Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, in some ways I'm somewhat sympathetic to the hopes that underlie this amendment. I hope that terrorism has gone away by December 31, 2014. I hope that Zawahiri and the others responsible for 9/11 and those who authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attack or harbored them are all brought to justice in the next 14 months. I hope that our country and other countries around the world no longer have to worry about terrorists hiding bombs inside their clothing or inside their bodies, trying to kill as many innocent people as possible. And I hope that military and civilians who serve our Nation all around the world, and others in the private sector, are no longer the target for suicide bombings and assassinations and the other sorts of things that we've seen since 9/11.

But, Mr. Chairman, what if my hopes don't come to pass? What if the world has something else in store? What if terrorism still exists by December 31, 2014? Well, then it seems to me that this amendment doesn't make a lot of sense. Because this amendment says no matter what--not just in Afghanistan, but anywhere around the world--we're not going to fund anything through the Department of Defense pursuant to that AUMF.

Now, I've got to say, I have been and continue to be for updating that AUMF to better reflect the way that al Qaeda has evolved over the last decade or so. Unfortunately, that has been resisted by the administration, as the gentleman just pointed out.

Of course we all want this war against terrorists and other wars to end, but, unfortunately, the enemy gets a vote. So for us to unilaterally say, because of the calendar, we're done, and, oh, maybe we'll pass some new authority--but maybe not--in order to protect this country, I think, is dangerous. It's shortsighted. It is putting hopes above reality.

So I hope my colleagues reject this. We can do better in fighting terrorists in a variety of ways. But to bury our head in the sand and say it's all going to be over on a certain date is not the way to protect this country, and I believe it forfeits our most essential responsibilities under the Constitution.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just point out to my colleagues, this

House has voted 2 years in a row to update the AUMF so it does better reflect the way that al Qaeda has changed. We have included the exact language used by the Obama administration and the Bush administration in court proceedings and just adopted that. The House has passed that. I don't remember how the particular gentleman voted on that, but the House has passed it. The Senate has not gone along. But there has been an effort to update the language to better reflect the way that the threat has changed, but that's a far different thing from saying, okay, we're just going to make this go away and hope that in the meantime we can do something better. I think that is terribly risky.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is you have to read the amendment and the words that are in it. The amendment says we can spend no money for any part of the Department of Defense pursuant to the AUMF after December 31, 2014.

Now, we can have a very interesting discussion about how the AUMF should be updated, about different authority that could take its place, but none of that is before us. What is before us is that it basically says, no funding shall be used. It essentially repeals the AUMF.

Now, I realize the gentleman is trying to precipitate further debate, but the fact is terrorism is not going away. This prohibits any U.S. military action, not only in Afghanistan, but anywhere in the world that al Qaeda or its affiliates may have traveled. This stops all of that.

My point is that there is too dangerous a risk in a world where there are too many people still trying to find new, innovative ways to attack us and kill as many Americans as possible. We can't take that risk.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Kansas for offering this amendment, because it helps focus on what concerns most Americans and it clarifies what really is and is not happening.

Mr. Chairman, sometimes it is a challenge for those of us on the Intelligence Committee to talk openly about this--even the safeguards-- in some of these programs. But this amendment helps make it clear and reassures Americans about some of the things they may have read or heard that is occurring with NSA. But at the same time, this amendment is not an overreaction that actually increases the danger that Americans face from terrorism around the world.

This amendment says clearly that NSA cannot acquire information for the purpose of targeting Americans, and it says clearly that NSA may not acquire, monitor, or store the content of the communication of any Americans.

I think the key point that Members need to know is there are multiple layers of safeguards to make sure that these programs operate exactly in the way that the FISA Court has laid them out to operate.

The Intelligence Committees of both the House and Senate do a considerable amount of oversight, get regular reports. Even if somebody accidentally punches a ``2'' versus a ``3'' on their keyboard, we get a report about that. And it even goes so far as members of the Intelligence Committee can go sit next to the analysts and watch what they are doing.

But it is not just the Intelligence Committees. The FISA Court has oversight of the same sorts of reports. They can change the guidelines that it operates under. But in addition to that, there are internal inspector general monitoring of these. So you get every branch of government involved in making sure that the safeguards are in place and those same safeguards will be in place to make sure that the provisions of the gentleman's amendment are followed as well.

