Floor Statements

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

I do not oppose this resolution--it sounds sensible going forward-- but I do want to raise a couple of process issues.

We found out about this--I found out about this--20 minutes ago. I think it is just emblematic of how much this body has broken down. We have to talk to each other. I don't have an objection to this. I've got staff; the Armed Services Committee has a staff. We work together. We have worked together on the Armed Services Committee better than any other committee in this Congress. I will grant you that that isn't saying much, but we have.

We just simply have to talk to each other. Why would they spring this on us at the last minute and not have a communication about it? It is not something we object to.

Getting past this individual issue, it is emblematic of the entire problem. The Republicans are complaining because the Senate isn't talking to them and the President isn't talking to them about the CR and the debt ceiling. There are reasons for that. But we have reached an epidemic of not talking to each other. On something as small as this we can't even have a communication.

I will gladly yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Right. But again, the communications level has fallen apart. On our side of the aisle, we don't know from one minute to the next what we are going to be voting on. The schedule has been changed at a moment's notice.

I will tell you, even back in the shutdown of 1995, there was greater communication between the majority and the minority about what was going on. In fact, we had a lot of these small little bills that funded little pieces of the government.

But the one thing the majority did is they granted the full House a vote on a--and what a clean resolution means is it only pertains to spending; it doesn't pertain to other policy issues. That vote was granted. The House Republicans voted it down. That was their position. But at least we had a vote. Then we also had a discussion about what we could fund during the shutdown.

The complete and utter breakdown in communication between the majority party, the minority party, the Senate and the House, the White House and us is doing an unbelievable disservice to this country. I don't care if we get in a room and yell at each other for 4 hours. Let's at least have a communication.

I want to really paint the picture here. We all have our talking points, and I heard all of those talking points this morning. I have heard them so much--and I am sure that the American people and I are absolutely sick to death of those talking points. They are poll tested, they are wonderful, they play to the base, they are great, and here we are on day 5 going nowhere.

The basic problem here, number one, on the CR is the health care policy issue, that basically the Republicans--this is no secret--want to get rid of the health care law. The trouble is they don't have the votes to do it, and they are, therefore, willing to hold up the funding of the government in order to advance their policy agenda. That is a very important point because that plays into the larger issue.

I also want to tell you that we are--what is it--12 days now away from defaulting. We are going to default at this point, because what I hear from my Republican colleagues is, oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, we don't want to default. As long as we cut enough spending, as long as we do tax reform we will be fine, which, of course, is what we have been hearing since January of 2011.

I just want to explain briefly to the American people what the difference in the positions are here, and I am going to be as fair and honest as I can be. The Republicans believe strongly that we should severely cut spending, and cutting spending at this point means mandatory programs, entitlements, because we have already cut discretionary spending down to the BCA level, down to the level they agreed to. That is what some of my colleagues are referencing about the CR. The spending level is down there. But they don't want to do that. The deficit is high, so they want to cut spending. The President has on more than one occasion put entitlement cuts on the table.

The difference of opinion is whether or not we should also raise taxes as part of that deal to deal with the deficit. The President, the Senate, and the Democrats in the House--which I realize is irrelevant because we don't have the votes--but unfortunately for you guys they do in the Senate, and the President has the veto. If there is going to be any entitlement cuts, they have to be accompanied by tax increases. The Republicans say, absolutely not, we are not going to do that. So that is the divide.

The problem is the Republicans won 234 seats in the House. Interestingly, they lost the overall vote in Congress by a count of 52 to 48--but redistricting plays out the way it does. They did not win the Presidency and they did not win the Senate. So they are trying to take those 234 votes in the House and jam their broader agenda down everybody's throat. The piece that they have is they are willing to not fund the government and not raise the debt ceiling in order to put us in a bad position to do that.

I will tell you, Democrats cannot vote to cut entitlements if there are not tax increases attached to them. So I hope somebody somewhere wakes up to this reality before we default and stops insisting that somehow miraculously in the next 12 days Democrats are going to magically agree to cut entitlements with no revenue, and maybe do some big complicated tax reform bill that cuts taxes even further. Because if that reality does not set in, we are in for several weeks of great calamity that is going to cause greater damage than what has been caused here.

So with that, I support the resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, again, I support this resolution. Nobody is getting arrested for praying. I really wish we could keep the debate here in the realm of reality. I believe the issue is that they have been furloughed in some instances so that they are not allowed to carry on the services. I don't want that misimpression left dangling out there that somehow we are arresting people for going to church. We are most certainly not, and I wish the debate would remain a little more accurate. I want to make just one other point.

