Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it's difficult for me to come to the floor today after 20 years in Congress and say ``goodbye'' to my constituents and fellow colleagues.

When I was 10 years old, I decided I wanted to be a Member of the United States House of Representatives. I want to thank everybody for making possible my boyhood dream. After I graduated from law school, I immediately settled in a town of 3,500 people, Oregon, Illinois, the county seat of Ogle County. I raised beef cattle on a small farm, and at age 38 met Freda, the woman who changed my life dramatically.

In 1990, I ran for Congress and lost in the primary. I decided I would not run again, until Freda encouraged me to fulfill that boyhood dream. In 1992, I won the March primary and the November election against incredible odds. How this unknown country lawyer, with no political experience and who lives outside a town of 42 people, could get elected to Congress is a testament to what we call the ``American Dream.''

During the Freshmen retreat in Baltimore, Kay Cole James, who later became President George W. Bush's Director of the Office of Personnel Management, warned us that if we ever took for granted the magnificence of the great monuments in Washington--the U.S. Capitol, the Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington monuments--then it was time to leave. Every time I've seen those monuments--now thousands of times after 20 years-- I've thought of Kay's wise counsel. And I've never grown tired of seeing them and what they stand for.

Swearing-in day, the first week of January of 1993, was overwhelming. I saw my name on the voting board and saw mom and Freda in the gallery. Our three kids were on the floor of the House with me. As the time came for us to raise our right hands to be sworn in, my life paraded in front of me within a few seconds: the little 10-year-old boy dreaming of this very moment, the virtually unbeatable odds to get elected, the unspeakable honor of becoming a Member of the House of Representatives, the lives given on battlefields to preserve this country's government, the people who had served from the time of the First Congress under the Constitution.

On swearing-in day, our family made a special trip to view the Emancipation Proclamation at the National Archives, where it was on display only for a few days. We had to get permission to get in before regular hours. Just the five of us stood in front of that document, and my heart pounded. I was from his State. He gave his life to protect the God-given freedom of others.

(The newspaper article written about that experience with the Emancipation Proclamation caught the eye of Loretta Carter Haynes, whose family members generations ago were slaves in Washington, D.C. For years she had been trying to get the National Park Service to ring the bells in the Old Post Office in downtown Washington to commemorate the District of Columbia emancipation act of April 16, 1862, which predated the more famous proclamation by Lincoln six months later. Our office intervened, and today those bells ring faithfully every April 16).

As the Speaker started the ceremony and asked us to raise our right hands and repeat the Oath, my eyes were flooded and my voice crackled as I tried to repeat the words of office, but was unable to voice them because of the awesomeness of the occasion. The kids looked at me then and at the next nine swearing-ins, when the same thing happened every time. This, perhaps, was one of those monuments of which Kay Cole James had spoken.

Committee Assignments are very important in Congress, but I chose two committees that many Members shy away from: Small Business, because I had been raised in small business my entire life and could relate to the people running small businesses, and Foreign Affairs, where I had developed an interest in international relations, especially Asia, when I studied at American University in Washington between 1964 and 1967. Four years later, I was also appointed to what is now known as the Financial Services Committee.

It's hard to imagine the significance of my choosing Small Business and Foreign Affairs committees, especially since few Members ever ask for them as their first choice. I eventually became the Chairman of the Small Business Committee in 2001, where I expanded the services of the Small Business Administration while cutting unneeded personnel by 25 percent and its budget by nearly $300 million dollars over the course of my six-year term. Because of my interest in Asia and service on Foreign Affairs, the Speaker appointed me as the first Chairman of the US-China Inter-parliamentary Exchange.

There was an Exchange meeting in Beijing between me and President Jiang Zemin in 2003. As we were discussing various issues, I asked myself and prayed how I ended up with this great honor of representing the House of Representatives.