Some, however, Mr. Chairman, would do away with these programs. No amount of safeguards are good for them. But they never say what would replace them, they never say what would fill the gap in meeting our responsibilities to defend Americans. They would just have them go away, and I guess assume that somehow or other that Americans could be made safe.

The truth is, we had been incredibly successful and somewhat lucky since 9/11 as far as preventing further terrorist attacks on our homeland. That is because of the work of the military, intelligence professionals, law enforcement and, as I say, a fair amount of luck.

But these programs at NSA have made a crucial contribution to that success over the last decade. It seems to me it would be foolhardy to toss them away, as some would want to do.

I think this amendment strikes the right approach. I also believe, Mr. Chairman, The Wall Street Journal makes a good point in today's editorial when it says:

The last thing Congress should do is kill a program in a

rush to honor the reckless claims of Mr. Snowden and his

apologists.

Mr. Speaker, our guest chaplain today has been the pastor of Bible Baptist Church in Wichita Falls, Texas, for the past 20 years; but his ministry and passion for spreading the word of God has never been confined to the walls of any church building.

Mike Rucker, known to many as the ``Flying Preacher,'' has been combining his love of auto racing and the ministry since 1985 when he and his wife of 40 years, Sherrie, began Rucker Racing Ministries. Since then, they have traveled to racetracks across the United States, spreading the good word while he races and while Sherrie often sings the national anthem.

Pastor Rucker also serves as the chaplain for the Wichita County Sheriff's Office and for the Wichita Falls Police Department and is a regular on Joe Tom White's ``Rise 'n Shine'' radio show. In short, he has never been afraid to roll up his sleeves and be in the world while sharing the Gospel with folks across Texas and the Nation.

Pastor Rucker graduated from the Arlington Baptist College in Arlington, Texas. He and Sherrie have two sons, Michael and Matthew, and one daughter, Marlene, and five grandchildren.

I am pleased to help welcome Pastor Rucker, the ``Flying Preacher,'' to the House today.

Mr. Chairman, cost is a red herring argument here. Does it cost more to keep a detainee in Guantanamo than a Federal prisoner here? Probably, but nothing like the figures that have been repeatedly cited on the other side. For example, if you look back at the fiscal year '11 Department of Justice budget request for moving the detainees to the U.S., it ends up in the first year being about $1.9 million per detainee, and about $500,000 per detainee in recurring costs.

On the other side of it, even the President, in a speech at the National Defense University, said it is less than a million dollars per prisoner now on detainee. Is there a difference? Sure. Is it anything like what we've been hearing? No.

And the rest of the story is: under the Geneva Convention, if you're holding somebody under the laws of war, you cannot put them with Federal prisoners even in a supermax prison. They have to be segregated. So those costs of bringing them here are higher.

But that's not really the issue here. The issue is what is the best thing to do to secure the country and to deal with the terrorist threat. And I just remind everybody, the ban on closing Guantanamo is not permanent. We have to reapprove it every year. So if the President actually comes up with a real plan, not just a speech, but a real plan to close Guantanamo and then deal with the detainees, then that ban can go away. But you can't say okay, we're going to remove all of the restrictions and we're going to close Guantanamo, and then we're going to figure out what we're going to do with these people, and that's exactly what this amendment does. The gentleman from Washington says it just asks for a plan. The underlying bill just asks for a plan. His amendment, in addition to asking for a plan, removes all of the existing restrictions. And on page 4, subsection (D), says specifically:

No funds shall be used there to detain people after December 31, 2014.

We've got to get the plan first before it closes. I think this amendment should be rejected.

Madam Chair, I'm convinced that the arguments against missile defense are the same today that they were the day that President Reagan proposed it: you can't do it, it costs too much, and it's provocative to try.

And it doesn't really matter how the threat evolves, what North Korea or Iran do, and it doesn't really matter how the technology evolves. We just had a successful test just a few months ago.

The events and facts don't matter. The arguments are still the same, and they will always be the same because some people just don't want to defend the country against missile attack.

