Floor Statements

I appreciate my friend yielding to me.

I simply want to rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. The agreement that was reached--and I think some people used the agreement as an excuse to do nothing--is 40 years old. It was entered into in 1973. Well, they agreed to it. I graduated from law school in 1973. The world is a much different place today. People have changed. I certainly think our environmental consciousness has improved and our consciousness of our responsibility in this has improved. And I do think this is an opportunity to rectify that.

I serve on the Energy and Water Subcommittee of this great committee. The chairman chairs that Energy and Water Subcommittee. Unfortunately, in the Formerly Used Defense Sites that were cited by the gentleman, we have over 10,000 properties, which is one of the problems I think the gentleman alludes to as far as the costs we have to deal with. All the more reason, I believe, that we ought to be very assiduous and active in beginning to address these sites.

So I appreciate the gentleman raising it, and I certainly support his position.

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

Mr. Chairman, I had my breath taken away with the assertion that the President of the United States might give away the most intimate defense secrets of this country to Russia, and that we are debating an amendment to Defense appropriations, with all of the other problems we face and all the threats we face in this country, based on the assumption that the President of the United States might give away the most intimate defense secrets of this country to Russia.

I would simply ask my colleagues to think about the underlying assumptions based in the gentleman's amendment and vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman responds to my concern by suggesting that he has discovered the possibility that the President of the United States is going to give away the most intimate secrets this country holds to Russia through the media. I'm wondering--and I ask this question simply rhetorically, not necessarily of my colleague--I wonder if that was FOX News. I wonder if he saw that on the Colbert Report recently. I wonder if that was on the John Stewart program.

I was watching CNN, and I didn't see any report of that yesterday; although, I saw that a baby was born in another country. Despite the world coming apart, that was the headline news. I didn't see MSNBC, and I don't know if that was it. Perhaps it was even on a BBC telecast. But I'm wondering what media outlets are providing this inside information as to the deliberations of the President of the United States to give away these cherished secrets.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time, and I understand I have the right to close.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman indicated, in query to my rhetorical question, that all I have to do is Google and I will discover the information that will lead to our knowledge that the President of the United States is considering giving away this very sensitive information.

It comes to mind, when the gentleman suggests I should Google it, how many different encounters I have had with members of the public who said, ``I saw it on the Internet; it must be true.'' For example, Members of Congress, after serving one term, receive a full salary pension for the rest

of their lives; and Members of Congress receive free health care for the rest of their lives; and Members of Congress, for the last 4 years in a row, have received significant pay increases because they Googled it on the Internet, and so they secured very specific, accurate information. Perhaps we should go to Facebook or LinkedIn or reddit, or maybe we should tweet each other.

Again, in very serious concern, I would suggest my colleagues absolutely reject this amendment. I would ask for their vote against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding and rise in strong support of his amendment.

The gentleman who is in opposition mentions that the administration mentions the United States Constitution. The fact is we have a constitutional responsibility. With the passage of more than a decade and a changing world--and I would agree with the gentleman, something else may be in store--we ought to revisit that issue. We ought to exercise our constitutional, congressional prerogative and have a full debate.

Again, the gentleman is providing over 1\1/2\ years. In such a serious issue, I think even this Congress could come to grips with that type of fundamental issue and resolve the future.

So I strongly support what the gentleman is doing and appreciate his amendment.

I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding and the chairman's support.

Madam Chair, the amendment does seek to target an important part of the process when prosecuting a sexual assault--the investigation of the incident.

As the Congresswoman pointed out, the Inspector General found this particular part of the process lacking in terms of interviewing victims, investigating crime scenes, and notifying the sexual assault response coordinator. The funding proposed would provide the means to include special training for tactics and techniques when investigating crimes of these natures. I would join the chairman of the committee in thanking her for raising the issue and strongly support it.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and would like to associate myself with his kind remarks, and appreciate the gentlewoman for offering the amendment and would like to indicate my support for the amendment as well.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the additional 10 minutes on the amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman for offering the amendment.

Madam Chair, I would point out in my opening remarks that I think the fundamental responsibility of this body is to be engaged in these types of situations and to make determinations relative to our constitutional responsibility, particularly in dangerous situations when it involves military action. Syria, for example, is reported to have the fourth most sophisticated, integrated air defense of any nation on the planet Earth. Reports in the media indicate that Russia has kept these systems resupplied and up to date technologically.

It is but one of many things that we have to consider as far as the safety and well-being of those who are in our military forces, as well as, ultimately, what our national interests are.

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

Madam Chair, I would make an additional observation on the gentleman's amendment.

There are political and diplomatic issues of Russia's relationship with the Assad regime. Altering this relationship over the long run may become an objective of U.S. foreign policy. Maybe. Maybe not. However, entering into an armed conflict with this relationship in mind is a dangerous step, among many other dangerous steps, and it renews the prospect of a more openly hostile relationship with a country that otherwise had ended the Cold War. So it's certainly an additional reason as to my appreciation for the gentleman offering the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Chair, from my perspective, I would also make it clear that what we're talking about at this point is the use of military force. There is no question that there is a significant and tragic humanitarian crisis taking place.

It is estimated that about 6.8 million people are in need of various types of humanitarian assistance in Syria itself. There are about 4.25 million people displaced within that country. We have 1.78 million Syrians displaced to neighboring countries. There were 486,972, as of the latest count, that are refugees in Jordan; 607,908 are refugees in Lebanon; 412,789 are refugees in Turkey; 161,014 are refugees in Iraq, and 92,367 in Egypt. It's one reason why today it's estimated that about $814 million of U.S. humanitarian aid has been expended for good purposes. That's certainly not what we're talking about here today, and I certainly would want to make our colleagues understand that as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the gentlewoman as much time as she may consume.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Either to yourself or possibly for the author of the amendment, the question I have, because there has been a lot of talk, it is ``not the intent of the amendment'' to interfere with any intercooperation we have today with the Egyptians. It is not our intent not to be involved in the Sinai, but the amendment reads no funds, and then goes on to fund military operations in Egypt.

If I am an adviser, if I am a member of the uniformed services, how is the intent met under the particular restrictions of the amendment? That would be my question.

If the gentleman will yield, as a Member of the House and the committee, I would want to participate in that to ensure we do not disrupt the very positive interchange that is taking place.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of California (Ms. Lofgren).

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

Madam Chair, I would rise to enter into a colloquy with my colleague from Washington (Mr. Heck) and I yield to the gentleman.

I appreciate the gentleman raising the issue. I am aware of it, and would gladly work with him to get the answers on this proposal.

Madam Chair, I simply want to take this time to thank someone I have a profound respect for, as we all do, my chairman, our chairman, Bill Young from Florida, for the masterful job he has done leading us to this point. And I would ask that he be given a round of applause.

I want to thank the members of the subcommittee and the staff. And I would also want to thank four young people who've worked in our offices this summer for all of their efforts on our behalf: Craig, Morgan, Deepa, and Matt.

Finally, I want to thank all of my colleagues. We did work our way through 100 amendments. From my perspective, this is exactly how this institution should work, to have issues and disagreement, to have discussions, to have votes, and to have a conclusion to the process, and to report a bill.

So, again, I thank my colleagues, and I thank the chair and the colleagues I work with every day on the Defense Subcommittee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to Chairman Young, and to congratulate him on the bipartisan and transparent manner in which he has crafted the fiscal year 2014 Defense bill.

I also want to express my gratitude to Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, and all of the members of the Defense Subcommittee for their efforts. We would not be here today but for their outstanding effort.

I would also note that this will be the last Defense appropriations bill we bring to the floor with the membership of Mr. Bonner from Alabama. With his leaving this institution, we are losing a very serious and thoughtful Member who has worked assiduously every day to leave the world better, and I certainly want to recognize his individual contribution.