People have asked what I consider to be the most memorable events of my career. Was it interacting with presidents? Meeting a certain foreign leader? No: it has been the opportunity to mentor students and many of my young staff. In November of this year, I received a note from a constituent who also attends the same church as I do in Leaf River. He had helped in our 2012 primary. He wrote to me thanking me for a conversation I had with him in November of 1999 while he attended an annual Youth Conference I hosted. In his letter to me, he stated: ``I shared with you some of the struggles I was experiencing

as a new Christian in a hostile high school environment. Your words of encouragement touched me deeply, and you wrote me a note in my little book that I have kept for almost 13 years. I scanned this note today and wanted to send it to you as a way of saying thank you for being a mentor to me, both when I was just a kid in high school and now as an adult who is interested in a career in public service. Your model for serving the people of the United States as an extension of your service to God is something worthy of great respect and admiration.''

He then attached a copy of the note I had written him: ``November 19, 1999. Adam, continue to believe that people who really care need to stay involved, even when circumstances dictate the opposite. Be of good cheer. God Bless. Donald Manzullo, United States Congress.''

I've always believed that God has a purpose and a plan for every life. After the 2012 primary, Freda and I received a letter from a lady who attends our church in Leaf River: ``I know God has a plan for your lives so I'm not going to say I'm sorry about the outcome of the election--'cause I'm not. It's just time to put your fishing boat and nets away, and `Follow Him.' ''

Where He leads, I don't know.

In closing, my mind goes back to my dear, fellow Illinois congressman, Abraham Lincoln, who, in his Gettysburg address, stated: ``The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but we can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.''

Years from now no one may remember the many times I spoke on this House floor or the causes I championed. People might look at my portrait hanging in the Small Business Committee hearing room and wonder, ``Who is he?'' But the answer is simple. We all have a part in Lincoln's unfinished work. I am just one man, whose deep love for this country caused him to leave his private sector job and enter into a life of public service. For that great honor, I will always be grateful to the citizens of the 16th Congressional District of Illinois who allowed me to serve on their behalf. I encourage all Members to truly remember whom they represent: not a political party; not organizations but people.

Mr. Speaker, I missed recorded votes last week attending to official business back in the district. If I had been here, I would have voted ``yea'' on Rollcall No. 609; ``yea'' on Rollcall No. 610; ``yea'' on Rollcall No. 611; ``nay'' on Rollcall No. 612; and ``yea'' on Rollcall No. 613.

Mr. Speaker, I regretfully missed recorded votes earlier this week. If I had been here, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 604; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 605; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 606; and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 607.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an exceptional young lady named Irene Sauceda. From a very young age, Irene and her family struggled to stay in one place. Irene went to seven different elementary schools. A variety of difficult circumstances made it impossible for Irene to stay in one school for more than a year, until high school. Irene graduated from Thomas Jefferson High School in San Antonio, Texas in 2011 with a 4.0 GPA. She was the President of Gamma Sigma Girls, a leadership organization within the Girl Scouts, and was also President of the National Technical Honor Society. Irene is now a sophomore at Texas State University, where she is studying Anthropology and Social Work.

The economic downturn has impacted children in very unique and troubling ways--none more so than the idea of a family losing their home and depriving a child of a much-needed and deserved stable home. I commend Irene for having the fortitude and determination to succeed so phenomenally amid such tumultuous circumstances. I am also including, for the record, Irene's very moving personal testimony from the briefing:

``My mother had dropped out of high school in tenth grade which I feel contributed greatly

to the reason why we were homeless. She raised my sister and I as a single mother and had to work all the time while my sister baby sat me.

We lived in Colorado for the first five years of my life, but I was born in San Antonio, Texas. My mother and I, along with my older sister moved to San Antonio because it's where the rest of our family was. It wasn't even my mom's idea to go to Colorado in the first place so the first chance we got to come back, we took. Growing up in San Antonio was quite difficult. As soon as we arrived, my mother asked a family member for a place to stay. She needed time to find a job for herself and an elementary school for me. My sister was old enough by this time to get her own job and begin living her own life, so that's exactly what she did. Eventually, the family of the family member we were staying with began to grow and my mother knew it was time to give them their own space back. We felt somewhat intrusive, as we did for most of the others we stayed with. The people we stayed with usually already had their own family, but still had the heart to offer a whole room to my mother and I.