This committee pushed in 2010, in 2011, and in 2012 to have more interceptors on the west coast. The President opposed it every step of the way. It didn't happen. And then, all of a sudden, with North Korea this year, the President changes his mind and says, Oh, maybe you all were right after all. At least the President changed his mind. Unfortunately, it seems like some people cannot even do that.

A lot of us think the administration is not doing enough, but to do less would be negligent, and I think we should reject this amendment.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply want to point out that Members have a variety of opinions about Afghanistan, and a number of Members have come to the floor to voice their opinion that we ought to leave Afghanistan. I understand that. That's not what this amendment says. This amendment basically restates the President's policy with regard to Afghanistan, and then, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, it says Congress ought to exercise its responsibilities under the Constitution.

Now, we can do that in a variety of ways. We can have oversight hearings,

and we can have amendments dealing with funding. And we've had those sorts of things before. But the point is that some of the rhetoric doesn't match the amendment. As the chairman pointed out, the underlying bill tries to encourage a Bilateral Security Agreement so that looking ahead beyond 2014, it is very important to many of us that any American troops who are remaining in Afghanistan have the protections that they should have under such an agreement. So the underlying bill has a fence on some of the funding going to Afghanistan until there is that sort of Bilateral Security Agreement.

So the point is, moving ahead beyond 2014, there are lots of unknowns at this stage. We're trying to help shape it in a way that is beneficial for our security but also protects our troops. But the underlying amendment, to get back to what's before us, basically restates the President's position and says that Congress ought to exercise its responsibilities. I think that's true. Meanwhile, Members can have their own opinions about Afghanistan and what should happen between now and then.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Collins).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished subcommittee chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Mr. Rogers of Alabama.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, in some ways I admire the gentleman from Minnesota because he states clearly what he believes. In my opinion, his argument, however, is dangerous, and it will mean a very much more dangerous world for the United States and many of the people around the world who depend upon us.

If we're going to talk numbers, we ought to just remind everybody that in 1960 the defense budget was about half of the total budget of the United States Government. Today, it's 17 percent of the budget for the United States budget. Now it's true it's most of the discretionary spending, but that completely leaves out the entitlements or the mandatory spending programs which are a vast majority of the government.

In more recent history, let's think about that defense already took a reduction of $487 billion over a 10-year period. In the current fiscal year, it was cut another $55 billion. And now this amendment would take another $60 billion on top of that.

Mr. Chairman, I think defense has been cut enough. If anyone has been listening to some of the debates we've been having today, you'd hear about readiness being down, about training not occurring, and about more expensive procurements because we can't buy at the most efficient rate. And this amendment would take another $60 billion on top of the other things, and would include the personnel accounts which were exempt under sequestration.

But the ironic thing, Mr. Chairman, is that after you take this $60 billion out of defense, it would get hit again once sequestration kicks in. So in effect this doubles the cuts that come on defense from sequestration. It is mistaken. It is tragically mistaken, and I think it should be rejected.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

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

I appreciate my colleague from Alabama and I would just conclude with two points. One, is that it is in the Constitution where it clearly provides that a primary, and I believe the primary responsibility of the Federal Government, is to defend the country. You can't do that on the cheap. Obviously, you have to be efficient. You shouldn't waste money, but the first job of the Federal Government is to defend the country.

The second point I'd want to make is this: there are some people who seem to want to stick their head in the sand and believe that all the threats have gone away.

As a matter of fact, the President seemed to say a few weeks ago in his speech that the war on terrorism was over. And then today, the President acknowledges that there is evidence that is clear, at least in his mind, that chemical weapons have been used in Syria.

So, whether you think about al Qaeda and its affiliates spreading out all over the world or whether you think about the very real dangers of chemical weapons in Syria, not just being used against Syrians, but potentially getting in the hands of terrorists and being used against us, or whether you think about the new domain of warfare, which is cybersecurity, or warfare in space, whether you think about the potential military rise of China and what that means for the United States and its interests, as you just wrap your mind around the headlines and the news of the world, my point is, the threats have not gone away. This is a dangerous world.

Only the United States is a super power to maintain stability and to protect the lives and freedoms of Americans. That takes some resources.

