Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last week I was unable to cast my vote for two important pieces of legislation. Had I been in the chamber, I would have voted YES on H.R. 161, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act and YES on H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act. I voted to pass H.R. 7 in the 113th Congress. This crucial bill will establish a government-wide, permanent prohibition on the funding of abortion, ensuring that no program or agency is exempt from this safeguard. I believe that life-- even in its earliest stages--deserves respect and protection. I am and always have been pro-life, and throughout my tenure in Congress will continue to be a strong advocate for the unborn.

``The Congress may determine the time of chusing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

``No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I continue to be impressed with the bipartisan effort that was used to create this bill.

I want to thank Chairman McKeon for his leadership and service to our Nation. His time and effort to support our men and women in uniform and to guide our national security will be sorely missed. But he leaves the committee in good hands with the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Thornberry, who will bring two decades of experience and leadership to help navigate our committee through the challenges ahead.

I do have to express concern for service provisions included in this bill relating to servicemember entitlements. More specifically, I am disappointed with the cuts to military housing allowances, commissaries, and the pharmaceutical copay increase. While the bill takes important steps forward in honoring our commitment to those who wear our Nation's uniform, I remain concerned that these provisions send the wrong signal to our warriors and their families who have already sacrificed so much for our country. Despite these concerns, I believe that this bill is a strong one and should be broadly supported.

As to the Seapower Subcommittee, I am pleased with the provisions in this bill, including the continued funding of the nuclear refueling and complex overhaul of the USS George Washington, construction of two Virginia class submarines, two Arleigh Burke class destroyers, and three Littoral Combat Ships. We were also successful in authorizing the construction of LPD-28, continuing the Tomahawk missile production line, retaining the existing cruiser force structure, and providing thorough oversight of the requirements for the Navy's UCLASS program.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of the Armed Services Committee, especially the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), the ranking member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, for his long service and unyielding support for our men and women in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, on June 23, 2014, I was unavoidably absent from the House due to a family emergency involving my elderly mother, and missed rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: roll 339; ``aye''; roll 340; ``aye.''

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

Mr. Chairman, if you turn on your TV tonight, you will see U.S. foreign policy in shambles almost across the globe. It shouldn't surprise us because basically this administration has given our adversaries or potential adversaries almost everything they wanted, even when it jeopardized our national defense.

Let me just walk you around the globe.

The number one concern the Russians had was for us to pull our missile defense systems out of Europe, and we did that, even though it left huge gaps for us in our missile defense.

The number one concern the Iranians wanted was to pull off their sanctions, and we agreed to that.

The number one concern the Afghan insurgents had was a time certain when we were going to get out.

The number one concern the Chinese had was that we not increase our Navy and we decrease it, and we saw the President send over a budget that would have effectively taken an aircraft carrier out of our fleet, would have beached half of our cruiser fleet, would have essentially eliminated or severely impacted the production of our Tomahawk missiles, and they have plans to bench six destroyers next year. Now they are getting ready to do something that is probably as egregious as all the rest, and that is to execute within the next couple of weeks the Ottawa Treaty, which would require us to pull our landmines up along the DMZ, which is the number one concern for the North Koreans.

When President Clinton looked at this, he rejected that treaty because he realized that those landmines were what kept the North Koreans from invading South Koreans for decades. When George W. Bush looked at it, he rejected it because he realized how militarily impractical it would be. And when this administration looked at it in 2009, this is what their State Department said:

We would not be able to meet our national defense needs nor

our security commitments to our friends and allies if we

signed this.

Then when a White House aide pushed back on that about 3 years later, the commander of our forces in South Korea, General Thurman, said this:

I wake up every morning with 1 million North Korean troops

right across the border.

When we asked our current general, who is in charge of our South Korean forces, whether he thought we should move those landmines, he said they were critical to the defense of South Korea.

When we asked the top uniformed general in the United States, General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he said it was a critical part of our defense. And when we asked him if anything had changed since 2009,

he quickly came back and said things have gotten worse, not better.

Mr. Chairman, these are not the landmines of yesterday that were just dropped somewhere and you worried a child would come along and stumble on them. These landmines are very targeted. They only come on when we activate them, and then they deactivate within a certain number of hours after that. In fact, the United States has already spent more than $2 billion over the last 20 years taking those up.

