Floor Statements

I thank Chairman Hastings for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to speak on my bill, H.R. 5742, the Soledad Canyon Settlement Act. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the House, and I want to thank Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader McCarthy, and Chairman Hastings for their steadfast support of this legislation. Without their support, we wouldn't be standing here today on the floor with this bill.

I would also like to thank the gentlewoman from California, Senator Boxer, for her efforts in finding an agreeable solution for the inclusion of language that brought the score of the bill to zero. And I second the remarks of Chairman Hastings and hope that she will be able to bring this to a conclusion in the final days that the Senate is in session. One of the things that Senator Boxer added to this bill was introducing legislation that brought the cost of this bill to zero. Crossing that hurdle has moved us to this point now in solving this intractable issue.

Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from California, Congressman Sherman, for his support of my legislation. I continue to believe in bipartisanship as the way to address critical issues for our constituents, and we have shown time and again that we can find common ground if we try.

Mr. Speaker, the Soledad Canyon mine, operated by CEMEX, is located just outside the city of Santa Clarita, California, in the 25th Congressional District that I have had the opportunity to represent now for the last 22 years. Under two current contracts held by CEMEX, they are authorized to extract approximately 56 million tons of sand and gravel over a 20-year period, with two 10-year contracts.

Residents of my congressional district and city leaders have been expressing their concerns for the past 24 years about a large mine operating in close proximity to where they live. And, as the chairman mentioned, this has become much closer over the years. They fear the effects of pollution, increased truck traffic, and environmental health issues on their families and the community. Throughout my 22 years in Congress, I have worked endlessly to find a solution. I have engaged with civic leaders, residents of my district, environmental leaders, the county of Los Angeles, CEMEX, BLM, the Department of the Interior, Chairman Hastings, and the leadership of our conference.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to give just a bit of background on the situation that has arisen in my district. In 1990, two privately held valid Federal contracts were awarded to Transit Mixed Concrete. Southdown, the parent company of Transit Mixed Concrete, was acquired by CEMEX in 2000, resulting in CEMEX holding the Federal contracts.

The Bureau of Land Management approved a mining plan of operations and prepared a draft environmental impact statement with respect to the Soledad Canyon mine, which was released on May 6, 1999. The environmental impact statement was subsequently modified to address the growing concerns among Santa Clarita residents about the impact that mining operations in Soledad Canyon have on air quality and health, truck traffic, and declining property values in Santa Clarita. The final environmental impact statement was released to the public on June 2, 2000, with a list of eight alternatives for mining the Soledad Canyon site.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act, the county of Los Angeles

completed the environmental impact report in 2001 and subsequently voted in 2002 to deny the permit, citing the right and responsibility of the county to impose reasonable environmental and resource protection and regulation on mining in Soledad Canyon.

Numerous lawsuits were filed between 2002 and 2004 involving the city of Santa Clarita, the county of Los Angeles, the Center for Biological Diversity, and CEMEX. A consent degree resulted from the settlement of CEMEX, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles in 2004. The consent decree contains the mitigation agreement between CEMEX and the county of Los Angeles, which lists 40 conditions that CEMEX is required to meet in order to mitigate the environmental, health, traffic, endangered species, and safety concerns raised by the county, local residents, and the city of Santa Clarita.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, I have worked throughout my entire congressional career to bring all parties together to work out a deal that is mutually beneficial. I have introduced eight bills on this issue over the years, each of which took a different approach to dealing with the mine as new issues arose.

In the 106th Congress, I introduced H.R. 3060, which would have withdrawn specified lands from the operation of Federal mining and mineral leasing laws and would have nullified any existing permits issued on those lands. The same bill was introduced as H.R. 679 in the 107th Congress. In the 108th Congress, I introduced H.R. 3529, the Soledad Canyon Mine Lease Cancellation Act. This legislation would have canceled the two mining permits for the Soledad Canyon mine and would have prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from issuing permits for mining above historical levels in Soledad Canyon.

In the 109th Congress, I introduced H.R. 5471, the Soledad Canyon Mine Leases Adjustment Act. This legislation would have canceled the two mining permits for the Soledad Canyon mine, directed the Secretary of the Interior to provide additional financial and mineral production opportunities in exchange for the economic value invested to that date on the two permits, and would have prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from issuing permits for mining above historical levels in Soledad Canyon.

In the 110th Congress, I introduced H.R. 5887, the Soledad Canyon Mine Act. This legislation would have authorized the Secretary of the Interior to cancel the two mining contracts, prohibited future mining in Soledad Canyon, provided a means for CEMEX to recover just compensation for the cancelation of the contracts, provided the Bureau of Land Management with the necessary tools to verify the expenses incurred by CEMEX, provided relief to CEMEX for such expenses, and provided for a dispute resolution process.

In the 111th Congress, I introduced H.R. 4332, the Soledad Canyon High Desert, California Public Lands Conservation and Management Act of 2009. This legislation had a similar set of actions as H.R. 5887, but added two notable ones: it provided a mechanism to offer for sale, by competitive bidding, lands identified for disposition near Victorville, California; and to acquire environmentally-sensitive land and collect the proceeds of the sale of lands near Victorville, California.

Finally, in the 112th Congress, I introduced H.R. 6469, the Soledad Canyon Mine Mitigation and Relocation Act of 2012. This legislation would have begun a study of the legal and administrative steps-- including obtaining sufficient funding--necessary to carry out the goals of the Soledad Canyon High Desert, California Public Lands Conservation and Management Act of 2009, H.R. 4332.

I mention each of these in order to illustrate how the tug and pull of all parties influenced the legislative process. Each party gave ideas to further perfect legislation that would finally solve this vexing issue that affects the residents of my district.

I believe because of all our joint efforts, we have reached a critical mass on this issue. It is time for a solution once and for all. I am looking forward to the full House acting on H.R. 5742 today, a solution that would take the mine out of commission and lift this two decades' long burden off the backs of my constituents.

This is a solution borne from the great compromise between the city of Santa Clarita and CEMEX, who each offered to put up the difference in cost to bring the cost of the bill to zero. This zero score is critical to the bill's success and couldn't have been achieved without the partnership that has developed over the many years of action on this matter.

The bill achieves all the aims of my previous legislation, particularly H.R. 4332, with the solution to the vexing issue of how to ensure there is no cost to the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I thank the gentleman again for allowing me the time to explain this critical issue in my district and thanks again to our House leadership and Chairman Hastings for bringing this legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a concurrent resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 3979 with an amendment may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 770, I call up the bill (H.R. 3979) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that emergency services volunteers are not taken into account as employees under the shared responsibility requirements contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, with the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3979.