We've already cut defense. We've already cut defense enough, and certainly, we should not cut defense again.

This amendment, as I say, Mr. Chairman, is dangerous. It should be rejected.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as a designee of the chairman, and 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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Collins).

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

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

I appreciate the chairman yielding.

I think the first thing that should be said is that it is a tremendous credit to the chairman and the ranking member that we are where we are today. It may be true that for 51 straight years a defense authorization bill has been signed into law, but that doesn't make it easy to do number 52.

There are still a number of complex and even some controversial issues. And so to have this bill before us today coming out of the committee on a vote that is so strong I think is truly a credit to the leadership of the chairman and the ranking member and the staff who have worked very well together.

I also want to express particular appreciation to the ranking member on our subcommittee, Mr. Langevin, because that, too, has been a partnership in dealing with a number of complex issues, including Special Operations, cybersecurity, science and technology, and military intelligence issues.

One of the key priorities for us on this subcommittee has been oversight. If you think back 2 years ago, in this bill we instituted a quarterly reporting requirement for certain counterterrorism operations involving Special Operations. Last year, we had a quarterly reporting requirement on cyber operations. This year, in the full committee mark, is a reporting requirement involving sensitive military operations, including lethal and capture operations that is designed for oversight before, just after, and, in a broader sense, after these events have occurred. Oversight is a critically important part of everything the committee does, especially in these complex areas.

There are a number of other provisions, Mr. Chairman, dealing with military intelligence, cyber, Special Operations, and science and technology that take important steps forward in helping this country to be safer.

I will note I find it strange, the administration seems to oppose requiring the Defense Clandestine Service to focus its collection on defense priorities. That is what we require in this bill, and for some reason that gives the administration heartburn. I hope we can continue to have conversations with them about it because it seems to me that's exactly what a defense clandestine service should be focused on.

There are other priorities here dealing with chem/biodefense and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency that deal with some of the issues most in the news today--think of Syria and other problem spots around the world.

The key point, Mr. Chairman, is it has taken a lot of work to get to this point; we have a lot of amendment debate to come. But it is truly a credit to the staff, to the chairman, to the ranking member of this committee that something so important, so complex has come to the floor with such overwhelming bipartisan support. We'll have differences, but I hope and trust that it will leave the floor in the same way.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of very important report language included in the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which will sustain inland Border Patrol stations in states along our nation's southern border.

In 2012, the U.S. Border Patrol proposed to close nine interior Border Patrol stations as part of a cost-savings proposal. Six of the nine proposed closures are located in Texas, including one located in my district in the city of Amarillo. The U.S. Border Patrol made this announcement without first ensuring that local law enforcement agencies will have the necessary resources to deal with the serious illegal immigration problems in our area. The inland stations proposed for closure apprehend hundreds of illegal aliens every year. If these closures are allowed, several hundred illegal aliens would have to be let go due to the lack of federal presence.

Since the proposal was unveiled last year, I have repeatedly heard from numerous local law enforcement officials who have serious concerns about the detrimental effect this would have on our local communities. They also believe this impact could reverberate throughout the country.

You do not have to be on--or even near--the border to see and feel the effects of illegal immigration on our local communities, and that is something we want to make sure the folks in Washington understand. Enforcement of our immigration laws does not stop at the border. Interior enforcement is essential as well. The Supreme Court has confirmed that it is the federal government's job to enforce these laws.

The Border Patrol cited ``cost-saving measures'' as a reason for this proposal, but it is simply penny-wise and pound-foolish. Although the agency anticipates closing these nine stations could save $1.3 million, they admit it will cost $2.47 million to transfer all the agents to other stations.

When I first brought these concerns to the U.S. Border Patrol, I was told time and time again that the agency was working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to develop a transition plan to ensure that someone from the federal government will be there to pick up the phone when local law enforcement needs their help. To date, I have seen no evidence of a viable plan. There appears to be no draft plan or even an outline of a plan. There are simply too many unanswered questions to allow these inland border patrol station closures to proceed.

Any country must be able to control who and what comes across its borders. A government that cannot or will not do so fails in one of its most basic responsibilities.