So, Mr. Chairman, what this would do is to prohibit any funds from being made available under this act for the implementation of that Ottawa Treaty. It is time we start listening to our military experts at the Pentagon and we start taking their advice on what we need for national security.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, this is not moot. We have it on widespread information that the administration is planning to do this within the next 2 weeks. We even had various embassies tell us the same thing.

Secondly, as he mentioned, he is talking apples to oranges. These are not the same two kinds of programs. There is nothing more humanitarian than preventing war. We have 28,500 troops in South Korea facing all those troops in North Korea, and the thing that stands between them and us are those landmines. The gentleman can't tell me one thing that is going to stop them from coming over there if we pull those landmines up. That is why it is crucial we act now and make sure we don't make this crucial mistake and see another part of this globe in shambles over our foreign policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, if you listen to some of the debate on this rule, you would not realize that both the underlying pieces of legislation here were enormously bipartisan.

I want to thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee--Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Congressman Nadler, Congressman Scott, and Congressman Sensenbrenner, the original author--for their hard work in bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor.

The bill passed out of the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 32-0 and as amended passed the Intel Committee by a voice vote.

The underlying bill takes important steps toward reforming our Nation's intelligence-gathering programs by banning the bulk collection of data. The bill enhances civil liberty protections for all Americans while at the same time preserving our ability to protect the national security of this country.

National security and international terrorism investigation will now be conducted on a case-by-case basis, using specific selection terms and with permission from the FISA court, thereby ending the vacuuming up of data by the NSA.

Finally, the bill creates more transparency and provides more information to the American people. Companies will now be able to publicly report on the requests for information they receive from the government. The bill also requires new comprehensive reviews and extensive public disclosure.

The act includes legislation that I offered with my colleagues, the Intelligence Oversight and Accountability Act, which requires the government to provide to Congress, within 45 days, a copy of each FISA court decision, order, or opinion that includes a significant construction or interpretation of FISA.

The Federal Government has the responsibility to ensure that the intelligence community is taking appropriate action to root out threats to the security of the American people within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution.

Today, we are striking this balance between safeguarding privacy and protecting Americans from terrorist threats in today's post-9/11 world.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we have heard talk about the NDAA bill and amendments that weren't allowed. What you did not hear is that from 10 o'clock in the morning until 12:30 the next morning, the amendments were offered--over 155--and the chairman of that committee was so gracious he continued to ask, ``Are there any additional amendments?'' until there were none, when we finally passed on a bipartisan basis the NDAA bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that is a good bill that strengthens and supports our men and women in uniform. I hope that my colleagues will support the rule and support the underlying bills.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. With the chairman's leadership and stewardship, I believe that this bill provides the right authorities within the budget limits provided.

I continue to be impressed by Chairman McKeon's commitment to our national defense and particularly his leadership and zeal to complete the 54th annual National Defense Authorization Act. His inspirational determination and effort to provide for our national security will undoubtedly serve as a benchmark for our future.

I also want to recognize my friend and ranking member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee on the occasion of his retirement from the House of Representatives. Mike McIntyre has been a resolute supporter of the men and women in uniform. His departure after providing 18 years of support for our national defense and this institution will be sorely missed.

As to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, I continue to be concerned about the trajectory of our national defense and believe that our national security will be irreparably harmed if we continue on our current path. History is full of examples of nation- states that underestimate the value of national security and the severe consequences of their failure. Our inability to change these trend lines will be measured in the sweat and blood of the men and women whom we collectively hold in such high esteem.

While we support these men and women in words, I fear that the real damage to our servicemembers is being caused by the benign neglect of this administration and, at times, Congress, in terms of funding and effort. We must not stand idly by watching the continued dismantling of the world's finest military.

As to the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee mark, I am pleased that we were successful in reversing the administration recommendation to eliminate an aircraft carrier. By restoring $796 million for the long lead item procurement and detailed planning for the refueling and complex overhaul of the USS George Washington, we are taking the right steps to retain strategic options for future Presidents.

I am also pleased that we funded two Arleigh Burke class destroyers, two Virginia class submarines, and two littoral combat ships. I want to especially highlight our incremental funding of the San Antonio class amphibious ship. This amphib will bring important support to our United States Marine Corps as we continue our strategic rebalance toward the Pacific.