My mother was great with keeping me in school, but not so great at staying put in one place, or keeping a job. This sounds really negative, but the reasons will explain why she couldn't keep a job. My mother found out that she was a diabetic when I was in the second grade. The next school year, we found out that I was also diabetic. She fell ill quite a bit, and so did I. We were both new to this disease, so we didn't quite know how to control it like we do now. Most minimum wage jobs expect a doctors excuse if a day is missed. For my mother, that was difficult. She never learned how to drive, so we stuck to public transportation, but for a woman who is ill, public transportation is just not safe. I remember feeling so helpless knowing that my mother, the woman who'd kept me healthy and up to date with shots and other records was sick and I could do nothing. By the fifth grade, I'd been to seven elementary schools, and my mother had worked a handful of jobs. The last person we stayed with lived in the courts. They got evicted because we weren't on their lease. We got someone kicked out of the courts. After that event, my mother felt so low and so bad about what we'd done. After that, she decided that it would be best if we were on our own instead of hurting others.

We moved into the Dwyer Avenue Shelter and I feel that was the best decision my mother made. The shelter provided so much information about the services that were available to us. They even offered my mom a job as receptionist in the front office of the shelter. They helped us get in contact with Transportation Services who provided school busses for me to attend which ever school I was last attending. Unfortunately, I had just moved up to junior high school so I attended yet another school, but I still felt more stable than I had before. The Shelter case workers helped all of the families who lived in the shelter find an apartment complex in a really nice part of town at an extremely discounted price. After the lease was up, my mother had worked enough as a receptionist that we could now afford our own apartment.

After two and a half years of successfully staying on our feet, my mother fell ill. Her liver had become inflamed and she was hospitalized for a month. She lost her job and we lost our apartment. For a whole month I lived with friends; Friends who I was able to create bonds with because we were stable. After that month, we had to move back into the shelter. My mother was told that she wouldn't be able to work ever again. This news threw my mother into a depression because she knew that she could no longer support herself, much less her daughter. The shelter, once again, helped us move into an apartment complex that wanted only a fraction of our total income, and helped us with transportation. Luckily, my father had begun paying child support a few years earlier so we had an income. We lived there for two and a half years, until I graduated from Thomas Jefferson High School, ranked number 7 of my class.

That summer, I left to attend Texas State University. Moving from school to school made me slower than the other students because of all the different teaching techniques I'd been exposed to; some teachers even thought I was dyslexic. However, I made it all the way. I plan to go so much further, too, because I'm tired of being homeless. ``Education is power'' is my motto. Look at me now: ``Only after two semesters of college, I'm influencing the decisions of congressmen!''

Mr. Chair on rollcall No. 597, I inadvertantly voted ``no'' on Mr. McKinley's amendment. Had I voted correctly, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, as a proud original co-sponsor of the STEM Jobs Act, I urge my colleagues to support this carefully-crafted legislation. The American economy faces many challenges today, from burdensome regulations to uncertainty over taxes. One of our biggest challenges, especially in the manufacturing sector, is the skills gap-- a lack of highly trained workers with the expertise to perform certain manufacturing jobs, or a shortage of scientists and engineers to develop new technologies. Manufacturing in America relies on innovation and skill, but too many factories slow down, too many opportunities are missed, and too many jobs are lost because of this skills gap. And worse, America's universities train and educate some of the most promising scientists and engineers from around the world, but our immigration laws force us to send them away to compete against American companies.