The bill also could not have been written without the dedication, hard work, and sound judgment of the staff that Mr. Young has already referenced. I do want to thank Tom McLemore, Sherry Young, Tim Prince, Jennifer Miller, Walter Hearne, Paul Terry, BG Wright, Brooke Boyer, Ann Reese, Adrienne Ramsey, Megan Rosenbusch, Maureen Holohan, Paul Juola, Rebecca Leggieri, Kent Clark, Michael Rigney, and Joe DeVooght.

The bill at hand is fundamentally aimed at restoring readiness and training for the services to areas that have suffered greatly in the budgetary upset of the current year.

While Chairman Young has noted that the bill's $212 billion in funding is approximately $28 billion more than the fiscal year 2013 post-sequestration level, it does contain a number of significant reductions. The bill cuts $617.8 million from the Joint Strike Fighter program to address unjustified cost growth and unjustified concurrency estimates for the program. It cuts another $112 million due to an overstatement of Army travel requirements. The bill rescinds $443 million for C-27-J aircraft.

The bill and report contain a significant amount of language and robust funding for initiatives to respond to sexual assault in the armed services. Sexual assault in any circumstance is unacceptable and maddening. The fact that it is prevalent within the military is even more so because of the standard to which our men and women in uniform hold themselves. These are individuals who are committed to give their ``last full measure of devotion'' to our Nation, who, in order to be effective, need to unconditionally trust each other. Sexual assault undermines all of this.

Though I strongly support the efforts contained in this bill, they are aimed mainly at offender accountability and caring for victims. Even though the comprehensive solution to this issue lies outside the services, it is imperative that the proper attitudes and training start during the recruitment process for the officers and enlisted and continue throughout each servicemembers' career.

I would also note that the bill includes $20 million above the request for suicide prevention and outreach, consistent with the funding level of the past 2 years. Suicides are another disheartening problem within the services, especially given the emphasis that the Department and Congress have placed on the issue over the past few years. But money is not the only solution. We need to spend the appropriated dollars as wisely and as effectively as possible.

I was taken aback in a hearing earlier this year to learn that the Navy has a collection of 123 programs aimed at addressing suicide and resiliency. While I am sure that each one of these programs is well- intentioned, the sheer number spreads resources too thin and creates confusion. To their credit, the Navy is in the process of implementing task force recommendations to dedicate more resources to the programs that truly work.

Additionally, I would like to express my support for a solution that benefits all future users of the Integrated Electronic Health Record program. I am proud of the efforts of our subcommittee and of the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs Subcommittee to effectuate this long-awaited improvement to medical care for our still-serving military members and our veterans. Additionally, the cooperation between our subcommittees and with our corresponding authorization committees demonstrates the importance Congress places on the issue.

I am pleased that the bill report contains provisions that enhance oversight at the Department. The Office of the Inspector General is funded at $347 million, which is nearly $35 million above the administration's request. This office plays a vital role in moving the Department towards auditable financial statements, which are long overdue and which I attach great importance to.

Also, while the committee increased funding relative to the budget request for environmental cleanup at Formerly Used Defense Sites, this increase is accompanied by additional reporting requirements. In the same vein as my prior comments, the money in this program must be spent more effectively going forward to ensure that we complete cleanup projects, not just continue them.

Regarding missile defense, the bill increases advance procurement funding for additional Ground-Based Interceptors. This funding is accompanied by a requirement to document the adequacy of the testing plan for the Ground-Based Interceptors.

In light of the program's recent test failure, I continue to be very concerned about the concurrency of this program. I believe it is essential to maintain rigorous standards to ensure that the weapons we pursue are fully developed before we begin fielding them, and once fielded, that these weapons effectively perform their missions.

Further, should the review to determine the cause of the latest test failure reveal significant problems, and if we understand that this program needs to be changed, we should reevaluate our position in conference.

While I support the bill, there are a few provisions that I have concerns with, in particular, the three general provisions regarding detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

I believe that the continued operation of Guantanamo Bay reduces our Nation's credibility and weakens our national security by providing terrorist organizations with recruitment material. I do regret that this bill and other relevant appropriations bills continue to thwart any attempts to close Guantanamo by prohibiting viable alternatives.

Further, I am concerned that the bill essentially prohibits a pay raise for civilian employees at the Department of Defense. We rely on the Department of Defense civilians working side by side with our military personnel to provide medical care for our troops, to perform vital logistics, maintenance and acquisition services, and to provide many other essential services within the Department. Even a modest raise that maintains pay equity between civilian and military personnel sends a critical message of support to these employees.

Looking ahead, I am concerned that if the shadows of the future remain unaltered, we will experience serious problems ensuring the continued defense of our Nation.

As Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments has noted:

Rather than getting larger and more expensive over the past

decade, the military just grew more expensive.

This reality makes our future choices even more difficult, and it is imperative that Congress join with the Department in working through these decisions at arm's length and also as a partner.

The Department of Defense did recommend some very difficult reductions in the budget submitted to us earlier this year, as they have done in previous years. We, as legislators, can no longer afford to reflexively reject those recommendations because they affect a specific company, a specific region of the country, or are simply not the most politic of choices to be made.

Our military is at a familiar crossroad, one they have been at before as the end of combat operations nears. The additions and subtractions to Defense funding made today must be carried out with an eye to the future, with a sense of the strategic impact on America's future ability to muster a force of successfully defending and protecting our country.

In closing, I again want to reiterate my appreciation to Chairman Young for his cooperation and assistance in addressing the interests we have expressed. He and his staff have ensured that the subcommittee continues its long tradition of operating collaboratively and effectively and transparently. I am pleased that we are finally considering this bill on the floor and look forward to the debate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would yield such time as she may consume to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

I would note to the gentleman from California that, with the recent concerns regarding security clearance processes for the Department of Defense and intelligence communities, I appreciate his bringing to our attention that the Department can increase the timeliness and quality of investigations and reinvestigations by using the Defense Personnel Security Research Center tools.

I yield to the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

As we have no further speakers, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I do not rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, but to cast a caution over the expenditure of the proposed funds. The bill contains $4 million, and this is a phenomenal program. I am not in any way suggesting otherwise.

But the gentleman's amendment is quadrupling funding in 1 year for this project from $4 million to $20 million. So I would hope that the people that are running this program understand that in a time of great fiscal constraint, they better very carefully, effectively, and wisely spend this additional money that I'm not objecting to, but I am very concerned about quadrupling $4 million that is already in a bill for a very good program.

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

My understanding as well during subcommittee consideration is that the new START proposed--and this is a new START proposed for 2014--provide very little explanation or rationale, and that's from the Department of Defense. The committee recommendation was for a reduction because of the poor justification by the Department itself. I think I am correct in my understanding.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I also appreciate having the time to associate myself with the remarks you have made on behalf of the gentleman's amendment.

Secondly, I note, as you point out, the subcommittee itself has done significant work and recognizes the problems that we face in the commitment we need to make to the individuals that the gentleman is trying to help with his amendment. So again, I very much appreciate the gentleman's remarks, as well as support for the issue in this particular amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).

Madam Chair, it does not appear that we have any other speakers on our side, so I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Again, I would not be opposed to the gentlewoman's amendment but would want to make the observation, given the observation I made in my opening comments, that I do wish she had chosen a different account for the offset.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I appreciate the recognition. And I think I speak for the subcommittee when I will suggest that we would be delighted to accept the gentlewoman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment and would want to make a couple of things clear to all of my colleagues.

The fact is the administration did ask for money. For the ballistic missile defense midcourse section in the bill they asked for $1.033 billion this year, fiscal year 2014. This is not absent an administration request.

Secondly, the gentleman from Arizona said that the bad test and the problems that they indicate are not unresolvable. I would absolutely agree with the gentleman, but this is a procurement account. Let us resolve these problems before we procure something that last month has not worked so we don't have to pull them out of silos, we don't have to invest additional taxpayers' money, and we don't have to waste that hard-earned money.

There are threats, and we ought to make sure the systems we deploy to protect our Nation work before we procure and deploy them.

I applaud the gentleman for his amendment and strongly support it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I certainly appreciate what my colleague from Wisconsin is trying to do with his amendment. As a former chairman and ranking member on the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, I certainly attach great importance to battery research. Mr. Frelinghuysen is on the floor as well, who chairs Energy and Water.

