Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with profound admiration that I rise to congratulate Teresita Batayola on being honored as a White House Champion of Change. Teresita has been an advocate for the Puget Sound region's Asian-American & Pacific Islander (AAPI) community for many years and is incredibly deserving of this award.

Since the beginning of her tenure as CEO of International Community Health Services (ICHS) in July of 2005, Teresita has worked tirelessly to ensure that the healthcare needs of the AAPI community are met. She has overseen the opening of new clinics in Bellevue and the Rainier Valley, and developed a mobile dental clinic that visits Seattle area middle and high schools. Each year ICHS serves over 19,000 patients in 50 languages, a feat that I am confident would not be possible without Teresita's commitment to understanding the needs and dynamics of the communities her organization serves.

This commitment has taken on a new and innovative form in the last year as ICHS has worked to help AAPI communities in the Seattle area access the benefits of the Affordable Care Act. Under Teresita's leadership, ICHS has enrolled over 5,800 individuals in health plans through their multi-lingual and multi-cultural in-person assister team. This effort to provide culturally appropriate healthcare assistance will have a deep impact on the health and wellbeing of these communities for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great respect to honor Teresita Batayola. She has truly made our community a healthier and more just place, and I wish her and her organization well in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the career and retirement of Ruth Clapp, a loyal public servant to the constituents of Washington's Ninth Congressional District dating back to the 1990s.

As a Member of Congress, the importance of a strong caseworker staff cannot be understated. Often times, when constituents have exhausted all other avenues they call their Congressional representatives for help. For caseworkers, these constituent contacts are unique in nature, necessitating short turnarounds and requiring a discerning mind.

After just a few months in Congress it became clear that our staff was missing something; or, more accurately, someone. The residents of the Ninth needed someone with a background in State Department issues. The job would be part-time and--like all caseworker positions--required a genuine passion for helping others.

At the time, Ruth Clapp was enjoying the early days of her retirement after years spent working for the World Association for Children and Parents (WACAP), an adoption and international humanitarian organization. During her time with WACAP, Ruth helped families to navigate adoptions in countries around the world. The work was rewarding, yet it was time to enjoy some well-earned quiet days at her picturesque home along the water in Browns Point. And that was when the phone rang.

On the other end was a young Chief of Staff. He let Ruth know about a freshman Member of Washington State's delegation that required someone with her background. The job could be tailored to her needs: it would be part-time and only for a few years. She accepted the position and, as we know now, that ``temporary'' job stretched into seventeen years of service.

Ruth's personnel file grew and grew over the years, into what today resembles a stack of phone books. It is filled with hundreds of letters thanking her for help with issues including immigration, adoptions, and visas. These notes are from mothers, fathers, grandmothers, sons, and daughters. They recount Ruth creatively solving problems and demonstrate the consistency by which she went the extra mile for constituents. If getting a problem solved meant calling a consulate at 4 am on behalf of a constituent, that was what she did--gladly and without complaint.

Ruth's accomplishments are too many to list. Highlights include the critical assistance she provided an entire Afghan family to become U.S. citizens. She is passionate about conditions at the Northwest Detention Center and has provided assistance to dozens of inmates there. Travel up and down the Ninth District and chances are you will meet someone whose life has benefited from Ruth's service.

In the years ahead, Ruth undoubtedly will stay busy. She remains passionate about international adoption, loves world travel, serves on the board of a non-profit, and is a proud grandmother.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize Ruth Clapp for her distinguished career. I am confident that others will continue to benefit from her selflessness.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 19, 2014, I was unable to be present for the last vote in a series of recorded votes. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 219 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 685, as amended).

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

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

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Chair, I offer the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is. And we should negotiate that.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

First of all, just for everybody's information, you cannot actually reveal classified information, even if it has showed up in the newspaper, because then you are confirming it. So you are not supposed to do that.

Second of all, if you don't like the START Treaty, that is one thing. We can have that debate. We had that debate in the Senate and a bipartisan group of senators confirmed the treaty and then passed it. That is a separate debate. If you are trying to still reopen that, that is something that the Senate has already determined.

Again, it is not a matter of Russia being trustworthy. I don't think of them as a partner. I think of them has a reality that we have to deal with.

In the one area where they have been fairly consistent, again, starting with the treaty negotiated under Ronald Reagan, is they have reduced their nuclear forces and worked with us to contain their fissile material after the breakup of the Soviet Union. This has reduced the amount of nuclear weapons in the world, which is a positive step.

