Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 4435, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section and title numbering, cross-referencing, conforming amendments to the table of contents and short titles, and the insertion of appropriate headings, and that the amendatory instructions for amendment No. 35 be changed from ``after line 21'' to ``after line 9.''

Mr. Chair, I submit the following.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2014.

Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,

Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to confirm our mutual

understanding regarding H.R. 4435, the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, which contains

substantial matter that falls within the Rule X legislative

jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I appreciate

the cooperation that allowed us to work out mutually

agreeable text on numerous matters prior to your markup.

Based on that cooperation and our associated

understandings, the Foreign Affairs Committee will not seek a

sequential referral or object to floor consideration of the

bill text approved at your Committee markup. However, this

decision in no way diminishes or alters the jurisdictional

interests of the Foreign Affairs Committee in this bill, any

subsequent amendments, or similar legislation. I request your

support for the appointment of House Foreign Affairs

conferees during any House-Senate conference on this

legislation.

Finally, I respectfully request that you include this

letter and your response in your committee report on the bill

and in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R.

4435 on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Edward R. Royce,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 590, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell), my friend and colleague, who is a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), my friend and colleague and a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to assure my good friend from Florida that I look forward to working with you to ensure that modeling and simulation remains an essential part in maintaining our military readiness.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina for the purpose of a colloquy.

I thank the gentlelady for her passionate and well articulated arguments supporting the 440th Airlift Wing which provides airlift to our Nation's paratroopers, including the storied 82nd Airborne. The 1,200 men and women who comprise the 440th Airlift Wing do an incredible job each and every day providing the airlift necessary to do their complex and challenging missions.

This provision highlights the difficulty we face as the top line budget has decreased and sequestration remains the law of the land.

We have been forced to make choices as we consider the defense bill that were far from ideal, but attempted to balance competing interests and minimize risk to the greatest extent possible.

That being said, the budget simply doesn't provide sufficient funding to meet the requirements identified in our Nation's defense strategy. I will continue to work with Representative Ellmers and others to preserve assets like the 440th Airlift Wing, and most critically, on the true cost of our problem, sequestration.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage our colleagues to support the amendments en bloc.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate the gentleman's concern. We agree that we must ensure the successful sustainment of this critical engine.

I look forward to working with the gentleman as we move forward to conference with the Senate on this bill to ensure that we achieve both improved visibility and cost-efficiency for the government, as well as keeping a successful model for engine sustainment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have a great amount of respect for my colleague and friend, the ranking member, but I strongly oppose this amendment.

My friend talks a lot about how we shouldn't limit the President's options with regard to Guantanamo. I don't think that we should be limiting our options in dealing with terrorists, and I can't imagine anything more fundamental than taking away the option to question al Qaeda terrorists bent on killing American citizens in whatever is the most effective way possible, and consistent with the law, to stop future attacks.

In the fiscal year 2013 NDAA, we addressed any misconceptions about the detention authority provided by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. We included the following language in the conference report:

Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force or

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of

habeas corpus or to deny any constitutional rights in a court

ordained or established by or under article III of the

Constitution to any person inside the United States who would

be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such

rights in the absence of such laws.

The NDAA has changed nothing with regard to the laws of war, our values, or our traditions. Our Supreme Court has agreed that appropriate detention and interrogation of al Qaeda terrorists is entirely lawful. It is false to imply that this is not the case or to something not in line with our values.

In fact, our courts have gone well beyond the traditional attachment of rights to our enemies and has extended the constitutional right of habeas corpus to foreign detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.

This amendment would be the first time we self-imposed such a sweeping change to the conduct of war and our ability to gather intelligence.

Despite what any of us may want, al Qaeda has not surrendered. Far from it. The threat is evolving, but unfortunately for all of us, it continues.

We must oppose this amendment and preserve every lawful option in our arsenal.

Will the gentleman yield?

I, likewise, would be interested in working with you on this.

In southern California, I know a major highway runs right through Camp Pendleton, and there is a lot of traffic. With Congressman Smith, I was able to visit Lewis-McChord, and I think you would find that a lot of people on both sides of the aisle would be willing to work with you on this bill, and I hope to be able to.