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

I rise today in support of the fiscal year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act.

The NDAA is how Congress fulfills its constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense. This year will mark the 53rd consecutive year that we have completed our work.

What makes this bill such an important piece of legislation are the vital authorities contained within. It provides resources for the mission in Afghanistan. It funds our military operations against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. It pays our troops and their families. It keeps our Navy fleet sailing and our military aircraft flying. It maintains a strong nuclear deterrent.

The NDAA is much broader than this, but I will close in the interest of time. Before I do, I would like to thank Ranking Member Smith, all of the members of our Armed Services Committee, and my colleagues in this body for all of their efforts to get us to this point.

Every year for the past 52 years Congress has passed an NDAA. I am grateful for the hardworking chairs and ranking members of the HASC, but also to all Members of the body for recognizing the importance of this vital piece of legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), my friend and colleague, the incoming chairman of the

House Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), my friend and colleague who is a member of the Armed Services Committee and is the chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), my friend and colleague who is a member of the Armed Services Committee and the chairman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), my friend and colleague. He is a member of the Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee and the sponsor of the child protection amendment that he has worked on for 7 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), my friend and colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee and the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada, Dr. Heck, General Heck, Joe Heck, my friend and colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), my friend and colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

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

I would, at the outset, like to thank Mr. Smith. I agree with probably about everything he said. He has been a tremendous partner to work with. He just had hip surgery a few weeks ago, and in these last few weeks with all these meetings and all the time and all the effort he has had to put forth in great pain, I really commend you for your integrity, for your steadfastness in your commitment to serving your district, the members of our armed services, and this Nation. It has been a great experience working with you, and I enjoyed just about every minute of it.

There are times when we have disagreed, but we have really done that at a high level and tried to keep it always on the issue, never, never personal, and it has been great.

I want to join him in thanking our staff. We get all the credit; they do all the work. Both sides of the aisle, frankly, most of the staff, I don't know if they are on the minority or the majority side because they work so closely together. That is just the culture of this committee, and I am sure it will continue.

As you have heard through other debate, this legislation addresses a wide variety of policy issues, including supporting operations in Afghanistan, funding the war against ISIL in Iraq and Syria, reinforcing our capabilities in the Pacific, and maintaining the Nation's nuclear deterrent. But many challenges remain.

Next year, the Armed Services Committee will be in excellent hands. Mr. Thornberry and I have sat next to each other now for 20 years on the committee. He will be the chairman next year. Mr. Smith will continue to be the ranking member. They will have their work cut out for them, but they are more than up to the task. I wish them all the best because the security of our Nation lies in their hands, along with all of the members of the committee and all of the Members of this body.

I hope sometime next year a compromise can come to the floor that will end sequestration. There isn't a magical solution that Republicans can support and the President can sign without sacrifice on both sides. When that solution comes, it will be a tough vote on both sides.

I pray that our colleagues will hold this one thought in their heart when that vote comes: remember the great sacrifice that our troops and their families and loved ones at home are making around the world.

Right now, they are walking in the mountains of Afghanistan. They are at sea, within missile range of Iran. They are flying wingtip-to- wingtip against Russian bombers over the North Sea. They are nose-to- nose with the North Koreans. They are sweating in the equatorial heat of Africa, fighting a horrible disease. They are standing on the sands of Iraq, risking everything against a brutal enemy.

They take those risks and they make those sacrifices because of you. They do it for you. They do it for us, for their families, for their flag, and for our freedom. How have we repaid them? With equipment that is falling apart, by laying them off while they are off in war zones, by docking their pay and their medical benefits, by throwing them out of the service and onto a broken economy.

I have met our forces on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, dirty and sweaty from fighting. I have watched too many families, as have all of you, spend long months waiting for those returning from deployment. I have seen too many heroes put into the ground. They never failed us, not once, so shame on us if we are unwilling to pay back the debt we owe them. Shame on all of us, from the White House down, if we cannot make far less a sacrifice than we ask of them on their behalf.

My road in Congress is coming to an end. It will be up to the next Congress and the President to make these injustices right. Please show our troops the respect they deserve. Give them the tools they need. Help keep them safe. Honor their sacrifice with your service. I know that you will do the right thing.

I am in the twilight of a 22-year career here in Congress. It has been mentioned that we passed this bill 53 times. I want to tell you I was not here for all 53 of those, nor was Adam. He is much younger than I am. You might think that I have been here 53. It has been the history of the committee to get this done every year because it so important.

I have come to know many of you as friends and family. To the Armed Services Committee staff, once again--that is, minority and majority-- you are all veterans, you are professionals, you are tireless, but I just think of you as the best.

To my personal staff, I did not want to give this speech, not because I have any regrets, but I just have this problem. Thankfully, the Speaker has it a lot worse than I do, and he gets all the attention, but I have the same problem.

We hear a lot about government workers and how we spend money on government workers and they don't do anything. I just want to tell the people of America that all of these people that work here spend countless hours, and they do so much for so many people. I have some constituent workers at home that have helped thousands of people, and every one of these government workers here deserve our gratitude and thanks for all that they do.

I want to thank all my colleagues for the many wonderful things they have said. I made a comment the other day that my funeral is going to be somewhat anticlimactic. I have heard speeches saying what a wonderful person I am. Fortunately, I am old enough that I don't take any of that personally or too seriously.

I understand that this is a responsibility that was given to me by colleagues. I have enjoyed it. It has been a great experience, but I know it is not about me. It is about what we do here.

I want to thank my family. People say, ``Boy, we love your Christmas card.'' We have 6 children, 30 grandchildren, and now one great- grandchild, and they are all great. I am going to spend a little bit more time with them. I think I would like to teach some of my grandchildren how to fish, if somebody will teach me how to fish.

My wife has stood by my side for 52 years now. She is a tremendous person who I look up to so much.

Now, I am a McKeon, so that means I am of Irish heritage. I would like to part with an Irish blessing for all of you:

May the road rise up to meet you. May the wind be ever at

your back. May the Sun shine warm upon your face and the rain

fall

softly on your fields, and until we meet again, may God hold

you in the hollow of his hand.

To this great body and to our troops, wherever you may be, may God bless you and keep you. May God bless America.

Now, for hopefully the last time, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a concurrent resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a young lady from California's 25th district who is making a lasting difference in our community, one friendship at a time.

I've been blessed with the honor of serving in Congress for nearly 22 years, and I've had the pleasure of meeting many extraordinary people. However, today, it is a privilege to share a few words about the inspiring work of Sarah Kennedy.

Sarah is a 14-year old student from Santa Clarita, California. I had the joy of meeting Sarah and her family not too long ago. It was evident from our brief conversation that Sarah is a person who can transcend boundaries, and her honest and sincere personality lights up a room. Sarah is the type of person you want to know and befriend.