So, again, yes, what they are doing in the Ukraine, we ought to oppose that. But when it comes to trying to contain nuclear material for the protection of both of our countries and the world, that is not something that I think we should walk away from.

I am sure there are other opportunities, other ways we can punish Russia for their misdeeds that would make a great deal more sense. This hurts us, it does not help us.

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

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

Again, I want to emphasize, the START Treaty, if you don't like the START Treaty, that is a separate debate. That is not the purpose of where we are at here in the House.

With regards to violating treaties, on this START Treaty, the Russians are in compliance with it. There has been no evidence brought forward that they are not. This is the treaty that we are talking about.

If they have violated other treaties, we can talk about that and deal with that.

I will also point out that they are not alone. The U.S. abrogated the antiballistic missile treaty that we had signed with the Soviet Union because we thought it was in our own interest, so there are different reasons for doing those things.

Again, let me just emphasize the point. If we have an agreement with Russia that enables us to better control nuclear weapons, I think that is a good thing.

Don't trust them. Don't think of them as a partner. Whatever evil things you want to say about Russia, that is fine, but let's not do things that are contrary to our own best interest.

There are other ways to punish Russia for the treaties that they have violated, for the horrible things that they are doing in Ukraine.

Walking away from the START Treaty undermines our interests. That is why, again, a bipartisan group of United States Senators voted for and put into the law the START Treaty because it is in the United States' best interest.

So, as much as I am opposed to what Russia is doing in many areas and agree with the gentleman on that, this amendment is the wrong way to go about dealing with those changes, and I urge opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth).

Madam Chair, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Murphy).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth).

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

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

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

I agree with the chairman we should adopt the en bloc amendments.

I did want to take a moment here--we don't have any speakers on this--to make a couple comments about some Rules Committee decisions that I have not had a chance to speak about before.

Overall, I applaud the product that we have crated here in a bipartisan way. I thank the chairman for doing that.

I do think it is a fortunate the Rules Committee ruled out of order a number of amendments. Two of them were mine. One was to offer a BRAC amendment to give Members of Congress a chance to vote on it. The other was to offer up the administration's proposal to lay up 14 Navy vessels as an effort to save money.

There are several problems with the fact that these amendments were ruled out of order, and the biggest one is one of the arguments that I have made of concern about this bill from the very beginning, because even though I support the product and there are a lot of very good things in this bill, I think the weakness of it and the thing that we are going have to confront when we go to conference is the fact that it delays every single difficult decision.

During the debate and during general debate yesterday, a couple of people commented that they liked the bill for a variety of different reasons and said that it made some tough choices. I asked a couple of times to name one. I don't believe we did make a tough choice. When you look at the issues that we face in terms of the budget, we ducked every single one of them. We have both sequestrations for another 8 years. Even if sequestration doesn't come, we also have substantial cuts coming to the defense budget as a result of sequestration in fiscal year 2013 and a series of CRs and a series of cuts to the defense budget that we did not anticipate.

We are going to have substantially less money over the course of the next 10 years for defense than we thought we were going to have.

That is true even if sequestration goes away. If sequestration happens, we really face a challenge. So the question is how are we going to restructure our defense plans to deal with the fact that we are going to have substantially less money than we had going forward. The answer in this bill is we are not going to deal with it this year, and we are going to hope things get better and maybe deal with it next year.

The administration confronted this problem in a number of areas. I will walk through them. Number one, in the very controversial and difficult area of personnel costs, they found savings in health care by expanding what servicemembers would have to pay for their health care, they reduced somewhat the subsidy to our commissaries, they reduced the housing subsidy, and they also reduced the pay raise down to 1 percent and got rid of it for senior officers.

Except for the last part of that, we ducked all of those. That is $2 billion over 5 years that the administration was able to save. Nothing was offered, nothing was done on our part to deal with that.

In the Guard and Reserve, the Army has put together a plan to restructure their helicopters in a way that is way too complicated to explain, but that saves $12 billion over the course of 5 years. We put into our bill an amendment saying they can't do that at all in 2015. Also added in one of the en bloc amendments was an amendment now that says we are going to study it for a longer period of time even beyond that--that is another $12 billion--and we don't make it up anywhere because that is over 5 years, so we can get away with that in 2015.