While it is true that, in 1995, President Clinton talked to Republicans, ultimately, he did not give them any of the policy items that they were asking for. All President Obama is basically saying is, Look, if you want to talk, we can talk; but we can't talk about dismantling my health care law, and we can't talk about adding policy riders to the CR or to the debt ceiling, because we need to keep the government running.

And there is one other difference which I know my Republican colleagues will not address. The Republican majority under Newt Gingrich in 1995 gave this House a vote just like the Senate has given everything you've sent over to them a vote. They voted it down, but they had a vote. This House will not give us a vote on the CR that the Senate has passed. If you feel as strongly about it as you do, do what the Republicans did in 1995--bring it up and vote it down. That's democracy. That's in the Constitution, too, by the way. That would be helpful.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate and recognize Major Robert S. Swenson, USAFR, Retired. Major Swenson, a World War II veteran who did not receive his Bronze Star Medal for his bravery during the Varsity Operation in 1945, received his medal on August 10, 2013 at the Trigger Time Convention in the City of SeaTac, Washington.

In 1945, as a glider pilot in the 435th Troop Carrier Group, 75th Squadron, Major Swenson and his fellow airmen distinguished themselves when enemy infantry mounted a counter attack. The 435th Troop Carrier Group fought and repelled the attack of approximately 200 enemy soldiers, a tank, a self-propelled artillery, and two 20mm flak guns.

After the battle, a request was made by Major Charles 0. Gordon that all members of the 435th Troop Carrier Group be given due recognition. However, at the end of the war, the order was lost and went unfulfilled. The records have since been conserved at the Silent Wings Museum Archives and Major General Kenneth Dahl, Deputy Commanding General, I Corps at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, will formally present the Bronze Star Medal to Major Swenson at the convention.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize Major Robert S. Swenson, USAFR, Retired, for his fearlessness and dedication to serving his country.

Mr. Speaker, we rise today to honor the life of Kip Tokuda, and pay tribute to his leadership, service, and dedication to the citizens of the State of Washington.

Kip was a Seattle native and a graduate of the University of Washington. Following completion of his graduate studies in social work in 1969, Kip entered public service as a social worker with the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services and gained a reputation for being a strong advocate for children and individuals with disabilities. He was later named to the Washington Council for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect.

The second son of parents who were incarcerated at the Minidoka Relocation Center, Kip possessed an unwavering sense of justice and equality. A prominent figure within the Asian American community, he served as the president of Seattle's chapter of Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)--an organization which is the oldest and largest Asian American civil rights organization. In 1998, Kip went on to found the Asian Pacific Islander Community Leadership Foundation, a non- profit organization that focuses on social justice, community empowerment, and public service.

Beginning in 1994, Kip served as a Representative for Washington State's 37th Legislative District. During his four terms in the Washington State Legislature, he enjoyed many legislative successes. He introduced his first Day of Remembrance resolution in 1997, which has since become an annual tradition in the Legislature. He served as the co-prime sponsor, along with Representative Mike Wensmen of House Bill 1572, which created the Washington Civil Liberties Public Education fund in 2000. Kip also secured passage of the Special Needs Adoption bill, which helped adoption of special-needs children. He was a strong advocate who helped to pass the Homeless Children's Lawsuit legislation, which provided services for over 60,000 homeless families with children.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that we recognize the life of Kip Tokuda--a true trailblazer. We ask our colleagues to join us in honoring a long career of selfless and inspired service to his community, the State of Washington, and our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 25th anniversary of the St. Paul Waterway Project and the leading role that Simpson, a Pacific Northwest forest products company in operation since 1890, played in this effort.

In 1985, the Simpson company purchased a paper mill in Tacoma, Washington along the St. Paul Waterway and developed a plan to revive and clean up the area. At the time, there were 17 acres of underwater sediment to be cleaned up and seven acres of marine habitat in need of restoration.

Located at the Commencement Bay Superfund site, Simpson's plan became the St. Paul Waterway Restoration Project. Simpson collaborated with the Audubon Society, the Puyallup Tribe, the City of Tacoma, the Sierra Club, and the Washington Environmental Council (WEC) Region 10, among others, in the successful restoration of this critical coastal habitat.