Madam Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 2, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for her work in this

area, and I appreciate her efforts to advance U.S. manufacturing and our industrial base, and I thank her, again, for her hard work on this issue. I look forward to working with you as we move forward on this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 590, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), my friend and colleague.

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

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 590, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), my friend and colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee.

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

Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 590, I offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Chair, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), my friend and colleague.

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

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

Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 590, I offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Chair, I urge the Committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I encourage our colleagues to support the en bloc amendments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 590, I offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 134 be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 159 be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young), my friend and colleague.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), my friend and colleague.

Madam Chair, I think we are about done.

At this time, I would like to thank my partner. For 4 years, we have had the opportunity of leading this committee, and I could not have had a better person to be working with than Mr. Smith from Washington. He is straightforward; he is honest; he is hardworking, and we just, I think, have had a really good working relationship. I consider him--and I will always consider him--a friend.

Likewise, I want to echo the things he said about the committee. I want to thank them. We get all of the plaudits. People get up and thank us and say we have done a great job, but it is these people behind us-- our committee, our staff--that make it easy to do this. I mean, we could have been here until 1 or 2 o'clock this morning, but to make it look kind of easy, kind of smooth, they have been working on it for hours, for days, for weeks, and for months leading up to this point.

I don't know much more to say other than ``thank you.'' You are great Americans.

People like to beat up on government workers. All I can say is that they are not paid enough for what they do. They can't be paid enough. They are patriots. They are dedicated to this work and to our men and women in uniform and their families, and I thank them for that.

With that, Madam Chair, I encourage our colleagues to support the en bloc

amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4435.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.

First, let me express my appreciation to Ranking Member Smith for his leadership and friendship. He has been an invaluable partner in upholding our committee's focus on providing for our men and women in uniform. I would also like to thank our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for

their professionalism and their hard work.

I am incredibly proud of the bipartisan, transparent, and inclusive process our committee undertakes each year. The bill under consideration today is a strong reflection of the bipartisan priorities and concerns shared by members of the committee, and is the result of diligent oversight that has been conducted throughout the year. It contains 154 amendments that were adopted during markup, and it passed out of committee with unanimous support.

The bill would authorize $521 billion for national defense and an additional $79 billion for overseas contingency operations, consistent with the 2013 bipartisan budget agreement and the House-passed budget.

While we do not yet have the details of the OCO request, our committee, the House Budget Committee, and the administration, all agree that these funds will be required to support a residual U.S. presence in Afghanistan; other ongoing operations, including in Africa; and the reset and retrograde of equipment for the active, Guard, and Reserve forces.

The bill contains no earmarks. It provides vital national security resources for our troops while also maintaining our stewardship over the taxpayer dollar.

The bill provides our warfighters, veterans, and their families with the care and support that they need, deserve, and have earned. It continues to advance the substantial reforms introduced in last year's NDAA aimed at preventing sexual assault in the military, and it takes several steps aimed at improving the military's suicide prevention programs. The bill would increase troop pay while rejecting cuts to TRICARE, housing allowances, and commissary benefits that would increase out-of-pocket expenses for military families.

The legislation would provide our warfighters with the resources and authorities they need to support an enduring mission in Afghanistan and to continue pressuring al Qaeda and its affiliates. It also maintains strong accountability and monitoring mechanisms for U.S. funds, ensures the development of sound plans tied to resources, and continues the prohibitions on the transfer of detainees to the United States.

I recently visited Afghanistan and was encouraged by the progress of coalition forces and developments within the Afghan society. Nearly 8 million kids are in school, and a large percentage of those are girls, compared to the 700,000 that were attending school under Taliban rule. We need the President to signal his commitment and remove the uncertainty that persists among the Afghan people and our coalition partners, which al Qaeda and the Taliban continue to exploit. Afghanistan cannot return to being a safe haven for al Qaeda.

In this era of declining resources, the committee was faced with difficult choices as we sought to preserve key capabilities and to ensure our Armed Forces could meet current threats and prepare for future challenges. The bill identifies savings in less critical areas that do not permanently damage the force or harm recruiting and retention.

The legislation guards against achieving false short-term savings at the expense of vital long-term strategic capabilities.