I mentioned the Navy issue: 14 ships that the Navy has said they will lay up

in order to save money. That is roughly $3.5 billion that they will save. Again, we got rid of that in order to pay for it in the short- term. We didn't come up with more money or cut something else. We raided the ship modernization accounts to fund that in the short term, which again does not deal or address the problem. DOD also proposed getting rid of the A-10 and getting rid of the U-2. We stopped them from doing both of those things.

We have at every turn blocked just about every single proposal the administration has made to save money over the long-term. In each one of those isolated incidents, there are strong arguments that tend to be mostly parochial. In other words, if it is in your district or in your neighborhood then you rise up in furious anger against it, but there may be arguments as to why that isn't the best choice. But there was no alternative proposed. We simply got creative in our accounting to get through 2015. These are mostly 5-year savings, so we can sort of stagger our way through 2015 and create a massive bow wave down the road that we are not at all prepared to deal with.

I am sorry I left out the big one: BRAC. It is estimated we are wasting $6 billion a year on facilities that we don't need. Absolutely the only argument that exists against doing another BRAC round, given how much we have drawn down our force structure and the fact that the military estimates that they are 25 percent over capacity in terms of their facilities, is that Members don't want to run the risk of having a base be closed in their district. I get that. There are a ton of bases in the State of Washington. But we have to confront these issues because the money is not going to magically appear.

So the amendments that were disallowed, I was hoping to have the opportunity on those two amendments to have the broader debate about making the choices now. I don't think we should simply rubberstamp what the White House has done. If we don't like those cuts, let's come up with another one. This is the conversation I had with my adjutant general in the State of Washington, who was concerned about the cuts to the Army Guard and the Air Force Guard. He was talking about everything he didn't like about it. I said: Look, present me an alternative, give us an alternative that says here is how we are going to save $12 billion instead, and I am happy to look at it. But just to say: We don't like the cuts, I get that. Nobody--well, there are some. Most people don't like the cuts, but they are there. We passed the Budget Control Act, we shut down the government, we passed the budget agreement last year that set the levels for FY14 and FY15, and we still have on the books 8 more years of sequestration.

If Congress doesn't want the administration to wind up making all these choices, then we have got to step up and make the decisions now rationally about where we are going to be in terms of the budget.

The final point I will make on that is that what happens when we don't make those decisions is that readiness gets cut. In this bill, readiness is cut by $1.2 billion from the President's request. Plus, there is another $633 billion that we take out of OCO to fund the A-10. That is probably readiness as well, because they use the OCO account to backfill some of the cuts in readiness. So that is $1.8 billion out of the readiness account that was already depleted because of the shutdowns, because of the CRs.

Well, what is readiness? We had an interesting discussion about this in committee. Readiness is not the size of the force. Readiness is the capability of the force. Are the troops trained and equipped to perform the missions that we have asked them to do?

The chairman has quite eloquently on a number of occasions pointed to past wars: the Korean war and World War II, where we had to ramp up in a hurry and we sent troops over who were not ready to fight, and many of them were killed and injured because they were not ready to fight.

If we raid readiness accounts to protect personnel, to stop BRAC, to stop the Pentagon from cutting the U-2 or the A-10, or from shutting down a Guard unit, if we do that they've got to raid readiness, because that is the easiest thing to do. You spend less on fuel, you don't repair some equipment that is out there, you fly less, you drive less, you train less. What we wind up with is the hollow force that nobody wants.

So as we go into conference and as we go forward, it is an obligation of this Congress to say: What is our plan? Right now our plan is hope. I didn't serve in the military, but I heard very early on in my time on the Armed Services Committee one of the sayings in the military is ``hope is not a strategy.'' We are hoping that the money will appear, we are hoping that somehow we magically won't have to make those decisions.

I think we are past that point. The decisions are going to get made. They are either going to get made poorly if we ignore them, or preferably they will get made well so that we do our best to put together a force that no matter the size is at least capable and ready to perform the missions that we might ask of them.

So ruling those amendments out of order I think was most unfortunate--that we weren't able to have that debate. But rest assured, as the chairman has pointed out, this is his last term, so I would say there is no ducking this, but I guess you can retire. You won't be here. But the country will have to deal with those decisions one way or the other, and we thus far have not made them.

