Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to file a supplemental report on the bill, H.R. 2810.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express appreciation for the work of Robert Lee Simmons II, Staff Director of the House Armed Services Committee. True confession--I don't like goodbyes, and I'm not very good at them. So I wrote down a few things I want to say and then will yield to others.

Bob Simmons has been a superb leader of the House Armed Services Committee staff for 12 years, across four chairmen. That longevity and continued confidence in him as chairmen come and go, as Committee members come and go, as the challenges that our military and our country face come and too often stay, is pretty remarkable, especially in the business we are in.

I would say his greatest achievement is that he assembled, led, and inspired an outstanding group of people to give their best for our country through not only changing security challenges, but through changing political environments. And he has always operated in light of the unique responsibilities that the Constitution places on Congress as a separate, independent branch of government. Our system is messy, difficult, usually inefficient--as Churchill said, it ``is the worst form of government except for all of the others that have ever been tried.''

Over the years, Bob has spent the hours, incurred the headaches, the time in the car, the frustrations of dealing with knucklehead Members like me with the next great idea. And he has done all of that with patience and a cheerful disposition--usually. He has made this Committee, and helped make this Congress and this system of government, work. And our nation has benefited.

I believe that there is nothing more noble to which men and women can devote their lives than to the protection of their fellow citizens and the security of our nation. Bob Simmons has devoted his life to that cause, first in industry, then with us, now back to industry. But it has always been the same cause. And the guiding light has always been what's the right thing to do for our country, and for the men and women who serve it.

Everyone who serves in jobs like these does so at some sacrifice to family. And so I want to thank Donna and Rob for sharing Bob with us these 12 years and for understanding the missed anniversaries and birthdays. We were on quite a roll there for a while.

On behalf of the men and women who have been privileged enough to serve in this room at some point over the past 12 years, we are incredibly grateful for the opportunity to work with Bob, for what you have done for us, and for all you have done for that most noble cause.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 553(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114- 328), on March 31, 2017, I appointed Ms. Jeanette S. James to serve as a member of the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service. Ms. James served 12 years as part of the staff of the House Armed Services Committee, leading the Subcommittee on Military Personnel for three years until her retirement in 2017. Prior to joining the committee staff, James served in the Army Nurses Corps for 31 years, rising to the rank of Colonel and commanding the medical department activity at Fort Drum. Ms. James was recently awarded the Army Distinguished Civilian Service Award, which is the highest honorary award that the Secretary of the Army may grant to a private citizen.

As the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, I have come to trust Jeanette's advice on matters that affect our troops and their families. For nearly a decade and a half, Jeanette has approached some of the Department of Defense's most difficult and controversial issues with the same precision, compassion, and dedication she showed to her patients during her 31 years as an Army nurse.

Jeanette has spent 43 years in public service, in which time she has made a real difference for our country and our military. Our troops are healthier and better cared for, their families are more secure, and our policies are better informed because of her service. I can think of few people more qualified to serve on this National Commission to review and reform the Selective Service process than someone who has dedicated her life to serving her nation with the utmost dedication and distinction for more than four decades.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express appreciation for an outstanding Marine, Brigadier General David J. Furness, who has directly supported the Armed Services Committees, this House, and the Congress at-large as the Legislative Assistant to the Commandant. Over the years, I have worked with him on a variety of issues. In each and every case, his focus has been improving our nation's security and bettering of the lives of Marines stationed around the world.

General Furness has been the Legislative Assistant to the Commandant since 2013. In that time he has served two Administrations, three Commandants, and four Secretaries of Defense. Through it all, General Furness has delivered a steady message focused on Marines and what the Marine Corps requires to remain our nation's force-in-readiness. As the Corps dealt with the consequences of the Budget Control Act, continuing resolutions, and inadequate funding, General Furness helped Members of Congress and our staffs understanding the real world consequences. He is known for his candor, responsiveness, and passion for his country and the Corps.

A big part of the reason that General Furness has been able to describe clearly the challenges facing the Marine Corps is his experience in command. He has led Marines in combat since he was a Second Lieutenant, where he served in Panama. He has also served multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2010, he was the Commander of the 1st Marine Regiment in Helmand Province, when operations in Southwestern Afghanistan were a principal line of effort and the coalition accomplished significant gains in the counterinsurgency mission.

General Furness is now returning to the operating forces where he will assume command of the Joint Task Force--Horn of Africa. I have no doubt that he will serve our Nation well in this challenging assignment.