Actually, friendship is her secret weapon. Sarah is behind a growing anti-bullying movement that recognizes the good in everyone. Through the power of relationships, Sarah breaks down the boundaries that often divide students in our schools. Upon meeting someone, Sarah offers the individual a gumball, and soon they are fast friends. I wouldn't be surprised if every student in Santa Clarita has a gumball by now.

Too often in our busy lives, we forget about the power of the simple things in life. A simple ``hello'', a modest ``how are you'', these humble words make a difference. Through Sarah's inspiring and wise actions, she is bringing students together. Adults should stand ready to learn from her as well. We all have time in our busy days to make a friend.

As a father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, I am grateful for the noble pursuit Sarah has undertaken. Mr. Speaker, we know that Sarah is fighting the good fight. I know that her family is proud of her, and I stand here today to congratulate Sarah on her progress. I hope everyone has the chance to have a true friend like Sarah Kennedy.

Sarah is an inspiration to all of us, and she has a friend in me.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), my friend and colleague.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), my colleague and the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), my friend and colleague.

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

I have a letter that was written to myself and Ranking Member Smith from four of our leading experts in the area, former Ambassadors to the area, and former generals: Ryan C. Crocker, Robert S. Ford, General Jack M. Keane, and General David H. Petraeus. This letter was dated this morning:

Dear Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith:

We write to express our strong support for congressional

authorization of the provision of assistance and training to

properly vetted members of the Syrian opposition.

The Free Syrian Army is simultaneously fighting both the

murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad and the barbaric Islamic

State in Iraq and al-Sham. Providing greater assistance to

the Free Syrian Army is the United States' best opportunity

to develop a moderate force that is capable of defeating ISIL

and bringing about a post-Assad Syria that is free of terror.

As you may know, Free Syrian Army forces have recently

achieved some successes on the ground against ISIL forces in

northern Syria, but their effectiveness is limited by their

lack of sufficient assistance and training.

Building up the moderate opposition in Syria will be a key

element of any successful strategy against ISIL. To be sure,

after 3 years of war, it will take a long time to build the

moderate opposition. But there is no viable alternative. The

United States must set to this task immediately.

Finally, we note that approval of this measure should not

prevent or circumscribe Congress from considering a properly

scoped authorization for the use of military force in the

future, or from otherwise revisiting or revising its position

on this issue as conditions on the ground evolve. But time is

of the essence, and we are convinced of the urgent need for

Congress to authorize this effort.

Sincerely, Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker; Ambassador Robert S.

Ford; General Jack M. Keane, USA, Retired; and General David

H. Petraeus, USA, Retired.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), my friend and colleague, a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), my friend and the distinguished majority leader.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), my friend and colleague.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun), my friend and colleague.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), my friend and colleague and a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my friend and colleague.

Or the passage of the NDAA, whichever comes first.

Mr. Speaker, that is my understanding.

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

I want to thank Adam Smith, my ranking member and partner for the last few years in this effort. I think he was very eloquent. He did a good job in working this debate. I think we have heard from both sides of the aisle, both positions, and it has been a strong debate.

I want to thank Mr. Thornberry. He has been my vice chairman, sidekick, for the last couple of years, carried a heavy load. He is a vice chairman of the committee, but he is also chairman of a subcommittee and also serves on the Intelligence Committee and a strong, strong Member, as you can see. He did a great job of explaining the bill, laying it all out in summary form after this long debate.

There is just one other point I want to mention, and that is that there is no new money in this bill. The President did not need additional money, and any money that is needed will be reprogrammed from money that already exists. They have to come back to the Congress and go through the process to make that change. But there will be nothing added to the top line.

I want to thank our staff who worked so hard on this. This came late in the process. The President sent us language last week. It wasn't something that we could support.

I want to thank leadership for giving us the time to work this issue, that, instead of voting on it last Thursday, we had time to work. The staff worked all weekend, both sides of the aisle. Thank you. Thank you for your strong work.

We hear sometimes about government workers and they are kind of just at the government trough. I want to tell you, these people work hard, long hours, and they are devoted to their jobs. Most of them could leave here and make more money, but they are committed to what they are doing, and I want to thank them for it.

Finally, I would just like to say, as a final wrap-up, this letter that I put in earlier, where Ambassador Crocker,

Ambassador Ford, who have spent years in this area, really understand the people, understand what is going on in that area, and then General Keane, General Petraeus, who both have spent a lot of time on this issue, the four of them have signed a letter that they sent over to us this morning that they support this amendment.

I agree with, I think, probably everybody that spoke that this will not do everything, but it is an important step at this time, and I urge our colleagues to support this amendment to give our Commander in Chief the authority that he needs to protect us in this area.

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

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

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

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

I rise to offer an amendment to House Joint Resolution 124 to provide authority to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition in order to defend the Syrian people from attacks by ISIL and to protect the United States and our friends and allies.

ISIL is a clear and present threat to our allies across the Middle East and to the United States. In this time of crisis, the President has asked for this authority because none of the existing Department of Defense train-and equip-programs fit the circumstances. Specifically, the President has requested the authority to train and equip nongovernmental entities fighting in the non-U.S.-led operation in Syria.

There is no doubt that any strategy to defeat ISIL must contain a Syria component. I believe that there are options to defeat ISIL in Syria short of a major U.S.-led combat operation. But the window of opportunity is closing. That is why I am supporting the President's request and have agreed to draft an amendment to the continuing resolution based on a modified version of the administration's initial proposal.

My amendment would allow the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, and the sustainment of the vetted opposition. The provision is intended to authorize activities necessary to facilitate such training and equipping activities, including the appropriate modification of existing facilities and the establishment of expeditionary facilities suitable for such training and accommodation, as well as payment of stipends to trainees.

The President's request did not specify the amount of funding that would be required for this effort and contained few oversight requirements. Therefore, my amendment would strengthen congressional oversight by requiring detailed reports, including progress reports on the plan, the vetting process, and the procedures for monitoring the end use of the training and equipment. It would also require the President to report on how this authority fits within a larger regional strategy.

This amendment does not authorize additional funds. However, it would allow the Department of Defense to submit reprogramming requests to Congress should the President require funds to execute this authority. It also permits the Secretary of Defense to accept foreign contributions.

Lastly, the amendment would state that nothing in this bill be construed to constitute a specific statutory authorization for the introduction of the United States Armed Forces into hostilities. There may be a time when we need to have an AUMF debate, but this is not it. The President has not asked for such an authority.