So I would urge us to start looking at this and saying if we are not going to do a BRAC, then what are we going to do. If we are not going to shrink the Guard this way, then what are we going to do.

Let's get some concrete proposals on the table that are something other than, don't cut anything in my backyard, and closing our eyes and hoping that the problem will go away.

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

Madam Chair, I concur with the chairman that we should pass the en bloc amendment. I have no speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I concur. We should adopt the en bloc amendments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Again, I concur in support for the en bloc amendments. This is the last amendment, and I just want to say thank you again to Chairman McKeon. I think it is right that this bill is named after him. As I have said, he has done a fabulous job on our committee. I appreciate his hard work and for, once again, putting together this product.

I also want to thank the staff. This is a very large bill. Lots of amendments are offered both on the committee level and on the House level. Staff has to pour through all of that and make sense of it and keep us informed. They do an incredible job and an incredible service to our country and to the men and women who serve in the military by making sure that this bill gets done every year, so I very much appreciate that.

I want to particularly recognize Debra Wada from the HASC staff, who will soon be leaving us. She has been promoted to be the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. Debra has served for 15 years as staff on this committee and as an invaluable source of knowledge on personnel and on many, many other issues. It has been great working with her. We congratulate her on her appointment and wish her the best. Again, she is but one example of an absolutely fantastic staff and of the great work that they do to put this product together every single year.

So we thank you.

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

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

First of all, I want to join the chairman in thanking him for the working relationship that he and I have enjoyed now through 4 years and four national defense authorization acts. It is one of the main principles of our committee in that it is bipartisan, that we work together, and we produce a product every year--52 straight years, the National Defense Authorization Act.

That doesn't happen as a starting point, unless the chair of the committee takes the responsibility very seriously to make sure that our committee remains bipartisan. We have had a whole series of chairmen during my tenure who have done that, and Mr. McKeon has followed that tradition just as well as his predecessors. He has worked very closely with us.

We do not always agree, but we work closely together, understanding that, at the end of the day, we have to produce a bill. So I thank him for that, and I recognize that this will be his last NDAA. In fact, this is the Buck McKeon National Defense Authorization Act. Mr. Thornberry and I were proud to cosponsor the amendment in committee to name this after Buck, for his great service to our committee.

As always, I also want to thank the staff. I can't thank them enough for the work that they do and for the hours that they put in. They spent yesterday going through 320 amendments.

Their expertise that they bring to this process is invaluable, and someday, I hope that the House Administration Committee recognizes that and actually gives us the amount of money we need to keep them. That is just a little sidenote on a different piece of legislation.

This is, by and large, a good bill with one significant problem, which I will get to in a minute.

First of all, as the chairman notes, we are still at war in Afghanistan. I would say that I think, at this point, our continuing commitment to Afghanistan is up to the Afghan people and, most importantly, is up to the next Afghan President. We need the bilateral security agreement to be signed. It has been agreed to.

President Karzai has refused to sign it, but hopefully, the next President will. We have troops in harm's way, and this bill prioritizes protecting them. Nothing is more important than what we do here today.

I am also pleased that this bill prioritizes Special Operations Command and cyber warfare, recognizing, as we heard in the previous piece of legislation about Boko Haram, that the main threat that we face going forward is from terrorism and asymmetric threats.

I think we reflect that in this bill by funding those portions in the Defense Department that deal with those issues, and I think that is incredibly important.

However, we do have a budget problem, and put simply, we have a lot less money now than we thought we were

going to have. So that means that 3 years ago, when the Pentagon was planning what they were going to spend over the course of a decade, they had a much larger number than they have now.

There are a whole bunch of reasons that number has gotten smaller, but it has. It will get even smaller if 8 more years of sequestration come to pass.

Now, the administration put out a plan 3 years ago when they looked out 10 years and said: What should our strategy be? Then they looked out 10 years and said: What are the likely resources?

When they put that plan out, they said: we know we are going to have to live with, roughly, $500 billion less than we thought we were. We can do it. Here is the strategy. Here is the plan that fits that.

Since then, the budget has been shredded. It has been cut by even more. The plan they put forward now recognizes the fact that it doesn't fund what they would like to fund because Congress passed a budget that cuts the Defense Department by more than they would like. In fact, the administration asked for an additional $28 billion this year and an additional $150 billion over 5 years, in order to fully fund that.