I would like to thank the Appropriations Committee and Subcommittee Chairman Carter for including this important language. I look forward to continuing to work together to ensure that our country is not left with a gaping hole in the enforcement of our immigration laws.

Mr. Chairman, I offer the amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, let me first commend and express my appreciation to Chairman Hastings and Mr. Holt and others who have worked on this legislation. Indeed, we have come a long way from the days when helium was essentially a government-run monopoly to this legislation, which helps bring in more market forces, more competition, more free enterprise, and, I think, will help move toward developing more supplies of helium in the future, as was just discussed on the last amendment.

It is in exactly that spirit that I offer this amendment which seeks to affirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to allow others who are not currently connected to the helium repository to connect to it and to store their helium there, assuming, of course, they've got to pay their own way. So whatever costs are incurred with allowing others to connect and to store, those costs have to be met by the individuals, not by the taxpayer.

But by doing that, I think we do at least take a step towards encouraging more helium supplies to be developed. And the side benefit is, as these other helium supplies are stored in the repository, that helps keep the pressure up in the dome so that, ultimately, more helium, government helium and private helium, can be extracted.

So I think this is perfectly in keeping with the theme of the bill. It moves in the right direction to encourage the expansion of more helium supplies, and I hope that the Members will consider it favorably.

I yield to the chairman.

I thank the gentleman.

I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I thank both gentlemen, Mr. Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, April 15, 2013, I was unable to be in Washington and missed rollcall votes No. 103 ``To amend title 31, United States Code, to make improvements in the Government Accountability Office,'' No. 104 ``To prohibit the awarding of a contract or grant in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee has no seriously delinquent tax debts, and for other purposes,'' and No. 105 ``To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that persons having seriously delinquent tax debts shall be ineligible for Federal employment.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on all three bills.

I appreciate the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I've got to observe that I wish that all of the Members on both sides of the aisle who decry sequestration today had voted with those of us who passed bills twice last year to target cuts rather than having this across-the-board approach. This bill, like sequestration, is not what any of us would like. If it were up to me, for example, I would replace the money that it takes out of Defense and probably rearrange a lot of the domestic spending as well. Imperfect as this measure is, I believe it is absolutely essential that we pass it today. I want to focus for just a second on Defense.

Even if you spend the same amount of money on a continuing resolution or on an appropriation bill, it makes an enormous amount of difference which of those vehicles one uses because, in a regular appropriation bill, you can have the flexibility to meet the current needs. With a CR, you are locked into last year's levels, and that breeds inefficiencies and waste. So just to get the same amount of equipment, for example, it takes more money under a CR than it does under a regular appropriation bill.

You just had the question posed: Why do this just for Defense? Why treat Defense differently and have a full appropriation bill for Defense and MILCON and Veterans and not the rest of it? Let me offer some answers:

Number one is because we can. Both the House and Senate appropriators have negotiated a Defense appropriation bill. It is there for us to take and include in this measure, so Chairman Rogers has picked it up and included it in this CR.

A second reason is that the House and Senate have passed and the President has signed into law a Defense authorization bill that is consistent with this appropriation bill. There is no other area of government that has done that. So if you look at what already is the law, passing an appropriation bill to implement it makes sense.

A third reason is that Defense took a disproportionate share of the cuts under sequestration. Defense is 18 percent of the Federal budget. It had to absorb 50 percent of the cuts. It took a disproportionate share, and therefore some relief from the constraints will be had by the continuing resolution and make sense especially for Defense.

I'll tell you a fourth reason to treat Defense differently is that defense is the first job of the Federal Government. We send our soldiers and intelligence community personnel to all parts of the world to risk their lives to defend us, and it seems to me that the least we could do is give them the flexibility and support they need to do their jobs.

Therefore, I think it is absolutely essential for the country's defense that we pass this appropriation bill, and I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to support it.

Mr. Speaker, it was the issue of taxes that led to me running for Congress in the first place. The question of how much of your money the government forces from us is central to the relationship of the individual with government and to the freedom of the individual. And in the past several years through calls, emails, and personal meetings, I have heard from many of my constituents about the necessity of having stability in the tax code.