My amendment is narrowly focused on training and equipping Syrian opposition fighters to counter ISIL. This language was drafted in collaboration with the chairs of the national security committees and shared with the minority. Additionally, the language for this authority has been reviewed by the Department of Defense and the National Security Council.

Lastly, let me emphasize that this train-and-equip authority is a necessary part--but only one part--of what should be a larger strategy. It must be part of a larger effort in Syria, in Iraq, and across the region.

Let's also remember that it will be our men and women in uniform who will be conducting this training. We continue to ask more and more of our military, yet their funding continues to be cut. This is not sustainable and must be addressed.

Again, ISIL is a clear and present threat to the United States and our interests. My amendment is a necessary step to support what should be a larger strategy by the President to defeat ISIL.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to respond to my good friend from California, we have adjoining districts and we agree on many things, we disagree on a few things, but I would like to say that I agree with you. This is something that the Congress should address.

For 20 years--I have been here 22 years--whenever a President has asked for this, we have addressed it. We have not addressed it without having the request from the President.

This is something we had quite a debate a few weeks ago about what previous Presidents have done or not done and what authorities they have and what they don't have, and some of it just has not yet been decided by the Supreme Court. The President says he has the authority. He says he needs this additional authority to help in Syria. That is the question we are addressing here today. I think that we are bound to have this discussion. I know the Speaker wants to have it. Mr. Smith said he wants to have it. I want to have it.

I think one thing that we should really probably consider in all of this, this is not going to be a 1-month or a 2-month or probably even a 1-year or 2-year commitment that we are making here. ISIL is very serious about this, and we are going to be in this fight, as we have seen in the past, for a long time. And it is a new commitment. So I am thinking that, as close as we are to the election, there are going to be a lot of new Members here that are going to be living with this discussion, this debate, this vote, potentially for a long time. And I think those are the people that probably should make that decision in January or as close as they feel comfortable to having that debate.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

I yield the chairman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), my friend and colleague, the vice chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are many who support this amendment. There are many who feel like it is not enough.

I would like to just relay a couple of instances.

I just returned from the Middle East. I met with leaders of Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco. And one of the things that I think needs to be addressed, and the people--the people--need to understand this: who ISIL is. In about 600 AD, people moved--Arab people--

moved into the area that they called Levant. They controlled that area--it took them about 50 years to conquer it--and they controlled it from about 650 AD to about 1500 AD, when they were defeated by the Ottoman Empire.

That area comprised what we now know as part of Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran. It was a huge area. ISIL wants to go back to that same area. They want to control that same area. They want to set up a caliphate so that they can then export terrorism around the world, and they are going to be brutal about it. They have great designs. They are willing to do anything it takes to win.

I don't know why it seems like, when the President talks, the first thing he says is, ``No boots on the ground.'' As was just mentioned by the ranking member, there are boots on the ground. We have a force of over a thousand right now in Iraq. As he explained, their army kind of wilted for the reasons that he gave.

I talked to General Petraeus the other day, and he said their army will fight, but there are certain things that they need that only we can provide, and that is what we can provide without entering into the combat, without putting in divisions, without putting in what I guess is the reference to boots on the ground, which is a certain number--and I don't know what that number is--but we are not going to do that. That is not what we are talking about.

Saying we are not going to have boots on the ground is just kind of not being totally truthful with the American people. There are and will continue to be boots on the ground. They will provide training. They will provide leadership. They will provide ISR.

They will provide the intelligence and the things necessary for the Iraqis to be successful in pushing ISIL out of the ground that they have conquered and taken. They will be able to take it back.

What we are talking about is the ability to go in and train Syrian forces so they will be able to take back territory that they have lost in Syria and, by doing so, that will deprive ISIL of having a safe haven so, as they are pushed out of Iraq, they won't be able to go into Syria.

We need to envelop them and end their mission right there. Don't let them get into Lebanon and Jordan and these other countries. Don't let them squeeze out into those countries. We need to stop them now. The leaders in that area told me how big this threat was. They said, ``Don't think the oceans are going to protect you now. They will not.''

We all know that one of the big threats over there is foreign fighters entering into this fight. A lot of them have passports and will be able to enter back into Europe and come to this country and do a lot of serious things that we don't want to see happen. We would rather fight them there than here. That is the purpose of this amendment and the thing that we are talking about right now.

ISIL is a dangerous threat right now, and we need to address them right now. They are going very rapidly. They are very well-funded and well-led. They are fighting as an army, not as a little ragtag terrorist group. We need to address them that way.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), my good friend and a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), my friend and colleague and a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne), my friend and colleague and a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson), my friend and colleague, a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, at the President's request and in the amendment that we are debating--we got a little bit far afield there-- there is no request for money. The President says he doesn't need any additional moneys to carry this out. All he needs is the authority to go into Saudi Arabia and take their offer of training the Syrians to be able to go home and defend their homeland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), my friend and colleague and a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart), my friend and colleague.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), my friend and colleague.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), my friend and colleague who is a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the previous gentleman for his comments. He is the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee. He understands this situation very well, and the only thing I would say is the reason we say ISIS/ISIL--I would just say ISIL because they are the same. We need to let the American people know who the enemy is. It is that group, ISIL, and they are the worst of all, in my opinion.

Secondly, the reason we are doing this now is twofold. The President asked for it. We only have one Commander in Chief at a time. I didn't vote for him, but he is our Commander in Chief. He asked for this. We are responding to that request as he asked us as Commander in Chief.

Secondly, and I think this is very important, Saudi Arabia stepped up and said not to keep this secret, but: we overtly will open up our territories and give you training facilities to train these Syrians.

That sends a message to people in that part of the world that this is not the big, bad Satan America against the world. This is moderate Arabs, Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'a all joining together against terrorism that is out to destroy the world.

I think that opened up this possibility for the President to ask for this, and I am hopeful that we will be able to give him that authority.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), my friend and colleague, a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Charles Boustany, my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McAllister), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming, my friend and colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time we have remaining on both sides?

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

A lot has been said today on both sides of this issue. As I have listened carefully to all of the arguments, it seems to me that the main argument, as I have heard it, against acting on this amendment at this time is that it doesn't go far enough or we don't know for sure if it would be successful.

I have been in this body now for 22 years. I wish that I had the foresight every time we come to this floor to know exactly what is going to happen after we take action, but it seems to me that none of us really has that foresight.

We can think about it, we can project, but we really don't know what is going to happen if we take action. Sometimes, we know what is going to happen if we don't take action. I think that is probably what we ought to be thinking a little bit about today.

There were some comments made about Iraq and Syria. One thing that I think hasn't been mentioned that I think we know is that we left Iraq precipitously. We can talk about blame. We can place it on President Obama.