For example, it supports the refueling of the USS George Washington-- an aircraft carrier with 25 years of service life remaining--and it prohibits the early retirement of Navy cruisers, dock landing ships, and the Air Force U-2 spy planes.

These capabilities are vital to our commanders in the Pacific, as well as elsewhere across the globe. It also addresses shortfalls in readiness by resourcing several unmet requirements in equipment, training, and depot maintenance and by fully funding flying hour programs across the services.

We must also get more defense for the dollar, which is why the committee has initiated a comprehensive defense reform effort. This bill begins that process with a series of provisions on institutional, acquisition, security, and strategy reforms.

However, we must recognize that cost savings and reforms alone do not compensate for the significant cuts to defense in recent years. The Department of Defense has seen over $1 trillion cut from its budget. This year's budget request is over $30 billion less than last year's.

The padding has been cut, and the Department is now cutting into the bone--cutting end strength, force structure, and readiness--which is increasing risk to our forces and their core missions. While this bill makes tough choices, Congress will be called upon to make impossible choices in the years ahead if sequestration is not addressed.

For 52 straight years, the National Defense Authorization Act has been passed and signed into law. Congress has no higher responsibility than to provide for the common defense, and with that in mind, I look forward to passing this bill for the 53rd consecutive year, my last year as chairman and as a Member of Congress.

Serving as chairman has been the great honor of my career. I am humbled by the many soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines whom I have met over the years and by the sacrifices that they and their families make to keep America safe. I am thankful for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I am very appreciative of our staff.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), my friend and colleague, who is the vice chairman of the Armed Services Committee and who is the chairman of the Intelligence, Emerging Threats, and Capabilities Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), my friend and colleague and a member of the Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), my friend and colleague and a member of the Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), my friend and colleague and a member of the Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), my friend and colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee and the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada, Dr. Heck, my friend and colleague, who is a member of the Armed Services Committee and is the chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), my friend and colleague, who is a member of the Armed Services Committee.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this has been a great opportunity for an American to serve his community, to be able to come to the Capitol of this great land and serve in the House of Representatives. It is something I had never, ever contemplated growing up. It is something I never had thought about. But it has been a tremendous education and a tremendous opportunity to serve. It has been a tremendous opportunity to meet some really good people.

You know, I have heard from the polls that the Congress has a rating of like 13 percent. That may be a little high. It may be lower than that. I heard somebody say that our rating was so low that it is just basically family and staff, and then after we cut the staff's health care, that it probably was just down to family. Fortunately, I have a large family.

But I have mentioned to members of this committee--and those who are probably watching tonight have seen members of the committee that have talked about this bill that we have been working on, and I hope that they have felt of their strength, of their commitment, of their desire to do the things that their constituents sent them here to do.

I told members of the committee recently that if people at home could sit in on the markup, if they could sit in on some of the discussions that members of the committee have had, I think our ratings would probably be much higher, because these things that we grapple with aren't easy. They are not simple ``yes'' and ``no'' answers to the things that we deal with.

For instance, I know many of us a couple of years ago voted for the Budget Control Act, which brought us sequestration. It also kept the government open, because that was one of the parts of the vote. If we had voted against it, the government would have been shut down. I think it was a bad choice that we had to make, but I was assured that sequestration would never happen. Well, we found out it happened, and it is causing us a lot of problems with our national defense.

You know, the beauty of being able to serve on this committee is we get to serve with men and women who really sacrifice much. The men and women and their families sacrifice much to look out for our interests both at home and abroad, and I want to thank them.

I want to thank all of the members of the committee. I want to thank all of our staff for the tremendous work that they do. They spent hours last night just going through these amendments, and they have been there constantly. They are all people of great expertise and great understanding of the issues that we face.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask all of my colleagues to follow this debate closely and support this bill as we come to final passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman. We just had a little discussion. The amendment he plans on presenting tonight is something that we have not in the committee been able to hold hearings on and to really discuss fully in the committee.

It didn't come up at the full committee or the subcommittee level, but he has an issue that is very important to him, it is very important to his State, it is very important to many people around this Nation.

What I told him is that this is the start of a process. It is a continuation of a process that we started in January with hearings, with subcommittee hearings, with subcommittee markups, and full committee markups, but we are not even halfway through the process yet.