The Commencement Bay Superfund project was the first of its kind in the U.S. and has since become a model for industrial and environmental partnership.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize the 25th anniversary of the St. Paul Waterway Restoration Project. Since its completion, we have seen significant improvement in the habitat and in the St. Paul Waterway and Commencement Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Major Robert S. Swenson, USAFR, Retired, for being honored with the Bronze Star Medal in recognition of his actions during World War II. Following the recovery of lost records recommending this honor, the Bronze Star was presented to Major Swenson in July 2013 at Joint Base Lewis- McChord.

In 1945, as a glider pilot in the 435th Troop Carrier Group, 75th Squadron, Major Swenson

and his fellow airmen distinguished themselves when enemy infantry mounted a counter attack. The 435th Troop Carrier Group fought and repelled the attack of approximately 200 enemy soldiers, a tank, a self-propelled artillery, and two 20mm flak guns.

After the battle, a request was made by Major Charles O. Gordon that all members of the 435th Troop Carrier Group be given due recognition. However, at the end of the war, the order was lost and went unfulfilled. It was not until July 2013, at the Trigger Time Forum at Joint Base Lewis--McChord, that Major Swenson, now living in Washington State, was awarded the Bronze Star.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize Major Robert S. Swenson, USAFR, Retired, for his inspiring bravery and dedication to serving his country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Tacoma's Targa Sound Terminal being honored with the Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber's Tahoma Environmental Business Award.

The Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber annually recognizes entrepreneurial efforts that meet a high standard of excellence for environmental, preservation, and protection accomplishments.

Targa Sound Terminal provides bulk liquid storage and supplies fuels and lubricants for boats, trucks, and rail cars. It handles petroleum and fuels for transportation companies and industrial markets and has expanded its business into renewable fuels with biodiesel blending and ethanol. It is committed to using the best environmental control technology available to make its operation the best in Washington State.

Targa Sound Terminal won this award for its business practices and for its commitment to the City of Tacoma and the community. It helps to keep the Port of Tacoma competitive and creates family-wage jobs. Its employees have donated their time to fundraise for Treehouse, a non- profit serving youth in foster care, and Rebuilding Together South Sound, a non-profit improving the homes and lives of low-income homeowners.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I recognize Targa Sound Terminal and the Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber for recognizing the company's high-standards of excellence in environmental preservation and protection and community service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Banner Bank for being recognized with the Community Lender of the Year Award by the Small Business Administration's, SBA, Seattle District Office. Banner Bank was founded in 1890 in Washington State and today serves the entire Pacific Northwest region.

The SBA Community Lender of the Year Award credits Banner Bank for its efforts and commitment to high volume lending. The award is based on the number of SBA 7(a) and 504 loans made and the total dollar amount of both loan types. In 2012, Banner Bank made 103 loans worth over $37 million within the region.

Banner Bank is a commercial bank that serves 85 locations in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. They provide banking services and financial products to individuals, as well as small and medium-sized businesses in the region. Banner customizes their services to meet the needs of customers through responsive and knowledgeable banking solutions. They emphasize the vital role small businesses play in economic growth and use their expertise to help entrepreneurs build successful businesses. Banner's commitment to building relationships with each of their clients also contributes to the prosperity of the community.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize Banner Bank for receiving this award for their dedication to regional economic development and personalized banking solutions.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 11, I was unable to be present for three recorded votes. Had I voted, I would have voted: ``no'' on Rollcall vote No. 351 (on the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair); ``yes'' on Rollcall vote No. 352 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 2642 with instructions); and ``no'' on Rollcall vote No. 353 (on passage of H.R. 2642).

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 25; Wednesday, June 26; Thursday, June 27; and Friday, June 28, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted:

``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 287 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2383);

``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 288 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1092);

``no'' on rollcall vote No. 289 (on ordering the previous question on H.Res. 274);

``no'' on rollcall vote No. 290 (on agreeing to H.Res. 274);

``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 291 (on agreeing to the Grayson Amendment to H.R. 1613);

``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 292 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 1613 with instructions);

``no'' on rollcall vote No. 293 (on passage of H.R. 1613);

``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 294 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1864);

``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 295 (on agreeing to the Hastings of Florida Amendment to H.R. 2231);

``no'' on rollcall vote No. 296 (on agreeing to the Flores Amendment to H.R. 2231);

``no'' on rollcall vote No. 297 (on agreeing to the Cassidy Amendment to H.R. 2231);

``no'' on rollcall vote No. 298 (on agreeing to the Rigell Amendment to H.R. 2231);

``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 299 (on agreeing to the DeFazio Amendment to H.R. 2231);

``no'' on rollcall vote No. 300 (on agreeing to the Broun Amendment to H.R. 2231);

``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 301 (on agreeing to the Grayson Amendment to H.R. 2231);

``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 302 (on agreeing to the Capps Amendment to H.R. 2231);

``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 303 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 2231 with instructions); and

``no'' on rollcall vote No. 304 (on passage of H.R. 2231).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and congratulate Jim Graddon, Police Chief of SeaTac, Washington, on his retirement. Jim has served 39 years in law enforcement, including the past 34 years with the King County Sheriffs Office.