Making the current tax rates permanent for the vast majority of Americans, as this bill does, is a major accomplishment. No longer will the threat of major tax increases because of an expiring law hang over the heads of taxpayers. Providing tax certainty for individuals and businesses has long been needed and will allow them to plan and make decisions. Hopefully, it will help the economy grow. And finally having an answer on the death tax, although I prefer to abolish it entirely, is also critical for every farmer, rancher, and small business person in the country.

The clearest reason to vote against this bill is because of what it does not do--limit spending. Too much spending, along with low economic growth, is the reason that our debt is mounting and that our children's future is in peril. This bill is a missed opportunity to take meaningful action to deal with that problem, and I supported efforts to have significant spending cuts included in this measure. But it is not our last opportunity.

It is always possible to justify voting against a bill for what is not included in it. One must go further and ask, ``What happens if this bill is defeated? Will the result be better or worse for the country?'' We also have to make a judgment on what is possible with the current cast of characters that the American people have elected to office. It does no good to imagine some ideal measure that could never pass the Democratically-controlled Senate or that President Barack Obama would never sign into law. I am a conservative, and I am also a realist.

The answers to those questions lead me to conclude that it is better to approve this bill at this time, understanding that we must use the next few weeks of discussion about the debt limit to find a way to significantly reduce spending and begin to get our economic house in order. House Republicans do not have to accomplish everything in one bill, but time is running out for us to get spending under control. In coming weeks, we will need to consider every tool at our disposal to convince the White House and the Senate on the imperative of cutting spending.

Of course, there are provisions in this bill with which I disagree. For example, extending some of the tax credits from the stimulus bill and continuing to pay unemployment for an additional year discourage work and encourage further dependency on government. But they total about $100 billion out of a $4 trillion bill; the rest of the ``cost'' is due to extending tax provisions that have been in place for more than a decade.

Stepping back and looking at the whole picture, it seems clear to me that preventing a tax increase for most Americans and making all tax rates permanent is an important step for families all across the country and for the economy as a whole.

Other provisions contained in this bill are important to the people in my district. One would extend the current farm bill for the remainder of the fiscal year, allowing farmers and their bankers to make decisions on planting. That provision also prevents the price of milk from doubling this week. Another section prevents the 27% cut in Medicare reimbursement to doctors, which would have made it very difficult for Medicare patients to find a physician to treat them.

Approving this measure is just a step. Next, we must do whatever is required to control spending, especially spending in mandatory programs that constitute nearly two-thirds of the budget. I continue to support comprehensive tax reform, which can ease the pain to taxpayers, help us be more competitive in the world, and give our economy a real boost. We do not have to do all of these things in one bill--and it would be a mistake to try--but we must do them for the sake of our country and our future.

First, let me commend the chairman, the ranking member, and all the staff members for getting us here.

Unfortunately, it is all too rare for the House to consider a bill with over 140 amendments on the floor here, have it passed, have a bill pass the Senate, go to a conference committee, and then have the conference report come back out to go to the President. It is all too rare, but if it's going to happen, it ought to happen on a bill dealing with the country's national security, and obviously that's what this bill does.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good bill that makes significant progress in a number of areas. From the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, which I'm pleased to lead with Mr. Langevin, the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island, we enhance oversight of cyber-operations in this bill, although we both acknowledge there is much more work to be done in the field of cyber. We meet some of the unfunded requirements of our special operations forces. We take steps to improve the management of our science and technology programs. And there are improvements to acquisition of information technology, which is an increasing challenge to the Pentagon because it does not fit within our normal acquisition methods.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would just comment briefly. The gentleman from New York read the provision in this bill that deals with detention. It is absolutely true that this bill affirms yet again that the original Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed in 2001 or last year's NDAA does not change the basic constitutional rights to which all persons in the United States are entitled. Now, it may be that there are some people who are unhappy with those basic constitutional rights; they think it should be more, or they think the Supreme Court has misinterpreted some of those rights. That is a different debate.

But there has been a fair amount of misinformation on this point, and I think for all Members who are concerned about this issue who get questioned about this issue, just read the language which says nothing changes those basic constitutional rights.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a great community program in my district. For thirty years, Mineral Wells ISD and the American Legion Post 75 have co-sponsored an outstanding program to recognize and honor our nation's veterans. This program is held in the high school stadium and is open to all people of the community and the area. All school students of Mineral Wells ISD are driven by bus to the stadium. This year the program was held on November 12th for an audience of approximately 5500.