The concern I do have is to make sure that we are organized as the Federal Government on this research and that we are looking at the appropriate expenditure in the appropriate places for the funds.

One example I simply would give is that, in this 2014 fiscal year's Energy and Water appropriations bill, $24 million was provided to the Joint Center for Energy Research, a DOE energy innovative hub. This hub, which team includes five of the national laboratories and several major research universities, is seeking new technologies to move in the direction that my colleague supports.

So I do appreciate his long-term goal. Obviously, we have to reduce our dependency on carbon fossil fuel from a national security perspective, but, again, I want to make sure that we are cautious as far as where and how much of this money we can effectively spend in the coming fiscal year.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

I rise in opposition because of where the funds for the gentleman's amendment are coming from.

The amendment would use funds from a committee priority, the Defense Rapid Innovation program. This program emphasizes technology development issues done primarily through small businesses.

Certainly, in my short time as ranking member on this subcommittee, I have been impressed by the lack of a true small business program at the Department of Defense, despite their protestations. DOD's track record of support for small businesses must be improved for many reasons, not the least of which is what small businesses provide to solve major issues for the Department. In the 2 years of program execution so far, fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the Department of Defense has received over 3,000 proposals for funding. This includes 2,200 proposals from small businesses across America for fiscal year 2012 funding for completion and execution this year.

Again, my concern is where the money is coming from in this amendment, and I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding and would point out to my colleagues that on this particular issue she has been dogged.

I do believe that this is one of a number of items within the bill where reasonable people can have a disagreement. Certainly the position that my colleague has from New Mexico is that she believes she has the most cost-effective approach that the United States Air Force should take. The problem that we face on the subcommittee, given the financial and fiscal constraints we have, is that the Air Force did not ask for funding for this program for fiscal year 2013 or fiscal year 2014. So we deferred.

I appreciate her concern, and I appreciate her raising it to the body without making any representations as to what the future holds, but again would commend her for her work on this program and again her doggedness on behalf of it.

I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I simply would reiterate that in my opening statements, I indicated that I do believe the language in the bill and the limitations are a mistake. Guantanamo Bay ought to be closed. It is not constructive. I do not believe at this point in time it is constitutional, and so I do support the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, given the time limitation, I would address the issue of furloughs that the gentleman makes.

Furloughs are a result of the Budget Control Act that was passed in 2011. It's the result of sequestration that occurred because of the adoption of that law. The gentleman who has offered the amendment voted for that act that has caused sequestration to occur and now is causing furloughs to take place.

I would point out that I think it is patently wrong to carve out any class of Federal civilian employees to the detriment of others. I mentioned in my opening statement that I thought it was wrong that for the 4th year in a row we are not providing a pay raise for any Federal civilian employee at the Department of Defense, which essentially represents a revenue loss to those employees working for the people of this country of $437 million.

So it is not a lack of sympathy for those who are losing a portion of that paycheck over and above that pay increase for the last 4 years that is the cause of my concern, but I would point out to all of my colleagues that other government agencies have also decided to use furloughs. And as the gentleman rightly pointed out, he doesn't solve all of those problems. They include the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Justice, the Office of Management and Budget.

While this bill under consideration doesn't fund these agencies, where is the outcry, where is the concern for those Federal employees, and who is speaking for them now?

Three fiscal year 2014 appropriation bills have passed the House. While the Department of Veterans Affairs was exempted entirely from sequestration under the Budget Control Act that the gentleman voted for, no furlough exemptions were granted within the other two bills. There was no hedging of funds to avert furloughs for them for bills that have already been considered by this body and passed by this House without this type of exemption.

Allowing exemptions for one agency is unfair to others--allowing exemptions that pit one agency against another agency and wrongfully determines the value of work performed by one Federal employee vis-a- vis another depending on what department they work in. If we value the work of our government employees, we should seek to block all scheduled furloughs, not a select few. We should end sequestration. And I did not vote for the Budget Control Act.

Until we fix this problem, the work of the government will not be done as efficiently and as effectively as possible. Maybe parts will not be bought; maybe maintenance will be deferred; maybe somebody is going to lose their job because a contract is not let; maybe someone is furloughed; but we should not temporarily fix one dislocation caused by sequestration that only defers decisions of significance that need to be made today, going forward.

Again, I would strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I will be happy to yield to the chairman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

As the U.S. draws down forces--and I appreciate the chairman's remarks--for the post-2014 security environment, we should prepare to leave Afghanistan on positive terms. We should help repair a nation torn by years of war with the means to develop itself and to move beyond the past conflict. And so I am opposed to the means to finance the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman suggests that we need a new relationship with Pakistan. The gentleman claims--and I'm sorry that the easel just disappeared, but I believe it was about 64 percent of the Pakistan people consider us the enemy. I don't know the origin of that report, but I would take it at face value given the representation of my colleague.

My colleague also suggests there's another poll that says 81 percent of the U.S. people do not have a favorable opinion about Pakistan.

He did say that we need a new relationship, and I would agree with him. I think relationships are built on communication, and not polls. I think if we governed all of our actions in this Congress based on polls, we would get nothing done. Sometimes we have to suck it up and do things that maybe at first are not politic to do. Sometimes people fight in their families, unfortunately. And hopefully they sit down and communicate and resolve their differences. Sometimes different groups of people have problems and maybe even don't like each other sometimes. But if they talk to each other and they get to know each other, maybe they can resolve their differences.

The relationship with Pakistan, I would not deny, has been difficult, but maintaining that relationship is essential. This relationship has helped the U.S. make progress against terrorism. And Pakistan has allocated a significant part of their forces within their own borders to the counterterrorism mission.

The world, I would remind my colleagues, is a very great place. In June of 2012, Pakistan demonstrated its commitment to a stable and secure Afghanistan by reopening the ground lines of communication. I regret, with the gentleman, that they were closed for a period of time. This has eased tensions with the U.S. and improved logistical support for our troops.

Withdrawal of U.S. assistance would likely polarize Pakistan and exacerbate significant pro- and anti-American rifts within their military and their government generally--rifts and difficulties we should be looking to heal, not exacerbate today. Aggravating this divide is very, very counterproductive to the objectives in this region.

I would add one further comment. In addition to counterterrorism activity, the fact is Pakistan's nuclear weapons capability provides ample reason for the U.S. to continue positive engagement.

I certainly would appreciate yielding to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) if he wishes it.

I appreciate the gentleman for his remarks, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I would, first of all, not make any representations as to what will happen ultimately in conference; that is unpredictable. But I do compliment the woman for pointing out the valuable role that the Guard serves both as far as our military as well as disaster relief.

The fact is that additional resources are needed as far as saving lives and ensuring people's safety. In particular, again, a dual use, if you would, a twofer. The fact is, despite the large amount of money set aside in this bill, there are fiscal constraints. Some of that pressure is evidenced by the lack of funding for the program that you so ardently are addressing. So again, I would think, speaking for myself, I certainly hear your voice.

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

I have used the infrastructure fund in Afghanistan on any number of occasions in my district and in the committee and on this floor as an example of the failure of our country to invest in the infrastructure of the United States of America, and have indicated that we are spending money to invest in the infrastructure of Afghanistan and failing in the United States.

The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that in the coming years we have about $3.6 trillion of economic infrastructure investment we need to make, and a shortfall as far as funding is about $1.6 trillion.

But I would note that the gentleman's amendment does not rectify that domestic problem we face because the cut he proposes that I do oppose redirects those funds to the Spending Reduction Account.

The fact is as far as a legacy in giving the people of Afghan a chance in the future, I do believe we have to continue with this program. It was requested by the Secretaries of Defense and State in November of 2010 for the fiscal year 2011 appropriations act. At that time, Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton said it is needed to support critical infrastructure projects, such as an initiative under way to bring electricity, simple electricity, to Kandahar City, which directly supports counterinsurgency strategy.

