negative breast cancer is a particularly negative but deadly form of breast cancer where the victim does not last very long. I've lost dear friends. And this highlighting the biomarker will bring down the cost of treatment, but more importantly will help to stem the tide of those who quickly die because there is no treatment because it accelerates so quickly and lives are lost.

I also am grateful that we are beginning to make some steps. Though I indicated my support for the Speier and Gabbard amendment, I am pleased to be able to have in this language, a board, a place where sexual assault prevention information and resources bring it out in the open and let people know, men and women, how they can access resources. Let's put it forward so that people are safe, so that we can stop it and get in the gap. I think honoring our men and women in the United States military is particularly important.

Over the years, I have supported increased funding for PTSD and recognized the crises that many of our soldiers are facing in the need for mental health services. We can see some of the impact of those in terms of family situations and violence, domestic violence. So I have in this en bloc an amendment that will provide more mental health counselors, or focus on more mental health counselors, to ensure that the 200,000 veterans of military service and Active Duty soldiers will have the ability to be able to get that kind of service.

It is also important to be fiscally responsible, and I have an amendment that improves the management of defense equipment and supplies through automated information data-captured technology. This will support the work of the DOD to adopt a proven private sector method for more efficiently

managing inventory, and that's inventory going from what we have in Afghanistan to left over in Iraq and to many other places. We want to save money.

I also am very grateful that there is a manager's amendment in this en bloc, something very close and near and dear to my heart, and that is the outreach by the Department of Defense to small businesses, minority-owned businesses and women-owned businesses. I can tell you that they are the backbone of America. Even though we are downsizing on some of the contractual relationships, I can tell you that obviously they bring about $537 billion as obligated by Federal agencies. These small businesses can benefit. They create jobs. And the outreach is going to be vital beyond where the bases are, beyond where the areas where you would likely think.

Let me also say this. I want to thank the committee for working with me on an amendment that I thought was very important, and that is the study of the procurement practices of our intelligence assets and to be able to improve how we deal with intelligence. I know that we will work together on that going forward, and I believe that it is important that we do work together.

These are amendments that I believe will improve the conditions of our very important military personnel. And again, to all of them, Happy Father's Day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

unfortunately, wasteful Pentagon spending that should be cut.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 1960, pursuant to House Resolution 260, amendment Nos. 18, 19, and 20 printed in part B of House Report 113-108 may be considered out of sequence.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment.

This is the manager's amendment, and it has been worked on and agreed to by the minority. It contains technical and conforming changes, and it's noncontroversial.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask our colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the 5 minutes in opposition.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), a subcommittee chairman on the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), subcommittee chairman on the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 260, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine).

Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers.

I encourage our colleagues to support the en bloc amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment in its current form.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment is a reflection of the President's current policy in Afghanistan. My concerns about the President's Afghanistan policy are well documented. I do not believe we should have given our enemies the comfort of a date certain for our withdrawal. I believe the commander in chief should only commit our troops to combat if he is committed to getting the job done right.

Notwithstanding my underlying concerns, I must acknowledge the amendment articulates a policy that reflects the President's current policy.

I look forward to working with the sponsors of this amendment to further perfect the language going forward. In particular, I note that the amendment expresses the sense of Congress that a post-2014 troop presence should be authorized by a vote in Congress. This Congressman does not agree with that assertion. The Congress does not vote on Status of Forces Agreements with other countries. They are not defense treaties. It would be bad policy and a bad precedent to treat Afghanistan any differently. Moreover, the underlying bill takes meaningful steps to ensure any Bilateral Security Agreement with Afghanistan protects U.S. interests and our troops' ability to defend themselves.

This is not a trivial issue. Our vital national security interests are at stake during this delicate time period in Afghanistan. My position is unchanged. The transition of the mission should be based upon the conditions on the ground and the input of our commanders. I, for one, hope that the President's decisionmaking process is not based on a non-binding restatement of his current policies. Rather, I hope his decisionmaking is commensurate with the national security interests at stake.

I look forward to working with the gentleman further and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas, the vice chairman of the committee, Mr. Thornberry.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman from Alaska for raising concern over inconsistency in implementation of section 811 and bringing it to our attention.

I agree that section 811 was intended to provide increased oversight of sole-source contract awards but was not intended to be a prohibition on such contracts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.