A native of South King County, Chief Graddon is a graduate of Burien's Kennedy High School. His father, Lawrence James Graddon, spent 20 years with the King County Sheriffs Office and retired as a Lieutenant.

After first serving in the Seattle Police Department, Jim joined the King County Sheriffs office. As a Sergeant, he became adjutant to the Chief of the new SeaTac Police Department. He then went on to become co-supervisor of the Sheriffs Office's Major Crimes Unit.

Jim Graddon served as a leader in the task force established to investigate one of the most notorious criminal cases in our nation's history--that involving the Green River Killer. Through his efforts and those of others, the suspect in the case eventually pled guilty to multiple murders, bringing closure to the families and friends of the victims.

Since 2007, Jim has served as a Major in the Sheriffs Office and as the City of SeaTac's Chief of Police. He is also a Commander of the Sheriff's Office Southwest Precinct, which polices unincorporated areas throughout Southwest King County as well as in the cities of Burien and SeaTac. Further, Chief Graddon has supported victims of human trafficking with compassion and led various youth violence prevention efforts.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate Police Chief Jim Graddon on his retirement. The city of SeaTac, King County, and our region are extremely grateful for his many years of service keeping our community safe.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The 56 inmates that we are talking about at Guantanamo are not the most dangerous terrorists in the world. In fact, the intel community and the Department of Defense determined they were acceptable risks for release back to Yemen, back to their home country. Not everybody that we rounded up and took to Guantanamo, unfortunately, turned out to be the very, very dangerous terrorists that we thought they were.

The problem we confront with these 56 that we've determined are not a grave threat to the country, determining that if there is any minimal threat whatsoever we are simply going to hold them forever is, well, quite frankly, un-American. That is contrary to our values, to say that we are going to hold somebody indefinitely--I gather forever--because we think there might possibly be some risk. That's not the way the Constitution is supposed to work.

More than anything, this amendment restricts the President's flexibility. If the President determines that this is safe, if the intelligence community determines this is safe, if the Defense Department determines this is safe, they ought to have that option. This amendment takes that option away and, once again, makes Gitmo the classic Hotel California: ``You can check in any time you want, but you can never leave.''

We cannot warehouse people forever. We need to give the President options, not restrict them.

There are certification requirements that will always be in place to make sure that the Secretary of Defense, before releasing these people, certifies that he believes it is an acceptable risk. We will have to have that. But I think an absolute prohibition ties the hands of the President in an unhelpful way.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield myself the balance of my time just to say that I completely agree with the arguments of the gentleman from New Jersey.

It's not a question of whether or not these people should be released. It's a question of who should make that decision. Should Congress make that decision and restrict the President? restrict the intelligence community? restrict the Department of Defense? As the gentleman from Arkansas pointed out, Yemen has been a very capable and helpful partner in the war against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

I believe these decisions are best left to the experts and not to have Congress restrict them and limit their options. With that, I urge opposition to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I yield myself 3 minutes.

This is a very straightforward amendment that simply asks the President to put together a plan to close Guantanamo Bay.

One of the complaints in recent weeks is that we've seen Guantanamo become more and more untenable. It continues to be an international eyesore. Way back in 2007, President George W. Bush said it should be closed. Then-candidate John McCain said it should be closed. As recently as last week, Senator McCain and some other Senators went down and reached that conclusion as well. I think a justifiable criticism of that has come from the other side of the aisle that said, well, you can't close it unless you've got a plan for what to do with the inmates and a plan for how to close it, and that is exactly what this amendment does.

It requires the President within 60 days to come up with a plan for closing Guantanamo Bay prison, and then it also removes all of the restrictions that are in this bill that would stop him from generating that plan.