I remain very pleased with the direction of our projection forces. This bill provides strategic Air Force investments in terms of procuring 13 C-130J military transport variants, six KC-46A tankers, and significant research and development investments in the long-range strike bomber.

While we have a long way to go to reverse some negative trends, I think this bill does a good job of supporting our forces within the budget constraints provided. However, we need to vigorously and resolutely seek another path to change our national security funding trajectory.

I think this bill is another positive step on a long road to adequately support our national security, and I would urge my colleagues to support the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to media reports that have suggested the closure of military commissaries in the United States and that that may be under consideration by the Department of Defense.

Our national defense, and the men and women who volunteer to serve, are not the cause of our current financial fiscal crisis. Proposals that ask them to carry the weight of solving it are unacceptable.

Commissaries are a vital recruitment and retention tool essential to maintaining the all-volunteer force. President Obama recognized this fact earlier this year when he visited Camp Pendleton during a furlough day and said commissary closures are ``not how a great Nation should be treating its military and military families.''

Each year, commissaries provide an average 31 percent savings for military families. Additionally, by allowing the Defense Commissary Agency, based out of Fort Lee, Virginia, to purchase products at higher volumes, the 178 commissaries in the United States bring down costs across all our commissaries.

I urge my colleagues to oppose any effort to close our commissaries, a system that is highly valued by our servicemembers and part of the commitment we make to take care of them during and after their time volunteering in service to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2014.

With the chairman and ranking member's leadership, I believe that this bipartisan bill supports our men and women in uniform and provides them the necessary authorities and funding levels to defend our national security interests.

As to the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee effort, I continue to be concerned about both the size and composition of our Navy's fleet. I am especially troubled by our physical trend lines that serve to diminish our military capabilities and embolden potential aggressors.

In testimony before our subcommittee, Navy admirals indicated that sequestration may serve to reduce our Navy's force structure to 257 ships by the year 2020. The commandant of the Marine Corps indicated that he sees ``the beginning of a hollow force we have fought hard to avoid.'' This path is simply unacceptable.

I think this bill does a good job of reversing some of these negative trends and moves us in the right direction by authorizing eight combat ships and ensures that we retain and modernize our current fleet proposed for retirement until the end of its designed service life. It also provides surety to the continued construction of our aircraft carrier and attack submarine force structure, while continuing necessary oversight and cost-control efforts to preserve affordability.

The negative fiscal trend lines are not only resident within the naval forces, but are also significantly impairing the ability of our Air Force to project power. The chief of staff of the Air Force indicated that he anticipates an almost 10 percent reduction in the Air Force's force structure. Once again, this is not sustainable and erodes our combat capability.

While I am pleased with the efforts of my subcommittee regarding the projection of global force capabilities, we still have a long way to go. This bill provides strategic Air Force investments in terms of both the KC-46A tanker program and the Long Range Strike Bomber. These are capabilities that need to be nurtured carefully.

This bill also includes important cost-saving initiatives that provide the Navy and Air Force with the ability to procure the E-2D Hawkeye and C-130H Super Hercules aircraft using multi-year procurement authority.

Mr. Speaker, for all of this, I hope that we will support this bill and give the added resources that we need for our men and women in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, religious freedom is a fundamental human right--a right which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Many of America's earliest settlers came to her shores seeking religious freedom. As individuals around the world face persecution because of their religious beliefs, America has

stood as the beacon for the importance of protecting the ability to freely exercise religious beliefs without fear of intimidation, reprisal, or harm.

It is impossible to defend religious freedom for the civilian and yet deny it to the soldier. The full expression and practice of faith in the military has strong roots. General Washington oversaw the formation of a military chaplaincy in 1775 to support and sustain his men in their religious beliefs. President Franklin D. Roosevelt composed the forward to a military edition of the New Testament, in which he wrote, ``Throughout the centuries men of many faiths and diverse origins have found in the Sacred Book words of wisdom, counsel and inspiration. It is a fountain of strength and now, as always, an aid in attaining the highest aspirations of the human soul.''