I could criticize him for a lot of things, but I sure wouldn't want his job, and I think, because we did leave early, we didn't leave any residual force behind. Maliki did some things that we probably all would have changed.

Saddam Hussein, who was a Sunni--Sunnis are the minority in Iraq-- oppressed the Shi'a; so, when Maliki came in, a Shi'a, he oppressed the Sunnis. I think one thing that we do know is that the new Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi, is really making an effort to reach out to the Sunnis, the Shi'a, and the Kurds to bring a legitimate government that will look out for all of its people.

I think that has given us the opportunity to go into Iraq. The President has put over a thousand of our troops in there, bucked them up, and helped them with the things that they need to be successful in fighting off the terrorists, ISIL, and I think that there are things that they cannot do that we can help them with.

They need intelligence. They need ISR. They need logistics. They need air support. If we provide those things and they see that they are getting good support from their government and that it is not a fight between different sects or different regions and yet they can actually fight together as Iraqis, they will be successful in pushing ISIL back which would be a good thing. They can retake the territory that has been lost.

In the meantime, if we vote for this amendment, we give the President the authority to train Syrians that are thoroughly vetted in Saudi Arabia and then put them back into the fight.

These people are fighting for their homeland. These are people that are fighting for their villages, and they are fighting for their families. Are they perfect? We don't know, but I was talking to one of our retired generals who has been in the fight, and he told me that, sometimes, you have to work with people that are willing to fight the same enemy that you are willing to fight.

In this case, these people that we are looking at are willing to fight ISIL. If they have the help that we can provide, they can be successful, and then the people that we train can go back into the fight in Syria, and we can squeeze ISIL in between Syria and Iraq and keep them from entering into other nations where we do not wish to fight at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say again that most of the arguments I have heard are, ``Don't do this.'' I haven't heard an alternative.

I think what we need to remember--and we hear it a lot around here-- is let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. The President, the Commander in Chief, has asked for this authority. Saudi Arabia is willing to work with us on this. We need to develop the coalition. We are working hard to make that happen.

At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Colonel Patrick T. ``Smack'' McKenzie, on the occasion of his retirement from the United States Air Force after 26 years of service.

I have had the pleasure of working with Smack on a number of occasions during his tenure in the Air Force House Liaison Office. I greatly appreciate and admire his professionalism, knowledge, and dedication, which has benefited me, and numerous other Members and staff.

Colonel McKenzie has given a great deal to this Nation through his distinguished and selfless service. He began his Air Force career as an ROTC Cadet and a ``Jayhawk'' at the University of Kansas--an allegiance he maintains to this day, as evidenced by the Jayhawk lanyard you will always see around his neck. Upon graduating in May 1988, he was competitively selected for pilot training at Reese AFB, Texas. He was the envy of Class 90-06, not only because of his perfectly restored red

1965 Pontiac GTO affectionately known as ``The Goat'', but also because as one of the top graduates, he was awarded the only F-16 training slot for the class. He was assigned to the 70th Fighter Squadron at Moody AFB, where he was certified as combat-ready and qualified for air-to- surface, air-to-air, and nuclear missions. He quickly caught the eye of his leadership, and was handpicked as one of only 15 squadron pilots qualified to operate the new LANTIRN system (Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night). He also caught the eye of his future wife, Jennifer, and they have been married now for 21 years. Col. McKenzie's skill as a fighter pilot was quickly recognized during his first deployment, patrolling the skies over Iraq for Operation Southern Watch. His leadership ability earned him a Regular commission and selection for Squadron Officer School, where he was a Distinguished Graduate.

Capt. McKenzie was then assigned to the 51st Operations Support Squadron at Osan Air Base in the Republic of Korea. He continued to impress as a Wing Plans Officer, maintaining critical operational plans for wartime taskings. He again rose above his peers as a pilot, winning the 51st Fighter Wing's Low Angle Strafe Top Gun award and selection as the Chief of Standardization and Evaluation for the 51st Operations Group--a position reserved for the Group's most skilled and trusted pilot. In this position, he was responsible for assessments and maintaining operational standards not only in his F-16 squadron, but also in the HH-60 rescue flight, and a C-12 flight, a job essential to deliver wartime capability. He so impressed his leadership, that even as a Captain he was identified as a ``future squadron commander'' and was selected for USAF Weapons School, the premier advanced weapons and tactics school for our Air Force Pilots. While there, he was praised for his research on F-16 Night Close Air Support and Targeting Aids, advancing our operational capabilities in this critical capacity. Captain McKenzie's training was put to immediate use with his assignment to the 510th Fighter Squadron at Aviano Air Base, Italy. He flew dozens of combat sorties during Operations Southern Watch, Decisive Edge, and Deliberate Guard, enforcing no-fly zones over Iraq and Bosnia-Herzegovina. He was also a Mission Commander for more than six large force packages in NATO's Operation Allied Force in Kosovo, for which he garnered praise for his skills, leadership, mission execution, and most importantly ensuring zero combat losses. Additionally, Smack was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for extraordinary achievement, planning the first NATO strike of Operation Allied Force to cross the Kosovo/Serbian border, defeating surface-to- air missiles, and executing the first-ever F-16 night attack utilizing Night Vision Goggles and the LANTIRN system to destroy an ammunition storage facility. As a Flight Commander, Weapons Officer, and Instructor Pilot he was recognized by his superiors as an ``exceptional leader with unlimited potential'', the ``#1 Captain in the Group'', the ``Wing's top flight commander'', and the USAFE Fighter Pilot of the Year. Smack was sent to Air Command and Staff College, where his tremendous leadership and team building skills led his peers to recognize him as the ``Outstanding Team Member'' for his class. Following school, he became the Assignments Officer for nearly 1,500 Air Force F-16 pilots, single-handedly managing the Air Force's largest group of pilots and maintaining 100 percent manning level despite historic shortages just after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