That, apparently, is not forthcoming, so what they did is they put forward a series of proposals to try as best as they could to save money in a way that protects our force, and they did it in a number of different areas.

They proposed a BRAC; they proposed about $2 billion in savings over 5 years to various personnel accounts; they got rid of the A-10; they got rid of the U-2; they proposed laying up 14 ships. Those were the main proposals out.

I am sorry. I forgot that they proposed shifting air assets in the Guard and Reserve to save $12 billion over 5 years. Those were the proposals they put on the table.

The problem with this bill is that it rejects every single one of those proposals. How do we make the money work on that? Primarily by creative accounting; with the Guard and Reserve, for instance, we say no changes can be made in 2015.

They weren't planning on making any changes in 2015 that were going to cost money, but if this stops them from doing it going forward, they are put into a deep hole.

On the 14 ships that they wanted to lay up, we raid the modernization account to pay for keeping those 14 ships operational. So we get creative about it, but next year, the reckoning will come, frankly, sequestration or no sequestration. If sequestration happens, it is going to be really bad; but even if it doesn't, we still will not have addressed the long-term needs of our budget.

I will have a couple of amendments, one on BRAC and one on those 14 ships, that will give us an opportunity to, I think, make a better choice because the other way that we are able to preserve those programs is that we cut from the President's budget about $1.8 billion in readiness.

$1.2 billion is clear. The other 633 was to save the A-10, and it comes out of OCO. A good chunk of OCO goes to rebuild readiness; so basically, we take $1.8 billion out of readiness, which puts us down the path to a hollow force that none of us wants. As we go forward to conference, we are going to need to make some of those tougher choices.

I do thank the chairman for his work and for what is contained in this bill. I look forward to debating the amendments, and I look forward to--knock on wood--passing for the 53rd straight year the National Defense Authorization Act, as is our primary responsibility.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the ranking member of the Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), ranking member of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), the ranking member on the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), the ranking member of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gallego), a member of the committee.

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

I just want to again thank the chairman for his leadership and thank all of the folks who have done so much hard work in pulling this bill together.

I will make two other quick points. One, to sort of reemphasize, we have heard a couple of times that this bill makes the tough choices. I can't see one at this point. You know, we have sort of dodged and bobbed and weaved. Some of that I actually support. Some of it made sense.

One of the issues that we have to wrestle with on the committee is how do we preserve the industrial base? When you are talking about making submarines or tanks or jet fighters, if you don't keep making them, you can't say, well, we are going to shut it down for 3 years and then we are going to start making them again, because that workforce is gone, the plants are gone. Those decisions do have to be made.

I just think at this point, on balance, in this instance, every single hard choice that the administration laid out on compensation--I know health care is difficult. I think that the men and women who serve in our military should have the best health care while they are serving and after of anyone in this country, and they will. But there is an important statistic.

In 1996, your average servicemember paid 27 percent of the cost of his or her health care. This year, that number is 10 percent. Why? Because health care costs went through the ceiling, but we didn't raise a single penny in costs for anyone serving in the military. Is that sustainable?

They also make cuts in some of the subsidies for the commissaries, subsidies for housing. They looked for places where they could save some money. Again, no BRAC. Again, the A-10 we keep. The ships we keep. I understand those decisions, but they are building up an awful bellwether.

And the final thing I will say is that I will again bring my amendment on closing Guantanamo Bay. The one thing we are slowly learning is that as we, fortunately, get fewer and fewer inmates in Guantanamo, it becomes more and more expensive to maintain what was supposed to be a temporary facility. Aside from all the arguments about how the international community feels about Guantanamo, arguments that President George W. Bush made when he said he supported closing Guantanamo, it is the sheer cost of maintaining that prison in such an obscure place. So I will again offer that amendment, and again we will have a robust debate on it.

But the one point I want to make on that amendment--we have heard people say, well, gosh, we can't release these people in the United States. We are not

going to release them in the United States. We are going to lock them up, as we currently lock up over 300 terrorists, countless mass murderers, and some of the worst, most violent people this country knows. They are locked up in secure facilities. We can do the same with the dangerous inmates who remain at Guantanamo. But keeping Guantanamo open is not intelligent, both in terms of cost and in terms of our standing in the international community.