Faith permeates every aspect of a person's life; it cannot be confined to a belief that is maintained only within one's head, home, or place of worship. It is essential that our military policies and leadership respect the fact that a person's faith also informs the way in which they serve. Anything less is a disservice to their brave and noble sacrifice. It is for this reason that Congress enacted conscience protections in last year's National Defense Authorization Act. However, these protections have fallen on deaf ears. President Obama called these protections ill-advised and unnecessary. Over eleven months have passed since these protections were signed into law, and the Department of Defense has yet to implement policies to enforce the conscience protections.

Furthermore, I fear there is a growing lack of understanding for the importance of preserving the integrity of the chaplaincy. A chaplain's purpose is first and foremost to facilitate the free exercise rights of servicemembers and their families. They serve as an essential pillar of support, especially for those who are not able to freely access religious services and support in the way they could as civilians. Chaplains are more than counselors, honorably and indiscriminately serving all servicemembers.

The members of our Armed Forces do not leave their faith at home when they commit to serve our country, and I remain committed to ensuring they are never required to do so.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work on this bill and for the arguments that have been presented in favor of the bill today. But it's because of those arguments that I have to rise today in grave opposition to this bill because of a provision in this bill that could seriously undercut our Nation's ability to protect its embassies.

It's been over a year since terrorists attacked our diplomatic mission in Benghazi, leaving four Americans dead. In the wake of the attack, the State Department's investigation board questioned the ``grossly inadequate'' security at the mission and recommended that staff at high-threat posts undergo extensive security training at a State Department center.

The independent, nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, however, has called current training facilities ``inadequate'' and has said that they pose a ``critical challenge.''

The State Department has long recognized this serious deficiency and has been looking for a dedicated training site for over 3 years. In testimony before Congress this year, Assistant Secretary Gregory Starr said:

The capacity of the current facility . . . cannot meet our

training needs . . . doesn't even meet our highest threat-

level requirement and . . . at some point may not be

available to us.

And yet this bill on the floor of the House today specifically prohibits the Department of State from developing the center it so critically needs for diplomatic security.

Make no mistake about it: it's not because of cost. It's not because of efficiency. It's because of a protection for those inadequate facilities because of the districts they're in.

This is an urgent need that must be accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner, but is one that this body cannot or must not delay with more bureaucracy. And that is exactly what this bill will do. America has an obligation that we have adequately trained those responsible for the protection of our diplomats and their families around the world. It's absolutely unconscionable that we are prohibiting the State Department from moving forward on the facility they need to prevent another Benghazi attack.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. A ``no'' vote might not stop it, but it'll send a message to the Senate to fix it in conference.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the subject of our Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor tonight to discuss our first freedom, religious liberty, as we recognize the 226th anniversary of the signing of our Constitution on September 17, Constitution Day.

I'm hosting this special order as founder and cochairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, a bipartisan group of more than 90 Members of the House of Representatives dedicated to protecting religious freedom in America and preserving our Nation's rich spiritual heritage.

I cochair this caucus with my good friend, Mr. Mike McIntyre, a Democratic Member from North Carolina, who, unfortunately, cannot be with us this evening.

Faith and religious freedom are not party-line issues. Members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus gather each week in the United States Capitol to pray for our Nation. We leave political labels at the door, and we join in prayer for one another and our country.

On September 17, our Nation will mark the 226th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution in Independence Hall, Philadelphia. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, was soon to follow.

Religious freedom is the very first thing named in the First Amendment. It is our first freedom, and it's a fundamental human right.

But as President Ronald Reagan so accurately observed, freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. Our freedoms are fragile, and how quickly we forget their importance.

An annual survey by the Newseum Institute's First Amendment Center revealed that only 24 percent of Americans are aware that religious freedom is a First Amendment right. We are forgetting our first freedom. It is this amnesia that results in the subjugation of the fundamental right of religious freedom.

Just last month, a justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court recognized that their decision to uphold fines against a wedding photographer who declined to photograph a same-sex wedding meant that the photographer is now ``compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire'' her life.

But the justice called this trampling of religious freedom ``the price of citizenship.''

The price of citizenship? No. Religious freedom is the very thing the Pilgrims sought when they landed in Plymouth and struggled to survive in a new and unknown world.

Religious freedom was so important to our Founding Fathers that it was the first freedom they named as bearing protection from the government. It's not the price of citizenship; it is the hallmark of the American spirit of freedom.

The American people recognize that the New Mexico Supreme Court's decision is wrong. A recent Rasmussen poll revealed that 85 percent of Americans believe that a wedding photographer who has a deeply held religious belief about marriage has a right to decline to photograph a same-sex ceremony.