This deployment will be the 11th of General Furness' career. Through all of them, his wife Lynda has been by his side. From coast-to-coast moves and years of separation, Lynda has raised four children--David, Elizabeth, Ben and Zachary. She truly is a testament to the reality that it is not just our service members, but also their families, who sacrifice for the safety of us all.

In thanking General Furness for his service thus far, I know that I join all our colleagues in wishing him and his family fair winds and following seas as he moves to the next phase of his career.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding time and commend him for his continuing leadership on national security. I also thank the chairwoman of this subcommittee, Ms. Granger, and the ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, for their continuing work on national security.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we pass this bill now. The Department of Defense is currently operating under a continuing resolution, which means you have got to spend the same money this year that you spent last year, and you have to spend it on the same things. Even if you don't need to spend money on something this year that you spent last year, you have to. So it is wasteful. But you also can't spend money on new things, even though new threats arise. It is not good for any part of government. It is particularly bad for the Department of Defense. It is important to pass this bill now to remove this continuing resolution and have a regular appropriation bill.

Secondly, this bill is consistent with the Defense Authorization Conference Report which passed this House in December. All but four Republicans and all but 30 Democrats in the House voted for that measure in December. This is very consistent with that, and I hope it gets at least as much support as that bill did in December.

There are a few differences. We are further into the fiscal year, so the committee was able to fund some additional priorities that were in the House-passed authorization bill that we were not able to put in the conference report. I just think it is important for all of us to remember, Mr. Speaker, that the only answer to some of the readiness problems we are facing is modernization. We have had testimony that it takes twice as long to maintain an old F-18 aircraft, for example, as it does a new one. Well, this bill has some additional F-18s, and that is good for the pilots, good for the services that receive them. It also frees up maintenance to work on other things.

Finally, it is important also to remember that this bill is just a first step in repairing and rebuilding the military. I am afraid all of us have underestimated the deep damage that has been done through sequestration, budget cuts, and a high tempo of operations. Just yesterday, I was out at Fort Campbell to see some of this and hear about some of this firsthand from the Army.

This is an important essential first step, but shortly we should receive a supplemental appropriation to do more of the work of repair, and then we need to move toward an FY18 bill that really begins the rebuilding that, I think, on a bipartisan basis, most all of us in this Chamber would support. Remember, Mr. Speaker, the first job of the Federal Government is to defend the country. This is an important first step to help us fulfill that responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank Chairman Bishop

for not only yielding me the time, but for his patience and diligence and understanding this issue, and I also want to thank Subcommittee Chairman McClintock for the work that he has put into it.

The Natural Resources Committee has conducted hearings on this issue. They have reported out bills related to this issue in the last two Congresses, and last Congress, the whole House voted for a bill that deals with this issue. I am grateful to Chairman Bishop and Subcommittee Chair McClintock for all of that effort.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is just a small sliver of what this House has passed before. This bill requires the Federal Government to do what the Federal Government should have done long ago, and that is to conduct a survey along the Red River following the instructions of the United States Supreme Court. That is all this bill does.

It does not dispose of any land; it does not alter the rights or claims of any State, any tribe, any individual. It just says the Federal Government has a responsibility to know what the Federal Government is supposed to be controlling. They have never, ever conducted a survey of this area, and so this bill says: You will have a survey conducted using the method that the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held is a method you ought to use.

I am a little taken aback, Mr. Speaker, on why that should be controversial. We could go on at some length about how this came to be. It is interesting, historically, and we could go into a variety of details and so forth; but, again, the bottom line is the Federal law currently says the Federal Government has a responsibility to inventory and ascertain where Federal land is. Yet the Bureau of Land Management not only has never done it in close to 100 years after the Supreme Court decision, the Bureau of Land Management has said they never intend to. They will never conduct a survey of this 116-mile area.

So this bill, as I say, is very simple. It says the Bureau of Land Management shall commission a survey, jointly agreed upon by Texas and Oklahoma, tribal and other interests a full part of that, but there will, once and for all, be a survey to determine where the Federal claim is and where the Federal claim is not.

Now, part of the reason that is so important is because the Bureau of Land Management has, especially in 2013, come out and made a variety of claims that has thrown in doubt the proper title and ownership of land that has been in families for generations, that people have paid taxes on for generations. That has put a cloud on title of private landowners, and it does not help that cloud when the Bureau of Land Management says: We will never conduct a survey to determine exactly where the claim is.