With that, I look forward to seeing how many of those 320 amendments the Rules Committee is going to throw at us, and I look forward to a robust debate starting this evening into the next couple of days.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Reserving the right to object, I just want to talk for a moment or two. I hear all that, and I am happy to have the amendment withdrawn. I think this is a bad idea from our side of the aisle. I have talked to a lot of people in the military, and they are deeply concerned about the notion of allowing people to be armed on base at all times. The command structure issues that you mentioned and the rights that are given up, this is something that we would strongly oppose.

I just want to make sure for the Record a colloquy doesn't put something in conference, okay? I don't know what the Senate is going to do. There is nothing in our bill on this. If there is nothing in the Senate bill, it ain't in conference. So, if you want to withdraw it and keep working on the Senate, that is fine. I just want to make sure that we don't have some record here that thinks that, with this colloquy, it makes this a conference issue.

Mr. Chairman, point of parliamentary inquiry, a colloquy does not put an issue in a position to be in conference, does it? It has to be in either the House or the Senate bill?

All right. Well, if the purpose is to withdraw the amendment, I will withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. Chair, I am very sympathetic to the problem. This is certainly something that the Afghan Government should not be doing. As I understand the amendment, however, this would require the U.S. Government to reimburse those private companies and then seek reimbursement from the Afghan Government.

At the end of the day, that is the problem and concern that we have on our side is that if we want to take all the deliberate steps that we can to try and require the Afghans to repay this money, that is great-- I can see the little gathering of staff over there that disagrees with me, so maybe we will have to work on this. But as I understand it, if that reimbursement cannot be achieved from the Afghan Government, this would require the U.S. Government, the U.S. taxpayers to reimburse these companies. For that reason, I would be opposed unless someone can convince me otherwise.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The problems are there in the drafting of this amendment. Yes, first it does ask for the Afghan Government to step up and find money and do this; but if they don't, it does put DOD in the position of reimbursing them. You can say that would just come from money that they would give to Afghanistan anyway, but that money they are giving to Afghanistan, I am not sure if that is true, first of all. Second of all, whatever money we are giving Afghanistan, we are giving it to them for a reason. So I think there is a problem here.

There is also the problem of do we have a list of these contractors who have been illegally taxed versus legally taxed? How do we sort through all of that?

I am not going to belabor the point. I am going to oppose the amendment. I know how this works. I am going to lose. We will work it out in conference. I do have serious concerns about this amendment and the way it is written and urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. It really doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

What the bill does is it says you can't touch these things since until 2021. Now, we don't like that in the first place because this is micromanaging, again, DOD's ability to make decisions about how best to make sure that we maintain our nuclear deterrence. This is a fine example of why DOD is going to be in so much trouble down the road. Any effort they make to save money is going to be blocked by parochial interest. The people who are from there will rise up and say: No, you can't do that, basically because it negatively impacts my constituents.

The thing that is truly awful about this one is it doesn't negatively impact constituents. It says 2021 sunset. And it is not a hard stop date, regrettably. It is 2021 when it sunsets, and any Congress that wants to extend it between now and, I guess that is 7 years from now, can go ahead and extend it.

DOD should not be forced into a position of saying if a silo exists it has to be maintained forever, which is basically what this amendment says. It says it is completely impossible that under any set of circumstances might it be in the best interest of the Department of Defense and the national security of this Nation to get rid of even one silo. That doesn't make any sense.

The underlying bill more than protects the parochial interests of the sponsors here by making sure that DOD can't touch it until 2021. But that is not enough. They have got to offer an amendment to strip it out so that it goes on forever. That simply doesn't make any sense. This is, again, micromanaging for parochial interests. It is just like when DOD wants to move five C-130s from somewhere. The people from there rise up and say we have to stop them. No, we don't. We have to let DOD make intelligent decisions to spend money wisely to best protect national security. At a minimum, we ought to be able to have a sunset 7 years from now without having to remove even that tiny little possibility that a sensible decision might be allowed to be made by the Department of Defense.

I urge opposition of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of competing interests for public lands. Certainly, national security is one of them, but it is not the only one. There is domestic aviation, and there are all kinds of considerations.

This is not terribly binding, as it is a sense of Congress, and so it does not change the law. I do, however, think it sets a bad precedent that, somehow, the Department of Defense is going to hold sway over public lands over all of their interests, regardless of what they are.