After we pass our bill on the floor, the Senate is marking their bill up this week, and at some point, they will mark it on the floor, and then there will be a conference, so there is much to do between now and the end.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his concern and for bringing this issue to the floor.

We did address this in the underlying bill. DOD contractors are providing very important services. It supports the ISAF mission in Afghanistan, and they should not be illegally taxed.

We need to address this. I think the gentleman's amendment will move the process forward. I think we have time between now and the Senate passage and conference to resolve the issue. Also, hopefully there will be a new President in Afghanistan that will have a whole different way of addressing the situation. So what I would ask is that we do continue to work together on this as we move the process forward through conference.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Major General William E. Rapp.

Major General Rapp distinguished himself through exceptionally meritorious service from 1 August 2012 to 1 June 2014, while serving as the Chief of Army Legislative Liaison. During this period of extraordinary change, continued combat operations in Afghanistan, and significant fiscal constraints and challenges facing the Army, Major General Rapp implemented and fostered a significantly improved strategic partnership with the 113th Congress. He clearly understood the importance of Congressional oversight and spearheaded the execution of an Army strategy to enhance Congressional trust and confidence in Army programs, policies and operations. Major General Rapp did a truly outstanding job in dealing with some of the most complex issues the Army faced during the last two legislative cycles with unparalleled results, enabling the Army to receive the necessary authorities and resources to support combat operations, sustain the all-volunteer force and maintain the quality of life for Soldiers, their Families and Army Civilians. Major General Rapp's outstanding leadership, strategic vision, and keen judgment are in keeping with the finest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon him, the Office of the Army Legislative Liaison and the United States Army.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 441) providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendments to H.R. 3304, with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the matter under consideration.

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

I rise today in support of the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. The NDAA is the key mechanism by which the Congress fulfills its primary constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense, and this year will mark the 52nd consecutive year that we have completed our work.

The NDAA passed the Armed Services Committee with a vote of 59-2. It passed the full House by a margin of 315-108. Likewise, the Senate voted its version of the bill out of committee by a vote of 23-3.

This year we had unique challenges in bringing back a bipartisan, bicameral deal to the House for final consideration. Yet despite those obstacles, we were able to negotiate a bipartisan bill with our Senate colleagues.

I am especially grateful to Ranking Member Adam Smith as well as Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe of the Senate Armed Services Committee. They all rolled up their sleeves, and we got the bill done in the allotted time. Believe me, that was no small hill to climb.

On a related note, I would be remiss if I failed to note that we will be voting on another hard-fought measure that is critical to defense. We have in sight a budget agreement for the next 2 years that provides a measure of predictability for our military. As we take the first steps to get this deal enacted, I wanted to assure Members that the NDAA's authorization levels remain in compliance with the Budget Control Act and the House, the Senate, and the Republican Study Committee-approved budgets for 2014.

What makes this bill such an important piece of legislation are the vital authorities contained therein, which is why Chairman Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps; The Washington Post; the National Guard Bureau; and others all weighed in this week urging us to complete consideration of the bill.

This legislation pays our troops and their families. It keeps our Navy fleet sailing and military aircraft flying. It maintains a strong nuclear deterrent. This year's NDAA also provides badly needed reforms to help alleviate the crisis of sexual assault in the military.

I want to thank Congressmen Mike Turner and Niki Tsongas of our committee for leading a bipartisan group of members who worked tirelessly on those reforms; also Joe Wilson, chairman of the subcommittee, and Susan Davis, his ranking member, for the efforts they made on this issue. They were long overdue.

The NDAA covers many more critical issues, but I will close in the interest of time. Before I do, I would like to thank all our members of the Armed Services Committee for their efforts. I am grateful not only for the hardworking chairs and ranking members of the HASC, but also to all Members of this body for recognizing the importance of this vital piece of legislation, along with all members of our staff on both sides of the aisle.

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 vice chairman of the 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, 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, chairman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), our former chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, who was recently moved from our committee to the Appropriations Committee. She will be sorely missed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), my friend and colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time?

Mr. Speaker, I will be the concluding speaker here, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I want to thank the other committees who worked closely with us all year and members of the Armed Services Committee once again. Especially I want to thank our staff directors, Bob Simmons and Paul Arcangeli. They have worked tirelessly, as have all of these other people that have been putting in countless hours to get us to this point.