Even still, we see weekly reminders that religious freedom is being trampled in the name of tolerance. The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor has given validation to the basely false argument that the only reason anyone has to support traditional marriage is bigotry. We've forgotten President Obama's observation in 2012 that there are people of goodwill on both sides of the marriage debate.

Over the last few months alone, we've seen so many injustices, like the Oregon bakery that's been forced to close its doors because of the visceral hate mail, threats and boycotts they received simply for living their lives according to their faith.

As some workers protest for higher wages, we see businesses like Hobby Lobby that pay their full-time workers significantly more than minimum wage fighting for the ability to keep their doors open and their workers employed because they dare to operate their business according to the dictates of their conscience.

We see an attack on the integrity of the military chaplaincy, an institution

that exists to support the free exercise of religion for our brave servicemembers as they leave home and family behind to enter harsh and foreign environments.

And we see servicemembers like Senior Master Sergeant Monk fighting to maintain their careers in the military because they dare to hold a traditional view of marriage.

In Iran, Pastor Abedini languishes in the notorious Evin prison because of his Christian faith. He's an American citizen who has been wrongly sentenced to 8 years in prison because he dared to hold a certain religious belief, torn from his wife and two young children.

As we approach the 1-year anniversary of his incarceration, we need to make sure that we realize that his fight for freedom is a reminder of how important it is that we remain a beacon for the fundamental right of religious freedom and the ability to live your life openly and freely on the basis of your convictions. We must defend Pastor Abedini and advocate for his immediate release to the safety of his family.

As we honor Constitution Day, let us remember the fundamental right of religious freedom enshrined in the First Amendment. Members of the Prayer Caucus have not forgotten our first freedom. We stand ready to guard and protect it.

I'm proud to partner with my good friend, Mr. McIntyre, in leading this extraordinary group of Members known as the Congressional Prayer Caucus.

I'm so pleased to be joined this evening by my colleagues who are working to protect religious freedom in America and around the world, and at this time I'd like to yield to my good friend, Mr. Tim Walberg from Michigan.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his great leadership on these First Amendment rights and for his words tonight.

We have another great leader on First Amendment rights, Mr. Speaker, and that's Doug Lamborn for Colorado.

Doug, it's a pleasure to have you tonight. I would love to yield to you for any comments you might have.

I thank the gentleman for his hard work in this area and for being with us tonight.

We heard Mr. Walberg mention Patrick Henry; and from the State that Patrick Henry came from is my good friend, Rob Wittman.

Rob, thank you for being here and your fight in all this.

Mr. Wittman, I thank you for your dedication to First Amendment rights and to our military.

One of the deep thinkers that we have in this area in all forms of policy, especially as it comes to First Amendment liberties, is the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. Lankford, we are delighted to have you tonight, and I would love to hear some of your thoughts on this.

Thank you, Mr. Lankford, and for your great work on this subject.

Probably no one has defended the rights of our military and their First Amendment rights and the rights of our chaplains more than the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

Mr. Fleming, thank you for your efforts in that and for being here tonight. We would love to hear your thoughts on this very special amendment and right for Americans.

Dr. Fleming, we thank you for your expertise in both the health care area and the military, and thanks for fighting this fight so well.

One of the truly great champions on religious freedom issues has been the chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. He was actually selected as Christian Statesman of the Year because he truly practices what he preaches, and we are delighted to have with us the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) tonight.

Mr. Franks, it's good to have you here, and we would love to hear your comments.

Congressman Franks, we thank you for speaking out for this great pastor whose big sin was that he loved children who did not have parents and he loved his faith and his God. We just thank you for doing that.

Our next speaker is someone who has been recognized for a lot of things--his fight on the Judiciary Committee--but tonight he's here to share and to stand up for First Amendment rights for religious freedom, Louie Gohmert from Texas.

Congressman Gohmert, thank you for being here.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for his words.

The Wall Street Journal has recently written a big article about our next speaker, about how hard he works for constituents, but tonight he's here to work for the First Amendment and for freedom of religion. That is Steve Pearce from New Mexico.

I thank the gentleman for his words tonight.

My dear friend from Virginia, Congressman Griffith, we are glad to have you with us tonight for your comments.