The bottom line is that we do not need Guantanamo. Guantanamo was set up in the first place in the hopes that, because it wasn't actually on American soil, we could somehow hold people outside the normal bounds of due process and the Constitution, but the Court ruled otherwise. The Court ruled that habeas does apply because Guantanamo is effectively under the control of the United States. So there is no benefit there. There are no greater rights in the U.S. than there are in Guantanamo. We just continue to have this prison that has been set up in a way that the international community cannot stand, and it makes a problem for us in terms of being able to cooperate with our allies and to have the ability to get that cooperation to properly prosecute the war on terror.

So I am simply asking that we put a plan in place so that we can close Guantanamo Bay once and for all--something that Republicans and Democrats alike have said that they've wanted to do. We simply haven't taken the steps necessary.

The prison is becoming very, very expensive. There is $250 million in MilCon contained in this bill just to keep it at a somewhat temporary status. Beyond that, the prospect of the United States' simply warehousing 166 people forever with no end in sight is contrary, again, I think, to our values and to our process.

I really want to emphasize the fact that we have here in the United States well over 300 terrorists incarcerated. There is a notion that somehow we couldn't possibly accommodate them here because of the threat, but we have Ramzi Yousef, and we have the Blind Sheikh. We have some of the most notorious terrorists in the world housed here already safely and securely. That is simply not an argument against doing this. The temporary facilities down at Guantanamo are not sustainable.

Now, I'm not going to rush this and say we've got to close it tomorrow if we don't have a plan. I'm simply requiring the President to come up with that plan, and then am giving him the legislative freedom to develop that plan as what we've done in this bill far too often is to have restricted that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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

A whole bunch of false arguments are being laid out here. As has been clear, no greater constitutional rights come to people in the United States than at Guantanamo. So that's just a phony argument.

The second phony argument is that somehow they can't be held safely. I have a Federal prison in my district. I have an INS detention facility in my district. Frankly, if there was a supermax facility in my district, I would not have a problem with them coming to that district. They should be held. I would hope that all of our supermax facilities, which are holding very, very dangerous people, they better be holding them securely right now.

It's $1.5 million a year versus $34,000. It is an absolute recruitment tool for al Qaeda. Our military leaders--General Petraeus-- have all said that this is something that is harmful to U.S. security.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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

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 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).

I reserve the balance of my time.

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 rise to claim the time in opposition.

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 demand a recorded vote.

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 demand a recorded vote.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

I want to thank Chairman McKeon and the entire committee--and most importantly the staff. It's always this time of year when our staff never sleeps and does an amazing job of pulling this bill together.

We, once again, worked in a very bipartisan fashion, worked the bill through the process--a series of hearings, the markup last week. I thank the chairman for his excellent leadership in continuing that bipartisan tradition in the hopes of, for the 52nd straight year, getting our bill done. So I appreciate working with him and with all the members of the committee and the staff.

This bill, overall, sets the right priorities, I believe. It makes sure that our military is funded and that our troops get the equipment and support that they need to carry out the missions that we ask them to do. That is something General Dempsey says all the time: We'll do whatever you ask us to do; just make sure that you provide us with the resources to do it.

Whatever missions we as policymakers decide the military should perform, it's our obligation to make sure that it's funded. I believe this bill does that. It particularly prioritizes Special Operations Forces, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, and the kind of equipment that we will need to confront the terrorist asymmetric threats that are so central to our challenges right now on national security.

As the chairman mentioned, it also takes steps on the sexual assault problem. I will say that no piece of legislation is going to fix this. The military needs to change its culture and prioritize the protection of the men and women in our service. This legislation will help, certainly; but this is a huge crisis right now that the military has not yet stepped up to. I think it is one of the most important challenges that we face in national security.

This piece of legislation also recognizes that we are still at war. It funds the ongoing effort in Afghanistan to make sure that our troops have the support that they need to carry out that mission.

However, there are a couple of things in the bill that I am concerned about. I believe that we do need to close Guantanamo, and I have an amendment before the Rules Committee which hopefully will be made in order that will set us on a process to do that. I agree with people who say that we can't simply close it tomorrow, we need a plan. My amendment would require that the President come up with such a plan in 60 days and implement it as soon as possible.

I continue to be concerned that the President has the power to indefinitely detain any person captured in the United States who is designated to be an enemy combatant. That is a level of executive power that I do not think is necessary; And as we have seen in recent weeks, people are growing concerned about the amount of power the executive branch has. Again, I will have an amendment to try to change that as well.