This legislation addresses a wide array of policy issues, including supporting operations in Afghanistan, strengthening our partnerships in the Middle East, reinforcing our capabilities in the Pacific, combating sexual assault in the military, enhancing missile defense, and maintaining this Nation's nuclear deterrent.

Though the significant cuts to the defense budget continue to have a profound effect on readiness, our modernization programs, and the defense industrial base, the bill adequately sustains training, critical assembly lines, shipyards, and manufacturing expertise to keep our wartime military properly prepared, equipped, and supplied. Each of these efforts is important for the security of our homeland and our allies.

We have worked on a bicameral, bipartisan basis to get this legislation done. It is my sincere hope that we can continue working together to limit the damage to our military and their readiness resulting from sequestration.

What we are considering here today is a step in the right direction. It is a solid product thoroughly debated and deliberately considered. I urge my colleagues to support and vote in favor of this legislation.

As Adam said, we have a great partnership. I think the thing that makes our committee work so well together is it is not about jobs. Sometimes people say, well, we just have a defense so that we can provide jobs. We have a defense because the Constitution says that we provide for the common defense. We have to be kind of the ones that keep the ceilings open, the skies free, this Nation free from terrorism.

I talked to General Odierno, the Chief of our Army last week, and he said in 2008, the budget for the U.S. Army was $250 billion. This year, it is $150 billion. For people who are saying we are really not cutting, we are just slowing the growth rate, we are cutting. The thing that has been most affected is our readiness, and that is what causes lives to be lost because our troops aren't getting sufficiently trained before they go to Afghanistan, before they go into harm's way. This budget will help. I talked to General Dempsey yesterday, and this will help them get back on their feet in readiness.

I want to thank Adam for his true friendship and partnership, and I encourage all of our colleagues to vote for this bill, to sustain the efforts of those who are willing to put themselves in harm's way to protect us.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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 Colonel Philip Bossert of the United States Air Force. Colonel Bossert bravely, and peacefully, embarked on his final journey after a valiant battle against glioblastoma, an aggressive form of brain cancer.

A decorated veteran of 4 wars, Colonel Bossert honorably served his country for more than three decades.

Phil graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1982, and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the USAF. During the ensuing years he received a Masters of Arts in Economics, magna cum laude, from Old Dominion University; a Masters of Military Art and Science from U.S. Army CGSC; a Master of Public Administration, summa cum laude, Auburn University; and a Master of Arts in Strategic Studies from the Air War College.

From 1983 through 1987 he served as a CT-39B aircraft commander and C-21A instructor pilot out of Langley AFB in Virginia. From 1987 through 1991, he was a C-141B instructor pilot and wing combat plans officer at McGuire AFB in New Jersey. In 1991, Phil had assignments in Colorado, Kansas, and Illinois, and by 2000 he was a Lieutenant Colonel and Commander of the 821st Air Mobility Squadron out of McGuire AFB.

Shortly after 9/11, Phil was deployed to Bagram Air Base outside of Kabul, Afghanistan. At one point, he was the highest ranking officer at the air base between December 2001 and February 2002. After Afghanistan, Phil became the Chief of Training and Exercises for the NATO Interim Deployable Air Operations Center at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. He was bumped to full bird Colonel in 2004, at which time he became Commander of the USAFE Air Mobility Operations Control Center, also at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. This put him in charge of the entire C-141 fleet for Europe and the Middle East.

Among his many awards and decorations are the following: the Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medals, the Army Commendation Medal, Air Force Outstanding Unit Medal, Air Force Organizational Medal, the Combat Readiness Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Southwest Asia Service Medal, and the Kuwaiti Liberation Medal (Saudi Arabia & Kuwait).

Phil summed up his time in uniform by saying that ``I will be at peace with myself knowing that I did my job during the longest war in American history.'' Then, after 28 years of dedicated service to our great nation, Phil decided to retire in 2010 and enter the private sector.

Instead of pursuing a career in academia, Phil again was serving our country as a private citizen, offering up leadership training to the Afghan military. He was assigned to the NATO training mission at Camp Eggers, in the Green Zone in Kabul, and taught 30 senior Afghan officers how to develop a three-year, $15 billion defense budget.