Some of the neighboring schools also bring their students to the program. The program comprises performances from all campuses of Mineral Wells ISD including the kindergarten drill team, choirs from the middle school, and students from the junior and senior high schools. The high school band performs a pre-ceremony concert while attendees get seated. A dance team from the high school performs as well.

This year, Lt. General Richard E. ``Tex'' Brown III (USAF, Ret.) was the guest speaker. He was a former graduate of Mineral Wells High School. Lt. General Brown spoke of the great respect this area has for the military and for veterans. The Master of Ceremonies was LTC Robert Clayton Evans (US Army, Ret.). He also was a former graduate of Mineral Wells High School, a West Point graduate, and a member of the American Legion Post 75. It was a great homecoming for both men.

American Legion, Sons of the Legion, and American Legion Auxiliary state commanders and presidents attended this program. Elected officials of the county and school officials also were among the platform guests.

Students from Mineral Wells High School also helped with other duties involved with the program. Some passed out programs or helped seat groups in the stands. Some passed out small flags to the crowd or helped fill red, white, and blue balloons for the final song.

Local Legion members performed a flag service and presented service flags in the program. Another member manned a small cannon to open the program after a local pilot presented a flyover to honor our veterans. Lunch was served after the program by more local members of the American Legion Post 75 family.

Mineral Wells recognizes the service that veterans have given to our country now and in the past with this outstanding program. For that reason, Mineral Wells ISD and American Legion Post 75 should be noted for their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, today I am supporting H.R. 915, the Jaime Zapata Border Enforcement Security Task Force Act. This measure would establish Border Enforcement Security Task Force (BEST) teams within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to facilitate ``collaboration among federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law enforcement agencies to execute coordinated activities in furtherance of border security, and homeland security'' and enhance information sharing among the agencies.

This mission is a very important one. And I encourage DHS to consult with local and state law enforcement on how these teams could best be used to fill gaps in border security.

I am particularly concerned about a proposal to close several interior border patrol stations. As an example, from 2007 through 2011 Border Patrol agents assigned to the Amarillo station made from 383 to 745 apprehensions per year. Despite this volume, the Border Patrol proposed closing its Amarillo station--along with eight other interior stations, six of them in Texas. The absence of the Amarillo interior Border Patrol station would leave no federal agency for hundreds of miles to take custody of illegal aliens or to assist local law enforcement with investigations.

I do not know whether the BEST teams authorized in this measure could fulfill the responsibilities of the border patrol stations that are proposed for closure. But I strongly recommend that DHS continue to examine ways to ensure that this vital federal responsibility is fulfilled.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 94 veterans from Texas who will be visiting Washington, D.C., this week through the Texas Panhandle Honor Flight. On behalf of a grateful state and nation, we welcome these heroes to the nation's capital.