It makes no sense to educate foreign students in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, only to send them overseas once they complete their studies. Rather than force these innovators and experts to join companies overseas to be in direct competition with American high-technology manufacturing firms, we should keep innovation and entrepreneurship here at home. The STEM Jobs Act will allow these bright minds who study at top American universities and are already in this country legally under a student visa, the option to stay and work for American companies, build our economy, and help create American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will not increase the total number of green cards offered to immigrants, and it will not allow foreign workers to take jobs that Americans are available to do. Instead, the STEM Jobs Act makes our immigration laws smarter and guarantees that these green cards are available only to fill jobs that Americans can't fill. This bill will enhance America's competitiveness in the global marketplace and will lead to the economic growth and job creation that American workers need.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the service of my colleague and good friend, Jerry Costello. I have had the privilege of serving with Jerry for almost 20 years. Perhaps the greatest compliment that I can pay him, especially in this town, is that he remains the same guy today that he was when I first met him in 1993. Jerry is a serious legislator and a thoughtful statesman. He has served his constituents with devotion and distinction, but more than that, he has worked on a broader scale to advance good policy for the betterment of all the citizens of Illinois and those nationwide.

As one of the foremost transportation experts in Congress, Jerry has worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to improve America's transportation infrastructure and increase the safety of our skies. Jerry earned the reputation of being a hard worker and an approachable colleague. In his various leadership roles, you could count on Jerry to listen to the needs of your district and provide assistance when able. Even when you find yourself on the other side of a policy issue from Jerry, he treats you with fairness and respect. Differences of opinion with Jerry are never personal, and that is why so many colleagues consider Jerry to be a personal friend.

Given that a Member's staff is a reflection of the Member, it should be no surprise that Jerry assembled a team of considerate and effective public servants. Along with his talented chief of staff, David Gillies, Jerry consistently worked to promote a constructive and collegial environment within the Illinois delegation regardless of which side was in power.

Given his rock-solid reputation, impeccable character, and impressive resume of accomplishment, other colleagues will likely describe Jerry as part of a dying breed of statesmen, a sentiment with which I concur. On behalf of the constituents of Northern Illinois, I thank Jerry for his service and for the infrastructure improvements he supported in our neck of the state. I wish Jerry and Georgia all the best as they begin this new chapter of their lives together.

Mr. Speaker, I missed a series of votes yesterday. If I had been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 557; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 558; and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 559.

Mr. Speaker, as the co-founder and co-chair of the House Manufacturing Caucus, I cannot overstate the importance of manufacturing in America and the need for this important legislation.

The U.S. is still the largest manufacturer in the world, churning out about $1.7 trillion in value annually, and one in six jobs is tied directly or indirectly to manufacturing.

Manufacturing drives innovation by conducting two-thirds of all research and development and creating the bulk of technology in our Nation and nearly 70 percent of all exported goods from the United States in 2011 originated from the manufacturing sector.

In the U.S., every one dollar in final sales in manufacturing goods supports $1.35 in output from other sectors of the economy. That multiplier effect is higher than any other economic sector. Many other jobs, such as those in financial services, depend on somebody else making a product. If no one makes anything in America anymore, than those service sector jobs disappear also.

I spend about two-thirds of my time in Congress studying and working on manufacturing issues, from raw materials and minerals all the way through export controls. In fact, earlier today, I co-hosted a bipartisan briefing with administrative officials on its export control reform initiative.

I have been in over 500 factories all over the world in China, Japan, Europe, and the United States. I've studied manufacturing schooling and the educational process in Switzerland and how important manufacturing is to that tiny country.

Every few years the manufacturing sector in the United States experiences a crisis. In response, various administrations have prepared strategy reports on how to best respond. The last report

was issued in 2004. This report was extremely helpful in identifying and reforming regulations that were unduly burdensome on the manufacturing sector that produced little or no public benefit.

The bill before us today will institutionalize this process by requiring a national manufacturing report so that we can keep the focus of our government on how to best help the strongest economic engine of our economy.

My office spent years developing a chart to identify the numerous Federal programs and agencies that support manufacturing. It is still difficult to have a central focal point to know who is manufacturing and who is doing research in a particular area. For example, if somebody wants to do research on machining titanium, there is no central portal through which that person can go to determine exactly what programs there are and who is doing the research. Fundamentally, it's very important to have this report. Why? Because Americans need to know the importance of manufacturing.

If we don't have manufacturing, agriculture, and mining in this country, we become a Third World nation. If we can't make things with our hands, then we become hindered in maintaining our status as a world leader.