I would point out to the House that in 1989, the international community--and I think we would have to include our country in that-- abandoned Afghanistan to years of civil war. As a result, this region of the world gave us the Taliban and al Qaeda in the wake of the withdrawal after Soviet incursion of the 1980s. I do not think we should make that mistake again, and we should make an investment.

As I mentioned in an earlier debate, as the U.S. draws down forces for the post-2014 security environment, we should prepare to leave Afghanistan on positive terms. As we depart, the U.S. should help to repair a nation torn by years of war with the means to develop itself to move beyond the past conflict.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Murphy).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and would associate myself with his comments.

I do appreciate the gentleman's concern. The money spent in Afghanistan ought to be spent carefully and efficiently and we ought to have an investment made for those expenditures. But I harken back to the last debate we had when we did abandon this country in 1989, and as a result, that region of the world gave us the Taliban and al Qaeda. I don't want to take that type of chance. And simply because we have failed ourselves in this country by a failure to invest in our infrastructure, I do not believe this is the time to fail the Afghan people. I do associate myself with the gentleman's remarks and am opposed to the amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and simply would take a bit of a different tack.

I do appreciate the gentleman's outrage over any act of corruption, whether it is in the country of Afghanistan or whether it is in the United States of America. We do have a responsibility to make sure these moneys are spent for the intended purposes.

But there is an insinuation that all expenditures in Afghanistan today are subject to corruption. I doubt there is a congressional district in this country that has not had, at some point in time, a public official sent to Federal prison for public corruption.

We then find people in our individual districts who are honest, law- abiding and who make the necessary investments. I am certain that the overwhelming number of people in Afghanistan and their government, as with the United States, are of that ilk. Those are the people we ought to assiduously make sure get this money, and for that reason would be opposed to the amendment.

I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is another in a line of amendments that we have debated here this evening;

and I hate to be repetitive, but I am going to be. We and the international community have failed the country of Afghanistan in the last century. Today, in terms of the loss of life, in terms of injury, and in terms of our national treasure, we are paying the price. For over a decade, we have now had a commitment to this country, and we ought to meet that commitment at the end just as we did at the beginning.

The gentleman wants to prohibit essentially any new projects from commencing. I think it is important for our colleagues to understand that there are a number of very important projects that do need to be undertaken and completed. All of them involve, basically, power systems.

I don't think there's anybody in this Chamber who has not at one time or another lost power to their home or their business. It's something we all take for granted as American citizens. If any of you have read the Caro biography on Lyndon Johnson, in the first volume I was most struck by his chapter describing the day in the life of a woman in Texas with no energy and how hot that house was and how hard it was to bring that water to that house and how difficult it was to make sure clothes were cleaned and food was prepared and how exhausted and bent and broken these women were in the State of Texas before rural electrification took place.

I think there are a lot of people in the country of Afghanistan today, because they lack power, that they are bent and broken, and potentially are subject to being persuaded that there are other avenues to take in life for a better one, as opposed to the principles that our country espouses. I think particularly for those women who are bent and broken because they have no power in the country of Afghanistan, we ought to give them a fighting chance at the end.

We've been fighting in that country for 12 years, let's give them a fighting chance at the end. Let us undertake some new construction to give them that chance. Simply because we have failed in some instances in this country is not, again as I have said before, is a reason that we should fail others.

I see the gentleman from California rise, and I am happy to yield to him.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I did not. I don't want to fail them.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would begin by pointing out that the Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of energy in the United States of America, and I certainly do believe that we need to move from a carbon-based economy, particularly given some of the countries in the world where we procure carbon products such as petroleum. Many people talk about it as an economic problem, and it is. Many people characterize it as an environmental problem, and it is. We're talking about the national defense today, and I certainly agree with former Senator Richard Lugar from the State of Indiana who has always characterized our dependency on foreign petroleum as a national security issue.

This is the perfect bill to have the largest consumer of energy begin to reduce our dependence on these very countries that have cost us so much of our treasure and so many of our lives.

This amendment would defund section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act. The fact is the argument is made that this hurts our readiness and that's not the case. In July the Department of Defense stated very clearly:

The provision has not hindered the Department from

purchasing the fuel we need today worldwide to support

military missions, but it also sets an important baseline in

developing the fuels we need for the future.

The gentleman would indicate that there is nearly a 20-fold difference in the price of renewables and the price of petroleum at the pump today. The price of $3-some cents a gallon, unfortunately some jurisdictions $4 a gallon, can be purchased very close to this building. Many of these fuels have to be transported to places like Afghanistan. There's an additional cost that is worked into that 20- fold increase.

Additionally, I do not think we need to complicate the Department's efforts to provide better energy options. We want to give our warfighters as many options as possible when they are in the field to take advantage of.

This section also does not prevent the sale of petroleum products, nor does it prevent Federal agencies from buying these fuels if they need them. Instead, it simply prevents the Federal Government from propping up the makers of these types of fuels with long-term contracts when we're trying to wean ourselves from them.

So I do think that the amendment should be opposed, and I do so.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time, and it is my understanding that I have the right to close.

I maintain my opposition to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I seek to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.

I note that the gentleman's amendment says that none of the funds made available by this act may be used to propose, plan, or execute an additional Base Realignment and Closure round.

If the gentleman had simply said today we should not execute that national additional Base Realignment and Closure round, I would not have stood on my feet. But the fact is, he said we shouldn't propose or plan either.

He also indicated that because we are today paying, I believe, some hundreds of millions of dollars for the current base closure, we should not consider paying for another one.

But the question I would ask, rhetorically, not necessarily of my colleagues, is, don't we have to sometimes make an investment for the future?

That is, there are cleanup costs, there are close-up costs, there are demolition costs, and those are short-term costs. But potentially, those are investments year in and year out for decades where this Nation's taxpayers can save money.

And where the gentleman says we shouldn't consider another closure and, at this point I'm not aware that there's a proposal pending, what if we could save money by doing that?

Should we simply say no?

Should we just say no to everything?

Is it wrong to consider how we might look at every last base and military facility in this country to save taxpayers money?

Essentially, the gentleman's amendment says it's wrong to look at them. It would be wrong to propose to the Congress, that has the authority under article I of the Constitution, to decide whether, then, we execute that proposal.

Is it wrong for an administration to look nationwide where we're spending almost $600 billion for a more expensive Department of Defense, but not a larger one, that says we have a plan, and they send it to the Congress?

But we can't even do that, so we can't have a discussion. We can't have an open and free debate. We can't even, would not be allowed, under the gentleman's amendment, to say, you know what, you've got a plan, but we can make it better. We could make it more efficient. We could amend it, but we're prohibited from doing that.

I think the time for simply saying no, no, no, no, no is gone, and I think the gentleman's amendment is wrong.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I understand I have the right to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the gentleman, on any number of occasions during his discussion, talked about the uncertainty that we face in this country because of sequestration, and I couldn't agree with him more and would point out that the gentleman voted for the Budget Control Act that created sequestration that has now created the uncertainty that we face, which I find very regrettable.

The gentleman, also, in his concluding remarks, indicated that we need to look to save money. I couldn't agree with him more.

He also indicated, and I would accept it for the sake of our discussion here on the House floor, that some of these processes take 13 years. I think the gentleman makes my argument. If it takes 13 years, we ought to start today, so that that child who is born later this week has the benefit of these savings we both want before they get to high school.

Why wait to save the American taxpayers money by potentially not considering a plan?

I think we ought to be thoughtful here, and I oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I won't prolong the debate because this is either the third or fourth installment, if you would, of this debate, but my response to the current iteration is the same as I have expressed throughout the night. We do have an energy problem in the United States of America, and I agree with former Senator Richard Lugar that it is, first and foremost, a national security interest, given where we get petroleum products.

We've been at war in the Middle East. We've been at war in Afghanistan. We have other problems internationally, much of it precipitated because of our dependence on that fuel. This is not the time, I believe, that we ought to in any way, shape, or form retard the largest consumer of energy in this country from examining and helping to create a vibrant market for alternatives to reduce that.