Phil had a focus and a drive in him that was unparalleled. He was relentless. He was detail oriented. His rich understanding of global affairs was perfectly complimented by an unquenchable thirst for knowledge.

Aside from the aforementioned masters' degrees, he had also served on the faculties of the Air Force Academy and the University of Houston, and was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Phil published 97 articles, book reviews, and editorials on various topics. He also published two books, and was currently in the process of working on his third about his three deployments to Afghanistan.

Phil had a no-nonsense outlook on life. In his words, ``[stuff] happens and it's out of our control. You just have to live your life to the fullest and have no regrets.''

Colonel Bossert epitomized the American ethos of hard work, dedication, and strength of body, mind, and spirit. He devoted his life to the service of others, and I would have been honored to have had the privilege of knowing him better.

Colonel Philip A. Bossert, USAF (Ret.) was 54. He was a hero.

Mr. Chair, I submit the following exchange of letters:

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology,

Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.

Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the

jurisdictional interest of

the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in H.R. 1960,

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1960 and

the need for the legislation to move expeditiously.

Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over

the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral.

This is, of course, conditional on our mutual understanding

that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a

sequential referral waives, reduces, or otherwise affects the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology.

Further, I request your support for the appointment of

Science, Space, and Technology Committee conferees during any

House-Senate conference convened on this and any similar

legislation. I also ask that a copy of this letter and your

response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest be placed

in the legislative report on H.R. 1960 and the Congressional

Record during consideration of this measure on the House

floor.

I look forward to working with you on this important

legislation.

Sincerely,

Lamar Smith,

Chairman.

Mr. Chair, I submit the following exchange of letters.

Committee on Education,

and the Workforce,

Washington, DC, June 7, 2013.

Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual

understanding with respect to H.R. 1960, the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Thank you for

consulting with the Committee on Education and the Workforce

with regard to H.R. 1960 on those matters within the

committee's jurisdiction.

In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of

H.R. 1960, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will

forgo further consideration of this bill. However, I do so

only with the understanding that this procedural route will

not be construed to prejudice my committee's jurisdictional

interest and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar

legislation and will not be considered as precedent for

consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my

committee in the future.

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of

outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the

Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in

a conference with the Senate. I also request that you include

our exchange of letters on this matter in the Committee

Report on H.R. 1960 and in the Congressional Record during

consideration of this bill on the House floor. Thank you for

your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

John Kline,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, Dr. Wenstrup.

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

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

I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the vice chairman of the HASC Committee.

How much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I strongly oppose this amendment. Two-and-a-half years ago I sent the President a letter about these important issues. I said in that letter:

I fully recognize the importance of crafting a careful and

comprehensive framework for the detention of terrorists who

wish to harm the United States. I also recognize the

challenges and legal complexities related to such an

endeavor. This appreciation is why this issue is simply too

important for the administration to address on its own.

The President did not take up my offer at that time. Nearly a year later in another unanswered letter, I wrote:

While I remain open to working together, I am very

disappointed that the administration has frequently shown a

greater willingness to engage with international

institutions, foreign governments, and the media on issues

relating to our national security than it has with the U.S.

House of Representatives.

Those are excerpts from two of the five letters that I've written to the President on this issue, which he has not answered. Yet, he still has not come forward with a proposal of oversight or any plan. What to do with Guantanamo is secondary to the President coming forward with a comprehensive plan. Such a plan must include what he proposes to do with those terrorist detainees who are too dangerous to release but cannot be tried.

Number two, how he will ensure terrorists transferred overseas do not return to the fight?

Three, what he will do with the terrorists we capture in the future; specifically, how will he prioritize intelligence questioning?

Finally, what he will do with the high-value terrorists still held in Afghanistan? This is a particularly critical priority for me. There are several extremely dangerous individuals still in custody in Afghanistan. The only option that I see, as completely unacceptable for those detainees, is to allow their release. We've already seen the outcome of making this tragic mistake in Iraq.