Lt. Col. McKenzie then moved to Luke AFB for a short period as the 56th Operations Support Squadron Operations Officer before being entrusted with his first command--the 310th Fighter Squadron ``Top Hats''--the largest fighter squadron at Luke, responsible for the only formal Forward Air Controller-Airborne course, which has been a vital capability in the War on Terror. He was heralded as the ``top warrior and leader of 618 officers'' and led his unit to the 56th Operations Group ``Top Squadron'' award. Following this highly successful command, Lt. Col. McKenzie attended National War College at Fort McNair and received a Master of Science in National Security Strategy. He then went to U.S. Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, VA where he provided readiness analysis on current operations, and was a liaison with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Government Accountability Office, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff on all readiness related issues. He provided critical data and assessments for the planning of Operation Enduring Freedom which were influential in leadership decisions. Col. McKenzie then Commanded the 455th Expeditionary Operations Group at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan. There he profoundly impacted the Global War on Terror, directing air operations and leading over 830 troops to execute over 24,000 missions, dropping 1.1 million pounds of ordnance, and delivering 37,000 tons of cargo--the busiest operation in the CENTCOM area of responsibility. Following this tremendous performance, Col. McKenzie was challenged with a new role as the SECAF's legislative liaison to Congress for all USAF air and space weapon systems, ensuring the Air Force message and priorities were consistently and convincingly articulated to directly ensure the full authorization of their $120 billion budget. Smack was then sent back to Osan Air Base, Republic of Korea to command the 51st Fighter Wing ``Mustangs'' where he previously spent time as a Captain. He was the Joint installation commander for over 10,200 personnel, executing the Combat Air Force's largest and most highly-utilized A-10 and F-16 operation in a tense location, just 6 minutes flight time to North Korea. ``A+'', ``inspiring'', and ``superb'' were just a few words used to describe his tenure there. After his highly successful tour as a Wing Commander, the Air Force returned Smack to legislative liaison work by assigning him to one of the most demanding positions within the Air Force, his current job as the Chief of Air Force House Liaison. Since July 2013, Smack has advised the Secretary of the Air Force, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the Director of Legislative Liaison, and numerous other senior military and civilian leaders on issues of the greatest concern to the Air Force and Congress. He has been more than a liaison between the Pentagon and the Hill, he developed and improved key relationships to enable the Congress to make better decisions about the future of the Air Force and our national defense. He is extremely intelligent and articulate, and has helped shape my thinking and influenced many Members of Congress. Simply put, we trust him and will miss him!

Col. McKenzie is a command pilot with over 3,200 flying hours and 630 combat hours in the F-16. He is the recipient of numerous major medals and decorations for his service and accomplishments. The most significant of these include the Defense Superior Service medal, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star, and Meritorious Service medal.

Throughout his distinguished career he has represented our country and the Air Force with dignity and honor, and this is why I'm so privileged to pay tribute to this fine Airman. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Congress and the United States of America, I thank Colonel Patrick McKenzie, his wife Jennifer, and their daughter Ashleigh, for their service and sacrifices of the past 26 years. I wish them Godspeed, and continued happiness as they start this new chapter in their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Colonel Patrick T. ``Smack'' McKenzie, on the occasion of his retirement from the United States Air Force after 26 years of service.

I have had the pleasure of working with Smack on a number of occasions during his tenure in the Air Force House Liaison Office. I greatly appreciate and admire his professionalism, knowledge, and dedication, which has benefited me, and numerous other Members and staff.

Colonel McKenzie has given a great deal to this Nation through his distinguished and selfless service. He began his Air Force career as an ROTC Cadet and a ``Jayhawk'' at the University of Kansas--an allegiance he maintains to this day, as evidenced by the Jayhawk lanyard you will always see around his neck. Upon graduating in May 1988, he was competitively selected for pilot training at Reese AFB, Texas. He was the envy of Class 90-06, not only because of his perfectly restored red 1965 Pontiac GTO affectionately known as ``The Goat'', but also because as one of the top graduates, he was awarded the only F-16 training slot for the class. He was assigned to the 70th Fighter Squadron at Moody AFB, where he was certified as combat-ready and qualified for air-to- surface, air-to-air, and nuclear missions. He quickly caught the eye of his leadership, and was handpicked as one of only 15 squadron pilots qualified to operate the new LANTIRN system (Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night). He also caught the eye of his future wife, Jennifer, and they have been married now for 21 years. Col. McKenzie's skill as a fighter pilot was quickly recognized during his first deployment, patrolling the skies over Iraq for Operation Southern Watch. His leadership ability earned him a Regular commission and selection for Squadron Officer School, where he was a Distinguished Graduate.

Capt. McKenzie was then assigned to the 51st Operations Support Squadron at Osan Air Base in the Republic of Korea. He continued to impress as a Wing Plans Officer, maintaining critical operational plans for wartime taskings. He again rose above his peers as a pilot, winning the 51st Fighter Wing's Low Angle Strafe Top Gun award and selection as the Chief of Standardization and Evaluation for the 51st Operations Group--a position reserved for the Group's most skilled and trusted pilot. In this position, he was responsible for assessments and maintaining operational standards not only in his F-16 squadron, but also in the HH-60 rescue flight, and a C-12 flight, a job essential to deliver wartime capability. He so impressed his leadership, that even as a Captain he was identified as a ``future squadron commander'' and was selected for USAF Weapons School, the premier advanced weapons and tactics school for our Air Force Pilots. While there, he was praised for his research on F-16 Night Close Air Support and Targeting Aids, advancing our operational capabilities in this critical capacity. Captain McKenzie's training was put to immediate use with his assignment to the 510th Fighter Squadron at Aviano Air Base, Italy. He flew dozens of combat sorties during Operations Southern Watch, Decisive Edge, and Deliberate Guard, enforcing no-fly zones over Iraq and Bosnia-Herzegovina. He was also a Mission Commander for more than six large force packages in NATO's Operation Allied Force in Kosovo, for which he garnered praise for his skills, leadership, mission execution, and most importantly ensuring zero combat losses.

Additionally, Smack was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for extraordinary achievement, planning the first NATO strike of Operation Allied Force to cross the Kosovo/Serbian border, defeating surface to air missiles, and executing the first-ever F-16 night attack utilizing Night Vision Goggles and the LANTIRN system to destroy an ammunition storage facility. As a Flight Commander, Weapons Officer, and Instructor Pilot he was recognized by his superiors as an ``exceptional leader with unlimited potential'', the ``#1 Captain in the Group'', the ``Wing's top flight commander'', and the USAFE Fighter Pilot of the Year. Smack was sent to Air Command and Staff College, where his tremendous leadership and team building skills led his peers to recognize him as the ``Outstanding Team Member'' for his class. Following school, he became the Assignments Officer for nearly 1,500 Air Force F-16 pilots, single-handedly managing the Air Force's largest group of pilots and maintaining 100 percent manning level despite historic shortages just after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