So, for those reasons and the reasons discussed earlier in this evening's debate, I would be opposed to the gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern and the fact that he is focused on working capital that is essentially funded through customer reimbursement, but as I mentioned in an earlier debate, I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I voted against the Budget Control Act. I think sequestration is an abhorrent way to run the government. I was disappointed last year when we made every Federal agency in this Nation, including the Department of Defense, wait 7 months until we told them how much money we were going to give them. And then, we told most of the agencies that we're going to give you what we gave you last year.

Now we're suffering because of furloughs. And the concern I have here, again, is making distinctions between one Federal employee and another. They're all very important. I don't know what going to work every day as a guard in a maximum security Federal prison must be like, but I don't know that we carve out an exception for them. I don't know what it is like to be a Federal law enforcement official working undercover, putting your life at risk, getting reimbursed, but not being carved out for furlough.

We have people at NIH, the National Institutes of Health, doing groundbreaking research as far as people's health and safety; and perhaps they not themselves are risking their lives, but tomorrow, if they were at work, could make a discovery that could improve or prolong someone's life. And I think it's a very difficult proposition to begin to make those distinctions between various Federal employees.

I absolutely share the gentleman's concern as to what is happening with the Federal workforce. I have mentioned in committee and on this floor more than once today that I'm appalled that for 4 years we hold Federal employees in so little regard. We have not given any of them a raise in 4 years. But we scurried to the floor because people were going to be inconvenienced at airports because of potential slowdowns at the FAA. Well, Federal employees actually do things for our safety like make sure, when we leave the ground in an airplane, we're safe.

So, again, I'm very concerned here. The fact is I do think allowing exceptions for one agency is unfair to others. Allowing exceptions that pit one agency against another wrongly determines the value of the work performed by some government employees vis-a-vis others. We ought to value all of their work collectively, together, and should not be looking for temporary fixes of one dislocation, as great as it is, caused by sequestration. What we ought to be about--and I know the gentleman is about--is to end this madness, if you would, and get back to the business of governing this country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the gentlewoman's approach. I have on more than one occasion in talking about the Department of Defense, my constituency indicated, as the gentleman noted, no one should be immune to cuts; and if you can't find 1 cent out of every dollar at the Department of Defense to save, there is something wrong with the leadership at the Department of Defense.

But I rise in reluctant opposition for two reasons:

One is I have an inherent objection to across-the-board cuts because I think we ought to make sure we are very targeted as far as our financial decisions.

Secondly, given the across-the-board cut that has been referenced of more than $30 billion in the current fiscal year because of sequestration under a bill I voted against, we are talking in this instance about filling a significant arbitrary hole.

So again, I would reluctantly be opposed to the gentlewoman's amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as I quoted in my opening remarks, rather than getting larger and more expensive over the past decade, the military has simply grown to be more expensive. Our world has fundamentally changed since the days of the Cold War, and certain aspects of our military's national security strategies have evolved. However,

I do not believe that our nuclear weapons have had a corresponding change relative to our consideration as to their deployment in numbers.

I do think that Congress has a very important role to play in helping the administration make rational decisions as to the size and composition of the stockpile and of the complex that supports it. In talking about that complex as a member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, I will point out that there are significant costs over and above those in this particular bill given the civilian control over the warheads at that particular Department.

I also do not have a concern that, in any way, shape, or form, the gentleman is proposing that we unilaterally disarm this Nation. I believe that we certainly have adequate protection, and I support his amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. I would simply associate myself with his remarks and, particularly, with his introduction.

The subcommittee has had concerns and questions about the program in the past and has worked very closely with the Department of Defense. I do think it shows the oversight that this subcommittee continues to exercise. Again, I join with the gentleman in opposition.

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

I appreciate the gentleman's concern, and would point out that I do think it is long past time that we should be reconsidering the underlying authority--the Authorized Use of Military Force that was approved by the Congress and signed by the President of the United States in 2001. But I do believe, absent the reconsideration of that legislation--which I do think this body should be about--I believe it does provide the underlying authority for the Strategic Partnership Agreement that the President has initiated. It has been in force for over a year, serving as a guide for the relationship between the United States and Afghanistan. And in May of last year, the President and the Afghan President signed the agreement.

The agreement does, I believe, infer the role of Congress to fund training of the Afghan Security Forces. The agreement indicates that the administration associate such funding annually, and obviously there is a congressional role.

This agreement provides the necessary long-term framework for the relationship between the two countries after the drawdown that will have taken effect by the end of 2014.

I do believe that the amendment offered makes no allowance for what agreement might serve to guide our relationship with Afghanistan in the future. And given it's important in managing our drawdown and in transitioning the Afghan security forces themselves, I believe it is essential for the U.S. to continue to honor this agreement.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

I appreciate the chairman's remarks.

As I mentioned before, I would not argue that we should not be reconsidering the underlying authorization. But to the extent it exists today, I do believe it does authorize this agreement. I continue to be opposed to the gentleman's amendment, and reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the amendment, as the gentleman suggests, seeks to exempt the Department of Defense from paying any fines related to infractions which seem to be environmental in nature from the California Air Resources Board.

I would point out to my colleagues that, as they know, there are a large number of military bases in California, and I believe it is imperative to maintain good working relationships with the communities who host the bases, as well as the various State agencies who ensure good living conditions for all Californians.

Accepting this amendment could create the perception that the Federal military installations in California are above the law when dealing with environmental issues.

I would certainly urge a ``no'' vote on this particular amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Chairman, in responding to that, this is a very narrow amendment that simply gives a green light to our military installations that, yes, we welcome you in California, we like the idea that you are here providing a safety security net over not only our State, but to all of the United States, and that overzealous regulators have had actually a very hostile relationship with these installations, as well as many businesses in California. So we need to send a signal that they can no longer go unchecked with the ability to come write up a fine at any time they choose to.

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

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

Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Chairman, I think that being such a narrow measure is what we have here, that we do need to send the proper message to our military, to our people, that when they serve in the military and would want to get out and be part of the GI Bill and, importantly, to the American taxpayers, that your dollars are actually being expended for this appropriation towards the type of thing that you care about, and that is defending the Nation and not having to defend themselves from overzealous regulations like anybody could enlist in California.

I hear CARB is one of the biggest complaints of my constituents all around my district, as well as from our friends in the military that are just there to try and defend us.

In taking up this measure here tonight, I think it is a very proper thing that we do to have the right signal that we do support our military, we do support our fighting men and women, and that it is best to put forward the defense of our country rather than defending some frivolous environmental regulation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would notice that the gentleman suggests that his amendment is very narrow in scope, and I appreciate that fact. I appreciate the fact that, for example, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management was not cited, the Department of Environmental Management in the State of Illinois was not cited, nor for the other

47 States in this country relative to the enforcement of environmental statutes.

I would further propose to my colleagues that the gentleman is seeking a solution for a problem that does not exist. I do not know the specifics of the fines that were purportedly imposed at Camp Pendleton. However, the gentleman did allude to a northern California Air Force base and did suggest that fines were imposed by the California Air Resources Board.

I would suggest that that is not necessarily the case. In fact, it was the Feather River Air Quality Management District, it was not the California Air Resources Board, that found that this Air Force base had 526 days of multiple violations of local air district rules. The district came to a settlement agreement with the Air Force base to properly permit its equipment and bring it back into compliance on a certain timeline. The settlement states that if the Air Force base did not hold up its end of the bargain, it could face a fine.

The gentleman provided a second example for a southern California naval installation. In fact, it was not the California Air Resources Board that was involved. It was the San Diego Air Quality District that took enforcement action when this naval base demolished a building without doing proper asbestos removal and remediation that is a danger for those who are engaged in that activity. The San Diego Air Quality District, not the California Air Resources Board, was enforcing a Federal asbestos law in this case, and in the end the Air Quality District fined the Navy--that is true--$40,000, not $917,000. So I would suggest the amendment is a solution that is looking for a problem.

I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is directed at the administration's plan to consider further reductions below the levels established in the New START Treaty. As the gentleman indicated, it would prohibit funds from being used to conduct a study of the environmental impact on intercontinental ballistic missiles and their facilities.