While I appreciate the proposed efficiency of my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Smith's amendment, we cannot strike all prohibitions on transfers of Gitmo detainees, agree to bring them to the United States, release them overseas, and end all funding for Gitmo with absolutely any confidence that any of this will be handled in a way that best protects our national security.

Lastly, and this is important, I want to say that I'm proud of the men and women in uniform who serve our Nation every day at Guantanamo. It's not an easy duty. We owed them a debt of gratitude for their critical service to this Nation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Dr. Fleming).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

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

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), my good friend.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

At this time, Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas, the vice chair of our committee, Mr. Thornberry.

Might I inquire how much time we have remaining?

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona, a member of our committee, Mr. Franks.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield 1 minute at this time to my friend and colleague, the chair of the Readiness Subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Madam Chair, I might note that the same gentleman last year said they haven't had enough money, and they spent $13 billion more.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Nevada, Dr. Heck.

Madam Chair, let me note that the National Guard Association, the Reserve Officers Association, and the National Governors Association all oppose this amendment.

At this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Note that OCO was not included in the Budget Control Act, and we are totally within the Budget Control Act on this budget.

Madam Chairman, at this time, I yield 30 seconds to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Chairman, might I inquire as to the time we have left.

And who will be closing?

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition, but I will not oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, pursuant to H. Res. 260, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Madam Chair, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for bringing up this important issue.

As you are aware, we did not reopen the issue in the current bill. However, I share your concerns and would hope that DCAA is not overreaching on its authority. The potential for DCAA to misuse corporate internal audits or to go fishing through these audits without understanding their context or purpose is very concerning. The committee is continuing to monitor their implementation of access to company internal audits and is willing to take additional action if we determine DCAA is acting beyond the limited grant of authority that Congress provided.

Again, thank you for raising this important issue.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have remaining?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm going to use that time to make up for the time that I lost earlier.

What I would like to do is read the letter from the National Guard Association of the United States. This is a letter to Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith, and he says:

As you are aware, there is an amendment sponsored by Reps.

Van Hollen, Moran, Mulvaney, and Woodall that would strip $5

billion out of the Overseas Contingency Operation funding and

the underlying readiness and modernization plus-ups supported

in the bill, which includes $400 million for the National

Guard and Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA). This would have

a significant impact on National Guard equipment, as this

funding is critical for new equipment purchases not planned

for or funded by the active components in the President's

budget. We urge you to oppose amendment 39.

Then he goes into some details about what that would mean.

Finally he ends with:

For these reasons, we urge you to oppose amendment 39 to

remove the $5 billion in OCO funds, where National Guard's

NGREA funds are included. Thank you for your attention to

this critical matter.

It is signed Gus Hargett, Major General, U.S. Army, Retired, National Guard Association.

I think it is very important that we understand fully what we're talking about in these funds. Congressman Van Hollen referred to General Dempsey saying this was all the money we needed. Let me just read to you from the transcript that he was talking to General Dempsey about in their hearing:

Congressman Van Hollen: General Dempsey, does the OCO

request that was made, in your judgment, satisfy our military

requirement for OCO?

General Dempsey: Yeah, it does. But this year's request

proved inadequate to the task. We have to have some

understanding of trying to predict the future 2 years out.

Let me just go back a couple years. They asked for a certain amount of money in last year's budget, but they actually spent $10 billion over that. So they're over-budget coming into this year, and we know, based on past experience, that they're going to spend more than that. And then to try to have an amendment to take $5 billion out of that when we're trying to compensate for the shortfall they had from last year, and then going into this year, is just irresponsible.

When I was in Afghanistan a couple of months ago, I was meeting with a commander there, General Dunford, and he said the thing that people need to understand, as we're winding down this war effort in Afghanistan, and we have to have the troops out of there by the end of 2014, it's going to cost us more because we're closing down the bigger bases, and we have to accomplish that this year.

So we've got the commander saying it's going to cost us more, and we have an amendment saying we should cut $5 billion out. I think it's important that we really put this all in context and understand how those troops who are out there today, fighting, going outside the wire and having attacks on their compounds, are going to be short $5 billion if this amendment is passed.

There exists a nearly $7 billion shortfall in funding to meet just the current readiness requirements. The Army alone needs an additional $3.2 billion beyond what's requested in the President's budget. This is testimony from the chiefs of these different services. The Marine Corps needs another $321.6 million. The Navy is funded $1.62 billion below required levels, and the Air Force $1.3 billion short of needed funding.