Lastly, it is worth mentioning--sequestration. This bill is marked to a level that assumes sequestration will not happen. I think that's appropriate. That's where we're at and what we have to do, but it points up the challenge of sequestration. If sequestration happens, this bill is going to have to be cut by between $40 billion and $50 billion. Where would that money come from? How would we make that work? Especially the way sequestration works, mindless, across-the-board cuts. Because the sad truth is that's the likely outcome. There is no pathway out of sequestration that we've seen. I thank the chairman for his leadership in continually bringing home how important this is, but we haven't gotten there yet. We need to keep emphasizing that.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking member on the Air and Land Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, the ranking member on the Seapower Subcommittee, Mr. McIntyre.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis), the ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), who is the ranking member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), who is the ranking member on the Readiness Subcommittee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, could you please let us know how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), who is the ranking member on the Oversight Investigation Committee and also has done fabulous work on the sexual assault legislation contained in this bill.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlelady.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

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

I just, again, want to emphasize how important this piece of legislation is, and the work that goes into it.

And all the Members have said this is the way legislation is supposed to work. It really does work when you do the legislative process, when you have committee hearings and you debate amendments and you put together a product.

And also to remind folks how important this piece of legislation is. It funds and supports our military in providing for the national security of this country. It is critically important that we pass it and get it done.

I do also, however, want to emphasize the point that Mr. Andrews made, and that is that, unfortunately, unless we do something about sequestration, this bill is going to be largely undone. Taking $50 billion out of this budget in a meat-ax fashion will not be helpful. We have to do something about sequestration if we're going to be able to protect this process.

So I would urge the full body to follow the example of the Armed Services Committee: get together, work out a bipartisan solution to make sure that we can protect this work and not just the national security.

Sequestration obviously affects all parts of government in a very, very negative way; infrastructure, education, health care all jeopardized by the sequestration legislation. So I would urge us to deal with that.

But, in the meantime, I thank the chairman and I thank all the members and the staff for the great work that they've done in putting together this bill, and I urge support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and achievements of George Weyerhaeuser Jr. He was an extraordinary civic leader and businessman in Tacoma, Washington and will be remembered for his contributions to the community and the forestry business.

George began his business career in 1978 by joining his family-owned pulp and paper company, the Weyerhaeuser Company, in Dierks, Arkansas. He served in various capacities, including time as a forester, contract logger administrator, and sawmill supervisor. His dedication to his family's business continued for thirty years in several executive positions including vice president for containerboard and vice president for the company's pulp and paper business.

George's role quickly expanded as he helped steer the success of Weyerhaeuser Company. He was president and chief executive officer of Weyerhaeuser Canada from 1993 to 1998. In 1998, he became senior vice president of technology, procurement, and transportation. George represented the company and the timber industry on many boards and through all of his business endeavors. Throughout his career, he never failed to recognize his hardworking employees and loyal customers.

Although George was a dedicated and successful businessman, his true passion was for civic betterment. He served as board chairman for the Tacoma Museum of Glass from 2004 to 2008 and, more recently, served as president of the Thea Foss Waterway Development Authority. Community members agree that without George's relentless support and enthusiasm, the museum and waterway would not have become the successes that they are today.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I offer my condolences to the family and friends of George Weyerhaeuser Jr. His reputation as a community leader, mentor, and forward-thinker all highlight the profound impression he has left on the Pacific Northwest.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac), for earning the 2013 Skytrax World Report Award for Best Airport Staff in North America. The Seattle-Tacoma International Airport is operated by the Port of Seattle.

The Skytrax World Report Awards honors global airport excellence based on 12.1 million customer surveys which evaluate 39 airport service and product performance indicators. The World Airport Awards acknowledge global airport distinction and are known in the industry as the Passenger's Choice Awards.

The Seattle-Tacoma International Airport is the 15th largest airport in the United States and 40th largest in the world by passenger volume, serving over 33.2 million passengers in 2012. Regionally, Sea-Tac generates $13.2 billion in business revenue and produces and supports 138,000 jobs. The airport houses 23 airlines, which serve 72 non-stop domestic and 19 international destinations.

At Sea-Tac, high-quality services are provided in every aspect of travel, which has contributed to the positive experiences of Sea-Tac travelers. The Port of Seattle values its commitments to both its customers and the region that it serves. The overall friendliness and quality of staff proudly represent the hardworking individuals that drive our regional economy in Washington State and the Pacific Northwest.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and its staff's laudable performance.