Lt. Col. McKenzie then moved to Luke AFB for a short period as the 56th Operations Support Squadron Operations Officer before being entrusted with his first command--the 310th Fighter Squadron ``Top Hats''--the largest fighter squadron at Luke, responsible for the only formal Forward Air Controller-Airborne course, which has been a vital capability in the War on Terror. He was heralded as the ``top warrior and leader of 618 officers'' and led his unit to the 56th Operations Group ``Top Squadron'' award. Following this highly successful command, Lt. Col. McKenzie attended National War College at Fort McNair and received a Master of Science in National Security Strategy. He then went to U.S. Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, VA where he provided readiness analysis on current operations, and was a liaison with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Government Accountability Office, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff on all readiness related issues. He provided critical data and assessments for the planning of Operation Enduring Freedom which were influential in leadership decisions. Col. McKenzie then Commanded the 455th Expeditionary Operations Group at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan. There he profoundly impacted the Global War on Terror, directing air operations and leading over 830 troops to execute over 24,000 missions, dropping 1.1 million pounds of ordnance, and delivering 37,000 tons of cargo--the busiest operation in the CENTCOM area of responsibility. Following this tremendous performance, Col. McKenzie was challenged with a new role as the SECAF's legislative liaison to Congress for all USAF air and space weapon systems, ensuring the Air Force message and priorities were consistently and convincingly articulated to directly ensure the full authorization of their $120 billion budget. Smack was then sent back to Osan Air Base, Republic of Korea to command the 51st Fighter Wing ``Mustangs'' where he previously spent time as a Captain. He was the Joint installation commander for over 10,200 personnel, executing the Combat Air Force's largest and most highly-utilized A-10 and F-16 operation in a tense location, just 6 minutes flight time to North Korea. ``A+'', ``inspiring'', and ``superb'' were just a few words used to describe his tenure there. After his highly successful tour as a Wing Commander, the Air Force returned Smack to legislative liaison work by assigning him to one of the most demanding positions within the Air Force, his current job as the Chief of Air Force House Liaison. Since July 2013, Smack has advised the Secretary of the Air Force, Chief

of Staff of the Air Force, the Director of Legislative Liaison, and numerous other senior military and civilian leaders on issues of the greatest concern to the Air Force and Congress. He has been more than a liaison between the Pentagon and the Hill, he developed and improved key relationships to enable the Congress to make better decisions about the future of the Air Force and our national defense. He is extremely intelligent and articulate, and has helped shape my thinking and influenced many Members of Congress. Simply put, we trust him and will miss him!

Col. McKenzie is a command pilot with over 3,200 flying hours and 630 combat hours in the F-16. He is the recipient of numerous major medals and decorations for his service and accomplishments. The most significant of these include the Defense Superior Service medal, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star, and Meritorious Service medal.

Throughout his distinguished career he has represented our country and the Air Force with dignity and honor, and this is why I'm so privileged to pay tribute to this fine Airman. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Congress and the United States of America, I thank Colonel Patrick T. ``Smack'' McKenzie, his wife Jennifer, and their daughter Ashley, for their service and sacrifices of the past 26 years. I wish them Godspeed, and continued happiness as they start this new chapter in their lives.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 715, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 644) condemning and disapproving of the Obama administration's failure to comply with the lawful statutory requirement to notify Congress before releasing individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and expressing national security concerns over the release of five Taliban leaders and the repercussions of negotiating with terrorists, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 644.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 644, a resolution offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell), condemning the Obama administration's failure to comply with the requirement to notify Congress before transferring individual detainees from Guantanamo Bay.

I would like to thank Mr. Rigell for his leadership on this deeply troubling issue. He worked across the aisle to author a bipartisan resolution, sponsored by 94 Members of the House, including myself, focused on the Obama administration's clear violation of statute passed by the legislative branch and enacted into law by the President.

I would also like to thank Ranking Member Smith. Though he did not support this resolution in its entirety, I

appreciate his candor and his commitment to fostering a thoughtful debate within our committee.

The administration violated the law, and House Resolution 644 articulates this simple message. It passed out of the Armed Services Committee with a bipartisan vote.

Section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 requires the Secretary of Defense to notify the appropriate committees of Congress at least 30 days before the transfer or release of any individual detained at GTMO. There are no waivers to this clause--no exceptions, period; yet, on May 31, at the request of the Taliban and in exchange for Sergeant Bergdahl, who was held by the Haqqani Network, the administration sent five senior Taliban leaders from GTMO to Qatar.

The administration took this action without notifying Congress. This is an obvious violation of the law. There can be no confusion on this point. In fact, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office recently determined that the administration violated the law by failing to notify Congress, but also by expending funds to carry out the transfers without an appropriation for that purpose.

The statutory provision of the NDAA was written and approved by a bipartisan majority in Congress because of genuine concerns that dangerous terrorists were leaving GTMO and returning to fight against the U.S. or its allies.

By requiring the Secretary of Defense to convey detailed information to Congress, the provision is intended to allow Members to have a complete understanding of the risks of sending GTMO detainees elsewhere and how those risks might be mitigated.

In transferring the Taliban Five without lawfully notifying Congress, the administration deprived Congress of the opportunity to consider the national security risks that such a transfer could pose or the repercussions of negotiating with terrorists.

If Congress does not speak strongly now to condemn such blatant disregard for the law, any future administration may come to believe that obedience to statute is not a requirement for the executive branch. This is intolerable, and for this reason, I support this resolution and will ask my colleagues in the House to adopt it.

Again, I thank Mr. Rigell, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Rahall, and Mr. Ribble for introducing this important bipartisan resolution, and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must respond to just a couple of points made by my good friend from Washington.

We agree on more than we disagree on. This item we disagree on, but it seems to me that his main argument is that because other Presidents have done it, it is okay for this President to do it. In other words, two wrongs make a right. I don't think that is the point. I think at some point, you have to draw the line, and that is what we are doing right now.

Secondly, he said that the President said that he really believed he wasn't breaking the law. You know, prisons are full of people that say they don't think they broke the law, but some judge thinks they did, and in this instance, until you take the matter to the court, it is the law. Even though he is the President of the United States, he did break the law.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell), my friend and colleague who is a member of the Armed Services Committee, is the lead cosponsor, and is the one who has from day one provided the leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I pointed out to the gentleman recently that neither of us were in these jobs when President Bush was in office, so we don't know what we would have done at that time. I would hope that, if he went against the law, we would take similar action. I think that we would have done that.

I yield at this time 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. Speaker, just a little reality check here. I offered the points that went into the National Defense Authorization Act. One of the reasons I did it was because we specifically did not want any detainees to be taken from Guantanamo without alerting the Congress, because they had tried it before and it had pushback from the Congress and we felt like we should have a part in that protection of our people.