We have had many, many interests in our public lands. Certainly, defense is one of them. I don't think it should be paramount. Therefore, I oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

It sort of depends on why the Forest Service wants to limit that use. If there are other legitimate interests in the area and if the Forest Service doesn't want them test-firing whatever it is they are test- firing, I think we need to have a balance between those interests.

It is conceivable that the Forest Service might have something they are trying to protect that the DOD has not thought about, and I think a balance of those interests is better than making one agency paramount over others.

The Forest Service does not know much about the Department of Defense, but I would submit that the Department of Defense doesn't know much about what the Forest Service is trying to protect. It is a matter of both sides doing their jobs and striking the proper balance, so I would simply urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration that I rise to congratulate MSgt. Lance Nelson on being named the Howard O. Scott Citizen-Soldier of the Year. This award, given annually by the Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber Military Affairs Committee and the Kiwanis Club of Tacoma, recognizes an individual who upholds his or her commitment to civic responsibility in an exemplary way. MSgt. Nelson has served his community and country in great measure and is truly deserving of this award.

During his time in the 728th Airlift Squadron, 446th Airlift Wing, MSgt. Nelson has personified what it means to be an airman. He not only serves as a flight leader in his squadron but also as the squadron's Self Aid and Buddy Care Instructor, a position that puts him in charge of conducting classes on battlefield first aid. Furthermore, MSgt. Nelson's commitment to service continues when he is off duty, where he is employed as a firefighter and EMT with West Pierce Fire and Rescue.

MSgt. Nelson has also shown enthusiasm for the potential of young people in our community. From starring in Fire Prevention Week assemblies and volunteering in classrooms, to leading Boy Scouts and coaching sports, MSgt. Nelson has consistently invested in the lives of children. As President of the Evergreen Elementary PTA and member of the Bethel School District Long Range Facilities Planning Team, he has been a dedicated advocate and resource for the Bethel School District.

Howard O. Scott, for whom this award is named, served America when called upon during World War II, and continued to serve the Tacoma community throughout the rest of his life, leaving behind an impressive legacy. MSgt. Nelson carries on the legacy of Howard O. Scott, setting an incredible example of what it means to give back to your country and community.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect that I congratulate MSgt. Lance Nelson. I wish him well in his future endeavors, and thank him for his service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Seattle Seahawks on being named the Washingtonians of the Year by the Association of Washington Generals. Given each year to those who have demonstrated leadership, selflessness, generosity, and compassion in their service to others, this award is a well-deserved recognition of all that the Seattle Seahawks have contributed to our community.

Though their work off the field may be less visible than their stellar on-field performances, it is no doubt equally as valuable. From individual visits by players and coaches to area hospitals, to the innovative work of the Seattle Seahawks Charitable Foundation, the team has contributed to the well-being of our community at all levels of the organization.

A shining example of this is the work of the Seattle Seahawks' ``A Better Seattle'' program. This program, in partnership with the YMCA and the City of Seattle, has invested in the future of our youth in powerful ways. Through their support of the YMCA's ``Alive & Free'' street outreach program, the Seattle Seahawks have helped to transform the lives of hundreds of youth in our area by ensuring a safer and more peaceful future. Combined with the many other youth and child focused efforts of the Seattle Seahawks, the Seahawks organization has solidified itself as one of the greatest advocates for the welfare of young people in our region.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Seattle Seahawks on their recognition as Washingtonians of the Year. They are richly deserving of this award, and I look forward to their continued excellence on and off the field.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, April 4, 2014, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. I would have voted: ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 157 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 539), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 158 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 539), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 159 (on agreeing to the Connolly amendment to H.R. 1874), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 160 (on agreeing to the Israel amendment to H.R. 1874), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 161 (on agreeing to the Cicilline amendment to H.R. 1874), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 162 (on agreeing to the Jackson Lee amendment to H.R. 1874), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 163 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 1874, with instructions), and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 164 (on passage of H.R. 1874).

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 8, 2012, I recorded an erroneous vote on the vote to approve the resolution H. Res. 530. I intended to vote ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 153, on agreeing to resolution H. Res. 530.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, March 13 and Friday, March 14, 2014, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. I would have voted:

``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 127 (on the Ellison Amendment to H.R. 3973),

``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 128 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 3973, with instructions),

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 129 (on passage of H.R. 3973),

``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 130 (on the Polis Amendment to H.R. 3189),

``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 131 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 3189, with instructions),

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 132 (on passage of H.R. 3189),

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 133 (on the motion to table H. Res. 517),

``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 134 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 4015, with instructions), and

``No'' on rollcall vote No. 135 (on passage of H.R. 4015.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great sadness to mourn the death of Peace Corps volunteer Ashley Earl. Ashley passed away on Saturday, March 8 in her beloved host community of Oshakati, Namibia.