The President in his June 2013 guidance on nuclear employment affirms that the United States will maintain a credible deterrent, capable of convincing any potential adversary that our abilities and the adverse consequences of attacking the United States or an ally far outweigh any potential benefit they may seek through such an attack.

I believe that the United States' national security resources ought to also be considering other possibilities as to our national security beyond the remote possibility of a direct nuclear exchange. Events of the past several years demonstrate that the U.S. faces a very complex set of national security threats:

The possibility of attacks such as those preceding 9/11, including the USS Cole bombing and the U.S. Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya;

Regional instability and strategic challenges arising from the Arab Spring in Egypt, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere;

The continuing challenge of Iran, including its support of terrorist organizations with regional and global aims;

Refocusing U.S. national security priorities to the Asia-Pacific region with a focus on China and North Korea; and,

The nearly constant threat of cyberattack.

As I said in an earlier argument, I also do not think we ought to arbitrarily, throughout this evening and

tomorrow, continue to say ``no'' about proposals and studies and plans. We ought to be having a full and complete conversation and debate about those possibilities.

For those reasons, I do oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply reiterate my objection to the gentleman's amendment, and would ask for a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I agree with the proponent of this amendment on one very important detail. I have noted throughout the evening that a number of my colleagues voted for the Budget Control Act that led to sequestration, that led to some of these problems. And I would like to note that the gentleman voted against that bill, and I think very knowingly anticipated that there could have been very serious unintended consequences.

So I do respect the persistence and consistency of his views. But having said that, again, as I have on a number of these amendments this evening, I have a great concern about differentiating between certain civilian employees in one department and those in another.

There's no question that the civilian employees throughout the Department of Defense do critical work. It could be serving in a hospital. It could be doing security analysis. It could be serving the troops in any number of capacities. No question about it. But I don't think we should make a distinction between that type of work and those who work for OSHA, who make sure that workplaces are also safe for American citizens every day when they go to work. We shouldn't make that distinction between those civilian employees and FBI agents who risk their lives every day. We shouldn't make that distinction between those employees and U.S. marshals who risk their lives every day.

Correctional officers in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Capitol Police Officers, U.S. Custom and Border Protection officers, those who serve within the Coast Guard as civilian employees, those who are forestry aides and fight fires out west--all are obviously risking their lives--Federal protective service law enforcement specialists.

Again, the point I would make is we do have a very bad law. We ought not to be making temporary fixes for dislocations that have been caused by it. That only defers decisions that need to be made of a more permanent basis.

Again, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman, I believe, was correct in the first instance, as far as not wanting to see us reach this point. I understand his impulse in trying to begin to correct some of these problems. I personally think we need a more holistic approach, and for that reason would respectfully oppose his opinion and ask for a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is trying to undue longstanding rules about when salaries can be paid to people who receive recess appointments under the President's constitutional powers. The amendment is injecting unnecessary and unrelated controversy into this bill. Its enactment could further worsen the paralysis and gridlock that is already affecting our ability to govern.

The Constitution clearly gives the President of the United States the power to make temporary appointments during the recess of the Senate to positions normally requiring Senate confirmation. This is a power that has been routinely exercised by Presidents since the beginnings of our government.

It is true that an issue has recently arisen about the scope of that power. Two Federal courts have recently ruled that the language is being interpreted too broadly and that recess appointments can only be made during a recess between sessions after sine die adjournment. Those rulings are contrary to previous rulings by other courts and to longstanding practice by Presidents of both parties. The new interpretations, of course, would invalidate of course not only certain appointments by President Obama, but also many dozens of appointments made by his predecessors, including Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and George W. Bush.

The issue is now before the Supreme Court, which has accepted these cases for decision during its next term. If the Court does rule that Presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and their predecessors were misreading the appointments clause of the Constitution, then the whole landscape for these appointments will have changed and the proposed language of this amendment will be largely irrelevant. But if, as many believe likely, the Court upholds the more traditional interpretation, the tight restrictions proposed by this amendment may themselves be contrary to the Constitution.

The proposed amendment would alter rules that have been in place for more than 70 years and which say that recess appointees cannot receive salaries under certain, fairly narrow circumstances. The amendment would greatly expand that prohibition. The current rule strikes a reasonable balance, which the amendment would completely upset.

We already have enough gridlock. I do not want to make it worse, and I certainly do not believe this bill is the place for this particular amendment or this debate and would strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Understanding he has rescinded his time, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the gentleman raising the issue about the Air Force's total force plan that was contained in the fiscal year 2013 budget. The subcommittee would agree that, looking back, it was poorly conceived and was made even worse by the lack of communication between the services, the reserve, and Congress. And I supported and the subcommittee supported and the Armed Services Committee supported a requirement that the Air Force go back and reevaluate its force restructuring.

But I ran for Congress and I'm a Member of the House of Representatives, and we're elected to make decisions. I'm not a member of a commission. I don't support commissions, and I'm disappointed that at the insistence of the other body, the Armed Services authorized another commission. I find it interesting that often we say we need a commission, we need a select committee, each time there is a difficult decision to be made. We ought to make them. That's what we get paid money for. We ought to make those decisions and not give it to a commission.

And what happens when we give it to a commission? Well, that's a bad idea. We don't support the commission's decision, and then that report sits on a desk.

The gentleman mentions that the time is short. We have but a few short months before the Commission's report is due back to the United States Congress. The report is due on February 1, 2014. That means that we have the short month of August, the short month of September, the short month of October, the short month of November, the short month of December, and the short month of January before the Commission reports back to the Congress, before the Congress can begin to act now two years after a botched report by, I would admit, the United States Air Force in the first instance.

The gentleman mentions that budgets are tight. I absolutely agree with him. All the more reason why if the Air Force now has a plan to wait more than another half year to look at a report to decide what we're going to do, we ought to see what the Air Force has

to say. If it makes sense, to do it. If not, to make them have it changed. But not wait for the Commission. I'm a Member of the House of Representatives, not a Commission.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I would, first of all, want to suggest that I appreciate the gentleman from Mississippi raising the issue relative to the Guard, as well as my colleague from the State of Florida, the Guard that protects us internationally as far as our military and international threats, as well as takes care of us at home.

The gentleman mentioned, given their portion of the country, that it is hurricane season. It is tornado season in the Midwest. It is flood season in the Midwest. It is earthquake season every day in the State of California, and we have wildfires out west. The Guard does terrific work.

I am very proud of the fact that, although Indiana has continued to decline relative to other States, and is now only the 16th largest State by population in this great Republic, the Indiana National Guard is the fourth largest Guard unit in the United States of America. And it's not just numerical; it is the quality of the men and women who serve, just as in the States of Mississippi, Florida, and throughout our country.

But I would, again, reference back to the observations I've made on all of the furlough amendments that have been made tonight. Everyone who does civilian work, whether it be at the Department of Defense or any other agency of this government, does important work; and we ought not to make that distinction.

The gentlemen who have spoken in favor of this did vote for the Budget Control Act that did create sequestration, that did create this problem.

I would suggest that what we ought to do is comprehensively begin to solve this problem and not move chairs around on this particular deck.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment and would state my opposition to it.

We have a handful of amendments that have been made in order on the bill regarding our Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. This is one that urges maintaining the status quo, and others have pushed for a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons.

I firmly believe that a further reduction in the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory will not negatively impact our deterrence goal. Even under the recently ratified New START Treaty, both the United States and Russia will have more than 1,500 deployed warheads each.

Additionally, the treaty contains no limits on nonstrategic nuclear weapons or nondeployed nuclear warheads.

With regard to the amendment, I don't think it's responsible to prohibit the United States from carrying out the reductions prescribed by the New START Treaty. That bilateral strategic arms reduction treaty was passed

by a wide margin in the United States Senate, according to the Constitution, and it remains in force.

I think it is very bad policy to go back on an international treaty obligation that would, in fact, reduce the number of nuclear weapons in this world and would, again, reference back a quote that I read in my opening statement because, again, the gentleman is essentially saying let us maintain the status quo.