So everyone, Mr. Speaker, every State, every tribe, every local government, every individual--even the Federal Government and the BLM itself--deserves to know where the claims rightfully are and where the claims are rightfully not.

First step is information. That is all this bill does. I think it is pretty clear that we should at least take this step.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 48, I call up the bill (S. 84) to provide for an exception to a limitation against appointment of persons as Secretary of Defense within seven years of relief from active duty as a regular commissioned officer of the Armed Forces and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 S. 84.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me get right to the heart of the matter. We have to pass this legislation in order for James N. Mattis to be able to serve as Secretary of Defense. I know of no one more respected and more admired in the field of national security today than General Mattis. It is true that this is an extraordinary thing we are doing to pass a new law to provide a onetime exception to an underlying law so that a particular individual can serve. The last time we did this was 67 years ago.

Our predecessors then faced challenging times and believed it was appropriate to go through extraordinary lengths to allow an exceptional individual, George C. Marshall, to serve as Secretary of Defense. History reveals that it was fortuitous that they chose to do so.

We face challenging times today. We live in an increasingly dangerous world, and we confront it with a military that has been significantly damaged by budget cuts and other actions. I believe it is appropriate-- in fact, I believe it is necessary--for us to rise to meet the challenges of our time as our predecessors did in theirs and allow an exceptional leader to once again serve our country.

Now, there are legitimate complaints about the wording of the resolution, about various procedural flaws, and about not exempting General Mattis from the UCMJ. In that regard, let me correct something I said before the Rules Committee last night. A retired officer can be held accountable for acts after they retire, although never has that happened to someone in civilian office. But there are legitimate complaints about the President-elect's transition team refusing to allow General Mattis to come to a hearing and testify before the House even though he was very eager to do so himself.

I share all of those concerns. I think it was a mistake and shortsighted to deny the House the opportunity to question General Mattis on the issues related to this legislative exception. I think it was an opportunity to facilitate giving him a large, bipartisan vote out of this House which reflects the overwhelming bipartisan support that he has in this House.

But getting back to the bottom line, even with those concerns, we have a responsibility to the men and women who serve, and I think we have a responsibility for the safety and security of every American to see that there is a fully functional Secretary of Defense on day one of the new administration. The only way we can do that is to pass this legislation today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Speaker, I would inform the gentleman that I have no additional requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time in order to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree that this is a bipartisan committee. Here we have a large amount of agreement, but we have a difference of judgment on what is best for the country.

I would say to all Members: We are about to do our job, and that is vote up or down on legislation that would allow General Mattis to serve.

Now, we are not irrelevant, because if we don't vote for this legislation, he does not serve. That is what Members are elected to do: to vote. We are about to vote, and we have essentially two choices.

Mr. Speaker, as I made clear, I share many of the concerns about the process, about some of the decisions that the transition team made. There has been a lot of discussion about this setting a poor precedent; but, actually, there is only one precedent before us. That was 1950 with General Marshall. And General Marshall himself did not testify in front of the House or the Senate on the waiver legislation.

It was only after the waiver legislation was signed into law that General Marshall came to testify in front of the Senate for his confirmation hearing. But there is nothing that is different from what we are doing today from the only precedent that exists. So the notion that we are suddenly irrelevant, that we are harming the House, et cetera, I believe is mistaken.

I hope that we do not have a national security crisis on January 21 or 22, but the fact is, unless we pass this bill today, we are not able to have a Secretary of Defense on January 20. I think, given the state of the world and given a number of other factors, it is important that we do so.

Just two other brief points, Mr. Speaker.

The press is reporting that the White House has indicated that President Obama will sign this legislation. I hope he does. That would ensure that General Mattis, if confirmed by the Senate on January 20, will go ahead and be sworn in and take office at that point.

There are, as I have said, many concerns about how this was handled-- the wording, et cetera. The bottom line, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, is that there are men and women who have volunteered to serve our Nation even at the risk of their own lives. There are Americans throughout the country who depend on those men and women to keep them safe and secure. All of them deserve to have a Secretary of Defense who is fully functional on day one of the administration. The only way that happens is to vote ``yes.'' I urge my colleagues to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit the Rules of the Committee on Armed Services for the 115th Congress, as adopted by the committee on January 12, 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit the Rules of the Committee on Armed Services for the 114th Congress, as adopted by the committee on January 14, 2015.