Mr. Speaker, we thank you for the time tonight.

Over your head stands the phrase ``In God We Trust.'' A few years ago, when they opened the Visitors Center, they tried to take that phrase out of it. Members of the Prayer Caucus came here and stood, and because of that it's now written and engraved in the walls over there. We believe that, if you can engrave it there and if you can engrave it here, we can engrave it once again in the hearts of the people in this country.

I want to thank you for the time that you've allowed us today. I want to thank the majority leader for yielding us this time. I want to thank our Founders for giving us this great right of freedom of religion, and my prayer and our prayer tonight is that the American people will be wise enough to keep it.

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

Mr. Speaker, we're now in the 4th week of the civilian furloughs at the Department of Defense that are wreaking havoc on our national security and the lives of patriotic men and women across this country. Mr. Speaker, I've said repeatedly the decisions that led us here were not the result of strategic analysis but yet another consequence of misguided cuts to our national defense.

Just a few moments ago, we were in a hearing in the Armed Services Committee and a high-ranking member of the Pentagon said that the suggestion that we now know the President made for sequestration was a dumb idea. It was certainly a wrong idea. It was wrong when the President signed it into law, but what is worse is the current position of the White House, that even if the House and the Senate can reach an agreement to fix sequestration and stop these furloughs, that they will not agree to it unless we give the President all the spending he wants in every area of government and increases in taxes in all the areas of government he wants.

Mr. Speaker, this is wrong. We need to address sequestration now for national defense and stop it before it's too late.

Mr. Speaker, last week, more than 650,000 DOD civilians began the first of their 11 unpaid furlough days.

Our military--our men and women in uniform--and the civilians who support

our national security infrastructure simply cannot and should not have to bear this burden. Now men and women across the country--the engineers, architects, welders, and manufacturers--who have devoted their lives to our national security find themselves losing pay and struggling to get by.

Although the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force have said they would be able to complete the fiscal year without furloughs, the Secretary of Defense would not allow the service Secretaries to make their own decisions based on their individual budgetary constraints. The entire Department is now suffering as a result.

Mr. Speaker, this body has acted multiple times to end this process, and I urge the Senate and the President to offer their real solutions to this problem so that we can relieve this costly burden on our defense civilian workforce. These men and women who devote their lives to this country's service deserve better from their government.

Mr. Chairman, on May 28, 2010, I stood on this floor and made a motion that effectively stopped some of the worst terrorists in the world at Guantanamo Bay from being transferred to the soil in the United States. At that particular point in time, the then-chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Democrat Ike Skelton, stood on the floor and said this:

We are in a position to accept this motion. I just wish to

point out that there is no difference between the Democrats

and Republicans when it comes to fighting terrorism.

Today, we step on a course with this amendment to change that as the highest ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee seeks to overturn, essentially, that motion.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman were asking that these terrorists be brought to his district, that would be one thing, but he knows that's very unlikely. What you're having with this motion is very generously saying that they could be brought to any of our districts. We are hearing a uniform chorus stand up from North Carolina, Virginia, Guam, and every other place, saying, Don't bring them to my district.

The reason is they know two things: they know the moment they touch U.S. soil they will receive additional constitutional rights that no one in this room can argue what they are exactly; secondly, they have placed a target on every elementary school, on every shopping mall, on every small business in that district by other terrorists.

That's why, Mr. Chairman, it's important that we come together unified and send a message to the President that we might not be able to stop every terrorist from coming to U.S. soil, but we can stop these terrorists by defeating this amendment.

Madam Chairman, over the last 4 years, the administration has told the Pentagon--the Pentagon has come back--and they have cut out of national defense $778 billion before they even get to sequestration. Each time they acknowledge they increase the risk, and their definition of ``risk'' is ``acceptable risk.'' When you ask them what that means, it means how many ships we can lose, how many planes we can lose, how many men and women we can lose and still have some probability that we will win the conflict if every single assumption that they make holds true.

If you support that definition of acceptable risk, you need to vote for this amendment. But I believe we need to change the definition of acceptable risk and say it means this: when we send one of our men and women into conflict we have done everything reasonably possible to make sure they have the highest probability possible of returning to the home they are defending and to the families that they love.

If you support that definition of acceptable risk, you need to defeat this amendment.