Over the last 12 years, it has gotten us a more expensive military that has grown more expensive, but has not gotten any larger. The reality that we face today gives us very difficult choices that we are going to have to make looking forward.

Our military is at a familiar crossroads, one they have been at before at the end of combat operations. The additions and subtractions to funding that we make today must be carried out with an eye to the future. The status quo will no longer get the job done, one, as far as our national security, the security of this world, or a responsible budget that does truly, looking forward, provide us with an affordable defense. And for those reasons, I do object to the gentleman's amendment and oppose it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Section 9114 of the bill specifies the certification required of the Secretary of Defense in order to execute the coalition support funds reimbursement to Pakistan. The Secretary of Defense must certify that Pakistan is cooperating with U.S. counterterrorism operations, not supporting terrorist activities against the U.S. or Afghanistan, taking measures to curb the export of IED materials, and preventing the proliferation of nuclear materials.

As mentioned earlier this evening, the relationship with Pakistan has always been difficult. It is a gray world. But maintaining that relationship is essential. It has helped the United States make progress against terrorism. And Pakistan has allocated a significant part of their forces within their own borders to the counterterrorism mission.

In June of 2012, Pakistan demonstrated its commitment to a stable and secure Afghanistan by reopening the ground lines of communications. I certainly regret that previously they had been closed. But this has eased tensions with the U.S. and improved logistical support for our troops.

I do think withdrawal of assistance at this time is likely to polarize Pakistan and exacerbate significant pro- and anti-American rifts within their military and their government, generally, and I don't think we need to aggravate a very sensitive relationship that can, in the future, be more productive to the United States.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. As he mentioned, I do appreciate the passion that the author of this amendment has brought to this. Obviously,

there have been problems, and it is incumbent upon this country to make sure that this is an arm's-length and adult relationship that is, in the end, beneficial to our Nation.

So I certainly appreciate his objective but am opposed to his amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment seeks to block funds for our military to participate in any exercise in which China participates as well. The Chinese President confirmed last month in meetings with President Obama his navy's attendance to participate in the rim of the Pacific, known as RIMPAC, in 2014. An invitation to participate had been extended to China during then-Secretary of Defense Panetta's visit to that country in September of 2012.

RIMPAC is the world's largest international maritime exercise, where 28 countries and more than 40 ships and submarines work together. In 2012, not all participants were our traditional allies. Russia and India, for example, were participants.

I believe the amendment is shortsighted and attempts to place an unneeded stumbling block in the path of a relationship that is tenuous. I would suggest that the Secretary would not have extended the invitation if the Department and the United States Navy did not feel that there would be a benefit to be gained by these exercises with Chinese participation. I refuse to believe, as a Member of the United States Congress, that the Department would take such a position.

The United States gains maritime knowledge and renewed relationships with other navies of the world and considers participation in this exercise as crucial to their mission. RIMPAC participation has gained an ever-greater meaning with the Defense Department's rebalance to the Asia Pacific, and I do think that this amendment should not be adopted by the House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and would agree with his assertion that we do have civilian command of the Department of Defense and the United States Navy; and, God bless the United States Navy, they follow orders. But also having dealt with the Navy for some number of years as a member of this subcommittee, I would suggest to my colleagues, if the Navy had reservations or had some concerns, we would have had a whiff of that objection and concern wafting from the Potomac to this particular building, and I have not sensed that myself.

I would yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

We have had a number of amendments in this vein this evening. Again, I would allude back to some of my earlier comments that we have proposals and discussions and consideration taking place, and I don't think it's our duty to stop all of that from happening.

The fact is, none of these weapons have ever been used in the United States or elsewhere on the planet Earth. I would hope, as an institution, we would take this much time to consider the asymmetrical threats that have occurred against this country and its citizens and our allies across the country, such as the attack on the USS Cole, the U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, and the events of 2001.

I think about the instability and the strategic challenges we face now in Egypt, in Syria, in Libya, in North Africa; the continuing challenge of Iran, which supports terrorist organizations with regional and global aims; the effort that we are going to have to put into the prioritization of an Asia-Pacific region focus, with a particular emphasis on China and North Korea; and the instantaneous and continual attack by cyber against our Nation and our assets.

Again, as far as deliberation and consideration, I don't think we should simply be here all evening saying no, no, no. The President obviously, if there is any further reduction according to a treaty, would have to have that ratified through the United States Senate.

So I do oppose the gentleman's amendment and would reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that this is the first instance that my friend and colleague from Indiana and I are participating in a debate on an amendment on the House floor, which is why I respectfully and regretfully have to oppose her amendment, as well-intentioned as it is.

I do not believe that we should impose on ourselves the legal and moral problems arising from the prospect of indefinite detentions at Guantanamo. Working through civil courts since 9/11, hundreds of individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses and are now serving long sentences in Federal prison. Not one has ever escaped custody.

But we're told we cannot bring these detainees to the United States for trial or custody. And we are told in three other instances in the bill that we cannot close Guantanamo. But I think the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first instance was a misplaced idea that the facility could be beyond the law--a proposition rejected by the Supreme Court. As a result, continued operation of this facility creates the impression in the eyes of our allies and enemies alike that the United States selectively observes the rule of law. With this amendment, now we would have a fourth restriction within this bill, and I think that is not the best policy for this country to pursue.

For that reason, respectfully, I do oppose the gentlewoman's amendment, and would reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would begin my remarks by suggesting that I deeply appreciate the gentlewoman's concern and her commitment to make sure everyone who has taken that oath of office and put on the uniform of the United States of America receives the health care benefits they deserve and that they have earned.

But I would point out, as I have on a number of occasions this evening, that we have got to start looking ahead and begin to make some very difficult decisions.

I would quote again from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments that has noted that over the last decade, rather than getting larger and more expensive, the military has just grown more expensive. This reality makes our future choices even more difficult, and it is imperative that Congress joins with the Department in working through these decisions in an arm's length relationship, but also as a partner.

The Department has made recommendations, one of which we are debating at this moment, that are very difficult decisions to have to make. On the other hand, we have to begin to not reflectively reject these recommendations out of hand.

I understand what the gentlewoman is trying to do with her amendment, but she does rightfully describe it as saying that no funds shall be used to implement an enrollment fee. Is that enrollment fee 25 cents? Is that enrollment fee $1? Is that enrollment fee $2? Is that enrollment fee $250 for an individual and $500 for a family? We are going to have to consider the pressure that the budget is under.

The gentlewoman has indicated that the Department has reprogrammed money, and that means that, in fact, costs have not gone up. The fact is I do believe that the Department has, if you would, underexecuted and overrequested moneys in past years.

The subcommittee mark in the bill we are debating tonight cut $400 million from the request of $15.8 billion based on the execution history. We would not have done that if we thought we had endangered anyone's health. And in fact, these costs are going up.

The cost of military medical care has risen almost by triple in the past 12 years, rising from $19- to $56 billion. If the increase continues at this rate for another decade, coupled with sequestration, military health care could consume close to 20 percent of all defense spending.

According to a report published by the Congressional Budget Office entitled ``Long-Term Implications of the 2013 Future Years Defense Program,'' the annual cost to the Department's health care program could grow from $51 billion in fiscal year '13 to $65 billion in 2017 and $90 billion by 2030.

If we continue to block enrollment fees for TRICARE For Life, defense funding for this program will place other programs at risk. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimates that pay and benefits for each Active Duty servicemember grew by 57 percent in real terms between 2001 and 2012, or 4.2 percent annually.

I am not suggesting our servicemembers do not deserve adequate compensation for the risks they take in the defense of this country, but we have to understand what the growth of those costs means for the overall budget and the future implications. Operation and maintenance costs per Active Duty employee grew by 34 percent.

I oppose the amendment respectfully because I am worried that if we don't address the rising cost of health care now there will be even a smaller pool of resources to make our military ready in the future.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to recognize the 40th anniversary of the Slovak Day Celebration. In honor of this momentous occasion, a commemorative event will take place on Sunday, July 21, 2013 at the Salvatorian Shrine in Merrillville, Indiana.