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, January 24, marks the 50th anniversary of the death of Sir Winston Churchill. Few leaders in history made such a mark during their lives, and very few have attracted such study and admiration after their deaths.

Even now, 50 years after his passing at age 90 and 75 years after his ``finest hour'' when Britain and Churchill stood alone against the Nazi menace, new books and articles about his life and leadership pour forth.

The Churchill Centre is a growing international organization with a mission to ``foster leadership, statesmanship, vision, courage and boldness among democratic and freedom loving peoples worldwide, through the thoughts, words, works and deeds of Winston Spencer Churchill.''

The Churchill Centre and The George Washington University here in Washington are building a National Churchill Library and Center. Hillsdale College is publishing all remaining volumes of The Churchill Documents.

The list of activities related to Churchill is long, even 50 years after his death. And, as one measure of popular interest, there are few historical figures who are more regularly misquoted or falsely quoted on the Internet than he.

I think there are many reasons that Sir Winston continues to fascinate and inspire.

In part, there are his monumental achievements, for few statesmen did as much to shape the world in which we live. Were it not for his vision and his willingness to stand up to the conventional wisdom of his day, history could have had a far different outcome.

In part, it is his oratory. Just as his words inspired his nation and the world to stand up to evil then, they still inspire us today.

In part, there are his writings, which continue to be studied and referenced as Churchill the politician was a leading figure throughout the first half of the twentieth century, and Churchill the author helped shape our understanding of those momentous times.

I also believe that the continuing interest in Winston Churchill stems in substantial measure from the many ups and downs of his career. We all draw inspiration from someone who perseveres through higher accolades and lower derision than us will ever experience.

Finally, Churchill the person remains a dazzling personality, fully of humor and eccentricities adding to the interest of new admirers.

The qualities that he exhibited are timeless--qualities such as courage, patriotism, hard work, loyalty, and love of family.

And, many of the principles for which he stood and fought are timeless as well, such as the need to recognize and confront evil and to nurture and protect freedom.

He believed that the values of Western Civilization are a force for good and that the English-speaking peoples had unique contributions to offer the rest of the world on freedom, democracy, and the rule of law.

As one who was half American by blood, he appreciated America.

That appreciation has been returned by millions of Americans over the generations.

His bust has been added to the U.S. Capitol's Freedom Foyer, where it continues to inspire visitors and those of us who work here, thereby continuing to serve as a major link in the ``special relationship'' between the United States and the United Kingdom.

The lives of great leaders are always worth remembering and studying, and as long as freedom is cherished, I am confident that Sir Winston Churchill will be studied long into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure. As we have already heard, there are Members who have concerns about various provisions of this bill. I think many Members have concerns about the process which brought this bill to us. It was certainly messy, which was inevitable when the Senate never passed a bill.

When you look at this measure as a whole, despite any imperfections, it is better for the country, better for our security, better for the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces to pass this bill rather than to reject this bill, and I hope Members will support it strongly.

In fact, there are many good, important provisions in it. Within the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities, we have provisions dealing with cyber operations, with defense intelligence, special operations, and human rights training of foreign militaries. I am very grateful to my partner Mr. Langevin, who has worked with me throughout the formulation of these provisions and throughout the past 4 years on those issues.

Mr. Speaker, finally, it is very appropriate that this bill be named in honor of Chairman Buck McKeon, not just for the work he has done on this measure, but for the work he has done to promote our country's security throughout his tenure and for the commitment that he has shown to the men and women who serve our country in the military.

He has made substantial contributions substantively and, I agree with Mr. Smith, collaboratively in working in a bipartisan way, which is also good for the country, good for the men and women who serve. We will certainly miss him, but we appreciate very much all his contributions, and naming this bill for him is one way to help recognize those.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 33 veterans from Texas who visited Washington, D.C., on October 10, 2014, through the Texas Panhandle Honor Flight. My wife, Sally, and I had the distinct pleasure of welcoming these heroes to the Capitol.

The veterans on this flight were: Brown, Jerry; Chambers, Obra Gerald; Crittenden, Max; Ediger, Walt; Elliott, Glenn; Godowic, Paul; Hartley, Gary; Hickey, D.W.; Howell, Jack; Hunter, Vaughn; Hutson, James; Jones, Dick; Keller, Walt; Kennedy, James; Kinser, David Wayne; Lewis, Carroll; Mantooth, Billy; McManaman, Dennis; Megert, Russell; Merrick, Jim; Morris, Jerry; Pollard, Patrick; Putnam, Julian; Runion, Thomas; Saiz, Jimmy; Schramm, Bert; Smith, Berry; Smith, Benjamin; Stratton, Henry; Swearengen, Gordon; White, Pete; Wilhelm, Tom; Williamson, Norman.