I would call upon the House to vote affirmatively for this great bill, the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2012, H.R. 5865.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Today I'm offering a commonsense, bipartisan amendment to H.R. 4078 with my good friend from North Carolina, Mike McIntyre. This amendment would codify some of the administration's own policies regarding scientific integrity.

In March of 2009, President Obama announced a new policy on scientific integrity. This amendment requires agencies to follow their own scientific integrity guidelines.

It's important to consider that the nature of Federal regulations has been changing, with more and more decisions being made without developing formal, final agency actions. Instead, we see more and more major policy changes being made through the issuance of guidelines of the development of agency listings. The agencies will tell affected private parties that these guidelines or listings are not really regulations because they're not final actions. But the impact in the marketplace sure can be pretty final.

The Manzullo-McIntyre amendment codifies the requirement that the Director of OSTP require each agency to develop guidelines to maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of scientific information used by Federal agencies.

The amendment requires appropriate peer preview, the disclosure of scientific studies used in making decisions, and an opportunity for stakeholder input. It also requires Federal agencies to give the greatest weight to information based upon reproducible data that is developed in accordance with the scientific method.

Further, it deems agency actions that do not follow such procedures to be arbitrary and subject to challenge by affected stakeholders. I would hope that my colleagues consider this amendment as an objective, bipartisan attempt at improving the regulatory process.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

How much time do I have?

I yield that 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

Offered By: Mr. Manzullo

Amendment No 1:

Add at the end of the bill the following:

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 9, 2012, I unfortunately missed a series of votes. If I had been here, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 452, ``yea'' on rollcall. No. 453, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 454.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Sound Science in Agency Rulemaking and Risk Assessments Act to help restore sound science and scientific integrity to the rulemaking process at our federal agencies.

On March 9, 2009, President Obama issued a Presidential memorandum directing the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to require federal departments and agencies to develop procedures ``for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making.'' To date, this worthwhile and sensible project has not been completed.

This bipartisan bill, which I am introducing with my colleague from North Carolina, Mike McIntyre, seeks to build on the President's initiative by codifying the requirement that the Director of OSTP require each agency to develop guidelines to maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of scientific information used by federal agencies. This legislation requires appropriate peer review, the disclosure of scientific studies used in making decisions, and an opportunity for stakeholder input. The bill requires federal agencies to give greatest weight to information based on reproducible data that is developed in accordance with the scientific method. Further, it deems agency actions that do not follow such procedures to be arbitrary and subject to challenge by affected stakeholders.

Mr. Speaker, we all want the best science used in decisions made by the federal government. This bill will help accomplish that goal.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4041) to amend the Export Enhancement Act of 1988 to further enhance the promotion of exports of United States goods and services, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend and to submit extraneous materials for the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill has been many years in the making and is the result of several hearings, including one I held as chairman of the House Small Business Committee back in 2006. This is simply a good- government bill that costs nothing.

I recognize that market forces play a predominant role in international trade. However, export promotion programs can play a useful role in helping small and medium-sized enterprises find new markets and customers overseas. Several small companies in northern Illinois expanded their operations and hired new workers after U.S. Commercial Service identified new exporting opportunities.

Also, according to the National District Export Council, every $1 spent on export promotion has resulted in $135 in exports. However, many of our trade-promotion programs are not fully integrated. This has been confirmed in various Government Accountability Office, GAO, and Inspector General reports measuring the effectiveness of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee, which is known as the TPCC. Congressional intent behind the legislation this committee passed in 1992 has not been fulfilled.

Our trading partners are well organized and effectively market their businesses overseas. I recall on one of my trips to China some years ago, the CEO of a very large Chinese manufacturing company told me he often sees Europeans and Japanese as trade-promotion officials, but he had yet to see Americans doing the same thing. And he asked me the question: Where are the Americans?

According to the National District Export Council, while the U.S. spends about 21 cents per $1,000 of total exports on trade-promotion programs and services, Japan spends 30 cents, France spends 43 cents, and Great Britain spends 75 cents. With small businesses offering the best prospect to boost export growth, we should make every effort that gets the greatest return for any taxpayer money spent on export promotion.