So I needed that time, Madam Chair, those 15 seconds that I thought I lost earlier.

But I think it's very important that people understand, this will be one of the most important votes coming up in this next series. We cannot afford to cut money out for warfighters who are over there putting their life on the line for us today.

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

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment; however, I do not oppose the amendment.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1960, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers.

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

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

I will be happy to work with the gentleman and with our colleague from Hawaii to send a joint letter to the Comptroller General in the manner he suggests and to continue oversight on this issue.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers. I urge adoption of the en bloc amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 1960 pursuant to House Resolution 260, amendments 14 and 23 printed in part B of House Report 113-108 may be considered out of sequence.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 29 be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman.

Reuse of former military installations is essential for the local communities and in many circumstances represents a real opportunity to amortize the initial costs of a new development.

I also look forward to receiving a copy of the Secretary's report and I hope it will inform Congress so that we may address this important issue in a deliberate and thoughtful manner. I specifically look forward to hearing the Secretary's recommendations in dealing with this important matter.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee for the purpose of a colloquy.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield to the gentleman from California to finish when we were so rudely interrupted.

Mr. Chairman, I hope you appreciate my weak attempt at humor.

I would like to start off first by acknowledging the longstanding work that Chairman Royce has done on this issue.

The gentleman from California spelled out the growing links between poaching and terrorist groups in Africa. I share his concern. He is also correct that AFRICOM is continuing to engage with our African partners in a variety of ways.

Under Chairman Royce's leadership, I understand that the Foreign Affairs Committee will be continuing to look into illegal wildlife trafficking in Africa and the national security consequences. I fully support that effort. I believe that we should seek a greater understanding of the linkages between these illicit activities and find an interagency approach to counter this threat.

The U.S. military has a role to play in countering terrorist groups and their networks that would target our national interests in this region. So I look forward to our two committees continuing to work together.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of that time.

Just an hour ago, the President confirmed chemical weapons, including sarin gas, have been used by the Assad regime against Syrian civilians. The President has stated that a red line has been crossed. But I would observe that red lines are meaningless unless they are backed by action.

The underlying bill reflects a sense of Congress that any red line should be backed with substantive measures. The White House stated this evening that President Obama agrees with this sentiment.

Tonight, representatives of the National Security Council stated:

The President has made the decision to support Syrian

opposition. That includes military support.

I expect to see more details in the coming days from the White House and the Department of Defense.

I am, however, deeply concerned about our ability to honor and uphold red lines. Our military readiness and our ability to respond is degraded today. Seventeen combat coded Air Force squadrons are grounded due to budget cuts. A carrier battle group should be in the Middle East, but instead is in port. We just pulled the last A-10 ground attack squadron out of Germany because some felt that a forward- operating presence was unnecessary for a so-called Cold War mission.

Yet we have an amendment here this evening that would cut $5 billion that, in addition to funding the troops in Afghanistan, provides support to help alleviate deep readiness problems that are porting our ships and grounding our fighter jets.

Another amendment this evening would strike the very sense of Congress that all courses of action, not just military, should be considered in Syria and that our red lines must have meaning.

Reality has overwhelmed both of these proposals.

To my friends who think there is no risk to ever-deeper cuts, I ask you to tell that to the airman and the sailor who may well face down Syrian missiles in the coming weeks. To my friends who are contemplating further cuts when they vote tomorrow, consider that you may be denying that warfighter the hour of training or the piece of hardware that means the difference between life and death. None of us is comfortable in putting them into harm's way at this time, or in that place; but that does not mean that they may not have to go. And that does not mean we shouldn't give them all they need.

Here Congress and the White House agree in principle. Boundaries are useless unless they are enforced and resourced.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Madam Chair, at this time, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

At this time I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Madam Chair, at this time, we have no further speakers.

Madam Chair, I ask that all of our colleagues support this group of en bloc amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Madam Chair, at this time I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine).

How much time do we have left?

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

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from Georgia, Dr. Phil Gingrey.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

We have no further speakers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority. We have no speakers on these amendments.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.