It was an honor to have the opportunity to visit with these veterans and the volunteers who traveled with them and to show them a symbol of their dedication to this country and the democracy for which they fought. The willingness of the men and women in our military to put their lives on the line to protect our country and all of the freedoms we enjoy deserves our utmost gratitude and respect. I hope that their visit to Washington, D.C., and the Capitol was a small token of our appreciation for all they have given us throughout the years.

Colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and their families for their exemplary dedication and service to this great nation. I want to extend a significant thank you to the local communities, all of the volunteers, and America Supports You Texas for their extensive work in organizing this Honor Flight. This trip would not have been possible without all of the financial and emotional support of those people.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington State (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), the chair of the Republican Conference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Mr. Speaker, yes, we do have additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of 6 hours of debate on this amendment, I think it has been a good and healthy discussion. According to our count, we have had more than 90 Members of the House come to the floor and express their opinion about this situation with ISIL and Syria and Iraq.

I think part of that is it has given all Members an opportunity to express their opinions and concerns and hopes about what we can do as a country going forward, but it seems to me, through the course of these numbers of hours, that most Members agree on at least three things.

One of the things that most everybody agrees on is that ISIL is a significant threat. It seems to me they are clearly the best-equipped, best-trained, best-financed terrorist organization we have ever faced.

In addition to that, as the ranking member noted at the beginning of the debate, there are thousands of people who have Western passports who are fighting with ISIS who can easily come to the United States and Europe to launch their attacks.

The second thing I think most people agree upon is that this is a very complex situation. We have the Syrian civil war underway. You have the change of government in Iraq. You have the situation with the Kurds.

There are many players--Iran--that make this a very complex situation. All of those Members who go down and say there is no good alternative, I think I agree with that. There is no perfect alternative to deal with this.

The third thing about which there is a lot of agreement, Mr. Speaker, is there are a lot of doubts about the President's plan, a lot of doubts about whether it is going to be enough to defeat ISIL, a lot of doubts about the commitment of the administration to follow through on the plan and to persevere over time; but, in addition to that, even if it is well-done and implemented perfectly over time, no one knows for sure how this is going to come out.

With those broadly agreed-upon facts, Members have reached different judgments and different conclusions, but it just seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that approving this amendment to give the military--the Department of Defense--the authority to train people in Syria as part of that fight makes sense.

Just to briefly review what is in the amendment--because during these 6 hours of debate there has been a lot of discussion, some of it about things that are not in the amendment--but what is in the amendment is that the amendment authorizes the Department of Defense to train folks in Syria as part of the fight against ISIL, and it is absolutely true that the Department of Defense has done this very thing in at least 40 countries.

Now, for all those people who say this is a slippery slope to war, I just note we are not in war in 40 countries. We train people around the world every day, and the military does a very competent job of it. That is what this authority does--that is it--train folks to defend themselves.

This amendment has an expiration date, as you just heard, either December 11, 2014, or the passage of the NDAA, whichever happens first.

There is a broad array of oversight, beginning 15 days before anything is done, and then every 90 days thereafter specific requirements of information that has to come to this Congress.

There are limits on the funding. If U.S. taxpayer dollars are used, then the Congress has to be notified and basically, through the transfer authorities, Congress has to approve.

Finally, it is absolutely clear, because it says so, this is not an authorization to use military force.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute.

All of those people who are concerned that it is not an Authorization for Use of Military Force may have a very good point, but that is not what this is about. This is about a narrow train-and-equip authority that would provide the Syrians the ability to get into that fight against ISIL.

So the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that I think another thing most everybody agrees upon is you can't defeat this group from the air. You have to have folks on the ground. We have folks on the ground with the Kurds. We have folks on the ground who will be more competent with the Iraqis. We need some folks in Syria to be on the ground.

That is what this amendment does. It is narrow. It has oversight. It has limits. It has a time limit. But as General Dempsey told all Members, it is necessary, but, in and of itself, it is not enough. But it is necessary.

I believe that the House ought to take this step today to begin this training, and then it is up to the President to make his strategy work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the chairman's amendment.