As a community health volunteer, Ashley worked tirelessly for the health and well-being of the residents of Oshakati, a community she

was proud to be a part of. Working with Catholic AIDS Action, she coordinated after-school programs for youth in the local area. Those who worked with her say she ``cared deeply for her students, and taught them to show respect for others as well as respect for themselves.''

Ashley's time as a volunteer in the Peace Corps was just one component of her legacy of service. Prior to joining, she served six years in the Army Reserve and worked for a variety of social service organizations on behalf of women, children, and veterans.

At the beginning of her Peace Corps service, Ashley wrote, ``I am hoping that I will be able to instill or inspire positive change in the community I will be working with.'' I can say with confidence that Ashley not only instilled and inspired positive change in the community of Oshakati, but also in those who encountered her. We all have much to learn from her heart for service and passion for life.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness, and even greater admiration that we remember the legacy of Ashley Earl. Our hearts go out to her parents, Phylliss and Lee Lundquist, and her sister, Stacy Earl.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great sadness to mourn the death of Peace Corps volunteer Ashley Earl. Ashley passed away on Saturday, March 8, in her beloved host community of Oshakati, Namibia.

As a community health volunteer, Ashley worked tirelessly for the health and well-being of the residents of Oshakati, a community she was proud to be a part of. Working with Catholic AIDS Action, she coordinated after-school programs for youth in the local area. Those who worked with her say she ``cared deeply for her students, and taught them to show respect for others as well as respect for themselves.''

Ashley's time as a volunteer in the Peace Corps was just one component of her legacy of service. Prior to joining, she served six years in the Army Reserve and worked for a variety of social service organizations on behalf of women, children, and veterans.

At the beginning of her Peace Corps service, Ashley wrote, ``I am hoping that I will be able to instill or inspire positive change in the community I will be working with.'' I can say with confidence that Ashley not only instilled and inspired positive change in the community of Oshakati, but also in those who encountered her. We all have much to learn from her heart for service and passion for life.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness, and even greater admiration that we remember the legacy of Ashley Earl. Our hearts go out to her parents, Phyliss and Lee Lundquist, and her sister, Stacy Earl.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration that I rise to recognize the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) on thirty years of fighting for the rights of immigrants and refugees in my home state of Washington. With four offices throughout the state, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project has protected the well-being of tens of thousands of immigrants throughout its history.

The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project was founded in 1984 as a non- profit legal services organization serving Central American refugees. Since that time, it has expanded to serve individuals and families from more than 100 countries around the world, and added educational and public policy work to its efforts. This level of excellence can be seen in NWIRP's innovative weekly legal clinics on the Deferred Action Program, which have been a vital resource for immigrant youth in our state.

Our nation needs more advocates for the rights of immigrants and refugees, and I am proud that an organization in Washington state is setting such a fine example. I am confident that the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project will be a strong voice on these issues for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project on a fantastic thirty years. Their work is of incredible value and I wish them well in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Rainier Beach High School (RBHS) men's basketball team on their invitation to the Dick's Sporting Goods High School National Tournament. This prestigious invitation is yet another example of the program's excellence and reminds us that Rainier Beach deserves a place in the upper echelon of high school basketball in our nation.

The Rainier Beach High School basketball team has played with excellence all season long, and is incredibly deserving of this opportunity. Going undefeated throughout their regular season has made them the top-ranked team in Washington State, and has given them much deserved national recognition as the basketball powerhouse that they have proven themselves to be.

Founded in 2009 to create a national championship tournament for high school basketball, the Dick's Sporting Goods tournament invites the top eight teams in the country to compete. The tournament will be broadcast on national television and the final game played in New York City's Madison Square Garden. This event is a fantastic opportunity for the RBHS Vikings to showcase their skills in front of a national audience. I am pleased that the incredible athletic prowess from the 9th District of Washington State will be recognized across the country.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I recognize the Rainier Beach Vikings on their successful season. I wish them the best of luck as they take on the top talent our country has to offer.