In 2006 and in 2008, I introduced legislation that would reform the TPCC and move its responsibilities into the executive office of the President. I was pleased in 2010 when the President announced the formation of the Export Cabinet and adopted many of the reform ideas contained in my legislation, such as instituting measurable benchmarks for achieving goals set forth in the annual National Export Strategy report.

However, there is one key reform missing from the President's proposal: having an integrated trade budget. Currently, each trade- promotion agency submits its own budget to the Office of Management and Budget and the President on its own without a separate review as to whether or not each request fits within the overall trade agenda for the U.S. Government.

The TPCC needs budget-review authority in order to be fully effective. In 2010, I was proud to join with our former colleague, Representative Gabby Giffords, in introducing legislation to remedy this problem. While the bill did not pass in the previous Congress, I am proud to join with my good friend, Representative Howard Berman, in continuing Ms. Giffords' legacy and support the Export Promotion Reform Act.

While the President issued a subsequent memorandum last February that would give the Export Cabinet and the TPCC the ability to make recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget for more effective use of trade-promotion funds, this bill is needed to codify and clarify this role to guarantee that the TPCC will be able to influence decisions on the President's budget request prior to its submission to Congress.

Process and good-government reforms oftentimes do not get the attention they deserve. However, this bill recognizes their importance. I urge my colleagues to support this bill because it will ultimately benefit small and medium-sized exporters.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment has been a long time in coming. Congress overreacted back in 1998 to move export licensing decisions for commercial communication satellites (COMSATs) to the highly restrictive munitions list. As a result, worldwide market share for U.S.-made commercial communications satellites dropped from 75 percent to an average of just 44 percent over the past 13 years. As a result, the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) estimated last January that U.S. manufacturers lost $21 billion in satellite revenue from 1999 to 2009, costing about 9,000 direct jobs annually because of treating exports of COMSATs, along with satellite parts and components, like military weaponry.

In addition, this Congressional overreaction harmed our national security because it hurt our U.S. space industrial base, particularly component manufacturers. These firms became less globally competitive because stringent export controls provide a perverse incentive to foreign satellite makers to design out U.S. parts. Thus, as these U.S. component makers struggle to sell their product in the commercial marketplace, they become less able to meet the national security needs of the U.S. government. A 2011 analysis of the U.S. space industrial base by the respected Tauri Group documented that out of 135 U.S. space hardware manufacturers, 28 technology areas are at some risk of disappearing from our shores because of limited suppliers.

The so-called ``Section 1248'' report recently released to Congress by the Departments of Defense and State on the risk assessment of U.S. space export control policy also documented that 95.7 percent of all export licenses for satellite parts and components in 2011 going to partners and allies were approved with no additional provisos or restrictions. Four percent were approved with conditions. Only 0.3 percent--or a total of six licenses--was denied. These 4.3 percent of applications will still be captured under the new satellite export licensing system proposed by the Administration. In other words, we waste valuable time and resources by processing licenses for satellite parts and components that involve little or no national security risk. The current licensing system detracts from efforts to stop true threats to our national security.

As a long time leader and proponent of sensible export control reform within the confines of protecting national security, I commend this bipartisan amendment. This proposal would have never come together without the support of the ranking Democratic Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Howard Berman, along with my Chairman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. I want to particularly thank Representative Berman for asking me to be the principle Republican co-sponsor of the Safeguarding United States Satellite Leadership and Security Act of 2011 (H.R. 3288) that forms the underlying basis for this amendment.

However, this amendment isn't perfect. Some stakeholders have raised concerns

about the wording of certain phrases in this amendment and the plethora of reports it requires. Some of the concerns may be overblown but I am optimistic that these issues can be worked out with further tweaks to the language. I pledge my support and effort to help further ameliorate these concerns as the NDAA moves through the legislation process.

Again, Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan compromise and vote for the first en bloc manager's amendment.