I am very much in sympathy with the comments that have been expressed here on the floor that we should have a larger debate about the Authorization for Use of Military Force. That is not, however, what is before us with the chairman's amendment. And I understand some people would like for it to be.

But what we have before us here is a specific request that the President has made for train-and-equip authority for certain Syrians to help provide ground forces against ISIL.

I think, just for perspective, it is important to remember that the United States has been involved in training and equipping security forces in over 40 countries. We haven't gotten into a war in all of those. This is something we know how to do, and we do it competently all around the world.

But I completely agree with those who say this is a very complex, volatile situation, and there are considerable doubts about whether the President's approach is going to be successful. There are especially doubts about whether his policy will be carried out with a seriousness of purpose and a perseverance that is required against such a formidable opponent. I confess, I share those doubts.

But, at the same time, two facts seem clear to me. One is that ISIL is a significant threat. It is not the junior varsity. It is the best- equipped, best-trained, best-financed terror organization and has several thousand people with Western passports that are a part of it.

Secondly, is that a threat like this will not be eliminated from the air. And so what that means is you are going to have to have some sort of forces from the ground. Now, some of them need to be the Kurds; some of them need to be the Iraqis. But you need to have some sort of competent ground force in Syria as well or else it becomes a safe haven. So that is where this train-and-equip authority to help develop that competent ground force inside from Syria is important. But it is only--and I think everybody acknowledges this--it is only one small part of what needs to be a much broader strategy.

Mr. Speaker, despite all the doubts and concerns, having a competent ground force inside Syria with whom we can talk, with whom we can work, whatever the course of events there, has got to be a useful thing.

But for the moment, between now and December 11 or so, giving the President this authority that he has asked for so he can take advantage of some offers from other countries, so he can begin the preparations for this training, seems to me to make sense. We give him this authority with all the checks and oversights that have been described and are very important. We give him this authority, and, Mr. Speaker, it is up to the President to make it work.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell) for introducing this measuring and shepherding it through the committee and onto the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I think that it is important for us to vote on this measure for two reasons. One is that it is important for Congress to speak clearly and directly when a President violates the law, and that is exactly what GAO said the administration did. They violated section 811.

Now, it is true that throughout the country's history there have been differences of opinion about the constitutionality of various provisions of law. I think it is fairly rare, however, that a President has chosen to violate a provision that is as clear as this one. There was no waiver authority. There was no ambiguity. There was no matter of interpretation. The law was clear. It says, if you are going to transfer somebody from Guantanamo Bay, you have got to give at least 30 days' notice. And they did have meetings within the administration that discussed whether to follow that 30-day requirement, and they decided not to do it. So it was a clear-cut decision not to follow the law.

In addition to that, the point was made by the gentleman from Florida that they also violated the Antideficiency Act. There has never been a dispute about the ability of Congress to put conditions on funding. And yet, by carrying out this action, they spent funds for which they were not authorized to spend, which also violated a separate law.

They didn't have to tell everybody. They could have just told the Speaker and majority leader. I think they are pretty safe at keeping secrets. Yet the President chose not to. The rule of law is important. It is fundamental to our system. And so it is important to speak clearly on that.

But here is the second reason. The Constitution gives Congress a variety of powers related to national security; but in carrying out those powers, whether it is oversight of the money we spend, oversight of the operations, making decisions to authorize the use of military force, all of that depends upon Congress having accurate, timely information. This decision not to follow the law undercuts the trust that is required between the military and the intelligence community and the Congress in carrying out our responsibilities.

Tomorrow night we are all going to listen to the President as he, hopefully, gives us his goals and strategy for achieving the goals to diminish and destroy ISIL, but all of that is possible only if there is an exchange of information so that we can carry out the responsibilities that the Constitution puts upon us.

When we don't have trust that the President and the military or the intelligence community following his orders are giving us that information, then we can't have trust that we have the ability to carry out our duties under the Constitution.

On a bipartisan basis, over the last several years, we have set up oversight structures on cyber, on terrorism, on sensitive military operations that allow the military to operate in a complicated world but give us the ability to get the information to carry out the oversight that we have to have.

That is the other reason this is important. This undermines that trust that is necessary for an executive and legislative branch to defend the country in a complex world. For that reason, I think it is important for us to speak clearly about it because there are going to be more instances in the days ahead.

We need--we deserve--to have full information.