The veterans on this flight are: Charles Allen, U.S. Army Air Corps; Larry K. Baggett, U.S. Marine Corps; Wayne Baker, U.S. Army Air Corps; Jack Barnes, U.S. Navy; John Barnes, U.S. Navy; Donald E. Barton, U.S. Navy; Emmett L. Barton, U.S. Army; Clarence A. Betzen, U.S. Air Force; Kenneth S. Bjork, U.S. Navy; Albert Bland, U.S. Air Force; Clarence O. Bodling, U.S. Marine Corps; Van E. Bradford, U.S. Army; Roy M. Bradstreet, U.S. Army; Billy F. Brown, U.S. Army; Jerry Buttel, U.S. Air Force; Herbert R. Bytheway, U.S. Air Force; Lewis Cates, U.S. Army; Michael Cattaneo, U.S. Army; Paul E. Cattaneo, U.S. Army; Ernest Clark, U.S. Air Force; Lee J. Clark, U.S. Navy; Rodney E. Clark, U.S. Air Force; Ronald E. Clark, U.S. Army; Richard L. Collins, U.S. Navy; Michael Colon-Mateo, U.S. Army; Robert O. Counts, U.S. Army; Nicholas Devito, U.S. Army; William M. Edes, Texas Army National Guard; Warren Farris, U.S. Air Force; Donald E. Fine, U.S. Air Force; Antonio C. Flores, U.S. Army; John M. Gilbreath, U.S. Army; Kenneth G. Hammit, U.S. Navy; Homer Hampton, U.S. Navy; William J. Harris, U.S. Navy; James M. Hash, U.S. Army; Kenneth Holcomb, U.S. Army; Arthur L. Hulsey, U.S. Navy; Walton R. Humphrey, U.S. Navy; Joe R. Irwen, U.S. Marine Corps; Blythe Johnson, U.S. Navy; Robert Johnson, U.S. Army; Carl R. Lee, U.S. Navy; Elmer H. Lehnick, U.S. Army; Delwood Locke, U.S. Navy; Cecil E. McCarrell, U.S. Navy; Bill McCarty, U.S. Army; James O. McCracken, U.S. Army; Larry M. McCracken, U.S. Navy; Arch R. Moseley, U.S. Army; Felix P. Mote, U.S. Army; Frank Muratori, U.S. Army; Stephen L. Myers, U.S. Air Force; Wayne Nevins, U.S. Army; Clarence H. Nichols, U.S. Army; Anthony L. Paschel, U.S. Army; Don L. Patterson, U.S. Navy; Travis W. Peninger, U.S. Air Force; Jeffrey W. Pickard, U.S. Navy; Ellis B. Posey, U.S. Army; Jerald B. Post, U.S. Navy; Ronnie D. Powell, U.S. Army; William N. Quattlebaum, U.S. Navy; Ernest H. Ramm, U.S. Army; Roger Redman, U.S. Army; Donald E. Ricks, U.S. Army; E.J. Riley, U.S. Coast Guard; Joe C. Rivera, U.S. Army; Joe M. Rivera, U.S. Air Force; William W. Rowell, U.S. Army Air Corps; Jacquelynn R. Salek, U.S. Navy; Richard G. Schacher, U.S. Air Force; Danny W. Schilling, U.S. Army; Calvin W. Skipper, U.S. Navy; Milton M. Skipper, U.S. Army; David S. Stear, U.S. Army; Charles R. Stokesberry, U.S. Army Air Corps; Larry D. Teague, U.S. Navy; Robert A. Thompson, Sr., U.S. Marine Corps; Clifford W. Thornton, U.S. Army; Bobby J. Thorpe, U.S. Navy; Brent V. Thorpe, U.S. Marine Corps; Fredric E. Tout, U.S. Air Force; Scott Tout, U.S. Army; William P. Vann, Texas Army National Guard; Eugene S. Waits, U.S. Navy; Jack D. Waller, U.S. Army; Butch G. Warren, U.S. Navy; Forrest W. Warren, U.S. Army; Robert C. Whitney, U.S. Navy; Roy L. Wilhite, U.S. Army; Reece Wilterding, U.S. Army; James Windor, U.S. Army; Otho Wiseman, U.S. Army.

Mr. Speaker, I am humbled by the opportunity to meet these men and women who exemplify the greatness of America. The services they rendered to our country can never be fully repaid, but I hope that when they visit Washington, D.C., it will reflect the gratitude and respect we have for them.

Colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and their families for their exemplary dedication and service to this great nation. I would also like to extend a special thank you to the local communities, all of the volunteers, and Mr. Jack Barnes 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 the people who have put in so much hard work and personal time to make sure this trip could be possible.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the House must vote on whether to hold the Attorney General in contempt for refusing to produce documents in his Department. The underlying facts are disturbing and tragic, leading to the death of a Border Patrol officer and several hundred people in Mexico. The Attorney General should work with Congress to understand what went wrong rather than to withhold information and attempt to thwart the investigation.

The power of Congress to investigate and conduct oversight of federal agencies has been well established throughout our history. The late claim of Executive Privilege made here, on the other hand, is not consistent with precedent or previous court rulings. One can only conclude that the Attorney General, perhaps on the instruction of the President, is trying to prevent Congress and the American people from learning the truth.