There are 80 people, detainees, in Guantanamo that have been vetted and that are approved for possible transfer to a suitable location. None of these five were on that list. All were considered too dangerous to be on that list. There were several months of negotiations. There was plenty of time to give us the 30 days' notice. They talked to 80 to 90 people in four different executive branches: the State Department, the Defense Department, the White House, and Homeland Security, but not one Member of Congress, in compliance with the law. They didn't talk to Senator Reid, they didn't talk to Senator Feinstein, and they didn't talk to the Speaker. Nobody. And that was not accidental. That was a firm decision to avoid the law and to avoid going to the Congress, which was required.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble), my friend and colleague, a member of the Budget Committee, and cosponsor of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I respect my friend. We came to Congress together, and I appreciate his remarks on a lot of things. But we should get back to the subject at hand. This has nothing to do with Sergeant Bergdahl. This has to do with the action that the President took. We are all happy that Sergeant Bergdahl is home, and we are glad that he is here, and his case will be taken care of separately.

Mr. Speaker, there is a call to do something for the President. The President hasn't asked us to do anything yet. He is not even speaking until tomorrow. Then we will see what he has to say, and then we will see how we move forward.

I am not an attorney. My good friend from Washington is a great attorney. And I recall when we had Secretary Hagel, and Secretary Hagel made the comment that he thought what they did was within the law. And my good friend responded that here is the way it works: The President signed the bill and said that he disagreed with it, but that does not change it. It is still the law until it is challenged in the courts. That is our system.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow), my good friend from the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), my friend and colleague, and a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), my friend and colleague and a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis), my friend and colleague and a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time is left?

We have just one more speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the inference has been that this happened on the spur of the moment and they didn't have time to tell Congress. These negotiations on this transfer went on for months. They have admitted they told 80 to 90 people in four of the departments of the executive branch but not one Member of Congress, in compliance with the law.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am leaving Congress at the end of this year, but I am sure at home I will still be able to hear blame on President Bush for at least the next 2 years.

One thing we can't escape is the fact that this went on for months. Even

though they had to make a critical last-minute decision, they still had time to notify 80 to 90 people in the executive branch and not one Member of the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate, in accordance with the law.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) to give the concluding remarks on this debate. He is the vice chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Today it is my pleasure to bring to the floor H.R. 4939, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 2551 Galena Avenue in Simi Valley, California, as the Neil Havens Post Office.

I want to thank Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Cummings for giving my legislation a fair hearing and for moving the bill through committee in an expeditious manner.

Madam Speaker, I also want to thank the mayor of Simi Valley, Bob Huber, for the great leadership that he provides to the Valley, for his service and dedication over a great number of years. He is the one who pointed out to me what the Havens family has meant to the Simi Valley and suggested naming the post office in their honor. It was found out that we don't name post offices after a whole family; it has to be named after one person. Neil, having served the longest, was given that distinction.

Madam Speaker, much of this has already been said, but I think it bears repeating. I have heard that a genius is one who hears something six times and then accepts it, so this will only be three times.

Neil Havens, Charles ``Neil'' Havens, was the longest serving postmaster in Simi Valley history, serving more than 30 years with the U.S. Post Office department and the Postal Service. His retirement ended three-quarters of a century of mail service by the Havens family of Simi Valley.

The first rural route set up in Simi began in 1912, when Neil's grandfather served as the first carrier. The Havens family became synonymous with mail service in the area, having multiple generations delivering letters. Despite losing one Havens carrier to combat in World War I, the Havens family persevered and continued to serve their community, starting out when they just had a couple of people in the community.

Neil, following a competitive examination, continued the family tradition in 1958, after being appointed postmaster by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Over the course of his admirable career, Neil Havens saw mail service grow from Route 1, Simi, California, with a single carrier, to a team of more than 170 employees and approximately 60 routes.

In July of 2004, Postmaster Havens passed away while resting in his favorite chair at the home he and his wife, Pat, had owned for 53 years. A Rotary Club President, Navy reservist, and supporter of charitable and educational foundations, Neil embodied the spirit of the Simi Valley. Known for his firm handshake, his trademark jawline beard and endless desire to serve, Neil Havens left an indelible legacy in his hometown.

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving my bill time on the floor. I cannot think of a better tribute to such a consummate public servant. I urge my colleagues to support this bill which will mean so much to the Havens family and the folks in Simi Valley.

Mr. Chair, I ask that the following exchange of letters be included as part of the Record during consideration of H.R. 4435:

Permanent Select Committee

on Intelligence,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.

Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: In recognition of the importance of

expediting the passage of H.R. 4435, the ``Fiscal Year 2015

National Defense Authorization Bill,'' the Permanent Select

Committee on Intelligence hereby waives further consideration

of the bill. The Committee has jurisdictional interests in

H.R. 4435, including intelligence and intelligence-related

authorizations and provisions contained in the bill.

The Committee takes this action only with the understanding

that this procedural route should not be construed to

prejudice the House Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence's jurisdictional interest over this bill or any

similar bill and will not be considered as precedent for

consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the

Committee in the future, including in connection with any

subsequent consideration of the bill by the House. In

addition, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will

seek conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within

its jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may

be convened on this legislation.

Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our

exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional

Record during the House debate on H.R. 4435. I appreciate the

constructive work between our committees on this matter and

thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Mike Rogers,

Chairman.

Mr. Chair, I ask that the following exchange of letters be included as part of the Record during consideration of H.R. 4435:

Congress of the United States, House of Representatives,

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.

Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the bill

H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2015. There are certain provisions in the legislation

which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed

expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill,

I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential

referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving

consideration of the bill the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform does not waive any future jurisdictional

claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which

fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge

the Speaker to name members of this committee to any

conference committee which is named to consider such

provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.

4435 and into the Congressional Record during consideration

of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the

cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this

matter and others between our respective committees.

Sincerely,

Darrell Issa,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their warm round of applause. It was great to hear their feelings.

We, on the Armed Services Committee and here in Congress, have the responsibility to provide for our national defense for our interests around the world and the commitments we have made to our friends and allies. We do not have a defense to provide jobs.

We have a defense to provide for our national security. Fortunately, the jobs that are provided through defense are good jobs. With the cuts that we have had in our defense, a lot of those jobs have gone away, and our defense has been weakened.

Colleagues, we have had a vigorous debate on this measure. This bill was marked up by six different subcommittees, then the full Armed Services Committee considered the legislation. One hundred ninety-five amendments were offered during our markup alone, 95 by Democrats and 100 by Republicans. We adopted 154 of those, and the bill passed out of committee with unanimous support, 61-0.

Then we moved the bill to the floor following regular order. One hundred sixty-nine more amendments were made in order, 39 bipartisan amendments, 57 by Democrats, and 73 by Republicans.

Nobody can say we haven't had ample opportunity to consider everybody's ideas, discuss them, and vote. To everyone, I say thank you for your help, your support. It is important to get this 53rd consecutive NDAA passed because of the important authorities that are in the bill. Let's oppose this motion to recommit and pass the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.