The first Slovak Day Celebration took place at the Seven Dolores Shrine in Valparaiso, Indiana in 1973, when Father Joseph Viater, along with Betty and Carl Yurechko, decided that Slovak heritage and culture should be honored in Northwest Indiana with a day of celebration.

Slovak Day has been a great success over the years, and the day is celebrated each year with a Slovak Catholic Mass, followed by traditional Slovak food and performances by Slovak dancers. Throughout the years, many bishops have come to celebrate this significant event, including Bishop Sokol from Slovakia, Bishop Adamec of Pennsylvania, and Bishops Andrew G. Grutka and Dale J. Melczek of the Diocese of Gary, Indiana. Additionally, over the past 40 years, many dedicated volunteers from Slovak churches throughout the region have given their time and efforts to this day.

I would like to take this time to recognize the numerous hardworking committee members for their outstanding dedication to this event. They are Betty Yurechko, Lillian and John Zaborske, Agnes Chervenak, Melissa and Jason Yurechko, Ann Fedorchak, Leona Cupka, Elaine Ruzbasan, Betty Ortiz, Andy Sacek, Irene Horn Riggio, and Reverend John Kalicky.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in recognizing the 40th anniversary of the Slovak Day Celebration. The Slovak community has played an important role in enriching the quality of life and culture of Northwest Indiana. For their commitment to preserving Slovak heritage, the committee members, church leaders, and volunteers are worthy of the highest praise.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and admiration that I stand before you today to recognize Father J. Patrick Gaza, Pastor of Saints Monica and Luke and Saint Mark Catholic Churches in Gary, as he celebrates his retirement after 44 years of selfless service to the Catholic Church and the countless individuals he has ministered to throughout his life. Father Pat will be honored at a retirement reception on Sunday, July 21, 2013, at Avalon Manor in Merrillville, Indiana.

Father Gaza dedicated his life to becoming a priest from the time of his studies at Saints Peter and Paul School in Merrillville. Since then, he has not faltered in his commitment to God and to serving the people of his community, especially those most in need. He completed his higher education at Our Lady of the Lake Seminary in Wawasee, Indiana, Saint Meinrad College in Saint Meinrad, Indiana, and Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. In 1968, Father Gaza was ordained a Catholic priest at Saint Peter's Basilica in Vatican City. Through his experiences as an instructor of religion at Bishop Noll Institute in Hammond, as well as his supervision of theological field education at the North American College in Rome, Father Gaza has contributed tremendously to the religious schooling of youth. These stand as just a few teaching experiences among his extensive contributions to the younger generation.

In 1992, Father Patrick Gaza became Pastor of Saints Monica and Luke Catholic Church. With his devoted guidance, the church has thrived in the community and has expanded its community outreach efforts. In 2007, Father Pat was also assigned Pastor of Saint Mark Catholic Church in Gary. Throughout the years, Father Gaza has served in various organizations throughout Northwest Indiana and Gary, including the LaPorte County FEMA Food Program, the Gary Ten Point Coalition, the Gary Urban Enterprise Association, the Gary branch of the NAACP, Rebuilding Together, and the Catholic Youth Organization. Father Gaza's involvement with these organizations evidences his absolute commitment to minister and tirelessly work and advocate on behalf of ``the least amongst us.'' Those who are without, those who suffer physically or are challenged physiologically, and those who need spiritual guidance have always found compassion, warmth, and a generosity of spirit in Father Pat. Father J. Patrick Gaza is a gifted, Godly, and good man. For his constant and passionate devotion to his God, his church and his flock, Father is worthy of our profound respect and gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in honoring Father Patrick Gaza for his lifetime of leadership and selfless service to others. Saints Monica and Luke and Saint Mark Catholic Churches, the community of Gary, and all of Northwest Indiana have certainly been blessed by the good work of Father Gaza.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and sincerity that I take this time to congratulate the individuals who took their oaths of citizenship on July 4, 2013. In true patriotic fashion, on the day of our great Nation's celebration of independence, a naturalization ceremony took place, welcoming new citizens of the United States of America. This memorable occasion, coordinated by the League of Women Voters of the Calumet Area and presided over by Magistrate Judge Andrew Rodovich, was held at The Pavilion at Wolf Lake in Hammond, Indiana.

America is a country founded by immigrants. From its beginning, settlers have come from countries around the globe to the United States in search of better lives for their families. The oath ceremony is a shining example of what is so great about the United States of America--that people from all over the world can come together and unite as members of a free, democratic nation. These individuals realize that nowhere else in the world offers a better opportunity for success than here in America.

On July 4, 2013, the following people, representing many nations throughout the world, took their oaths of citizenship in Hammond, Indiana: Chong Ran Embury, Weiping Zhong, Boyanka Radeva Odiseeva, Olena Mykhailivna Rogers, Izabela Zuzanna Mazur, Kavita Goyal, Pooja Goyal, Yoshiko Tonosaki Simpson, Nora Mardi, Margarita Figueroa De Cornejo, Syed Durvesh Mohiuddin, Eunice Childress, Rafael Navarro Gomez, Justyna Ksiazek, James Lisitsas, Yvonne Monalisa Odemba, Dragoljub Martinovic, Elizabeth Anne Robinson, Danute Jackson, Daniela Gotis, Edgardo Reyes Eliscupides, Sergio Hernandez Romo, Lynn Bouziotis, Nancy Alondra Gallardo, Jose Guadalupe Gonzalez Zambrano, Fadma Alburei, Maria Nazare Barros Bezerra, Liliana Guadalupe Brady, Norma Angelica Camarillo, Adrian Ferrer, Angel Giron, Vandana Mona Graham, Michael Ikechukwu Ibekie, Marija Klechkaroski, Maria Leanos Mota, Guillermina Lopez, Mauricio Lopez, Himelda Morua, Syeda Vajahath Muhiuddin, Antonio Ochoa, Cristina Pellegrini Rath, Amrit Pal Singh Sarai, Amela Spahic, Salvador Tinoco, Angela Arutiunovna Tonoyan- Hopkins, Huseyin Salih Usak, Ana Luisa Vargas, Genoveva Viramontes, and Jennifer Zhang.

Though each individual has sought to become a citizen of the United States for his or her own reasons, be it for education, occupation, or to offer their loved ones better lives, each is inspired by the fact that the United States of America is, as Abraham Lincoln described it, a country ``. . . of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' They realize that the United States is truly a free nation. By seeking American citizenship, they have made the decision that they want to live in a place where, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, they can practice religion as they choose, speak their minds without fear of punishment, and assemble in peaceful protest should they choose to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in congratulating these individuals, who became citizens of the United States of America on July 4, 2013, the day of our Nation's independence. As American citizens, they are guaranteed the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We, as a free and democratic nation, congratulate them and welcome them.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect and admiration that I recognize the Visiting Nurse Association, VNA, of Porter County Hospice Program as the organization celebrates its 30th anniversary. In honor of this momentous occasion, the VNA Hospice is hosting a celebratory event on Saturday, June 22, 2013 at Central Park Plaza in Valparaiso, Indiana.

The VNA Hospice Program was established in 1983 with the goal of providing comfort, care, and compassion to terminally ill patients and their families in and around the communities of Porter County. The program started with only 22 patients and has quickly grown over the years, caring for 742 patients in 2012. In 1994, in order to meet the growing need for inpatient hospice care, the VNA of Porter County opened the 10-bed Mary E. Bartz Hospice Center in Valparaiso, which was the first self-supporting hospice center in Indiana. Due to the tremendous support of the community through a $2.85 million capital campaign, the Arthur B. and Ethel V. Horton 20-bed hospice center was built to replace the Bartz Hospice Center in 2002. Throughout the last 30 years, the VNA Hospice Program has been able to help more than 11,000 patients live their final days with peace and dignity.

The VNA of Porter County Hospice Program has been successful due to the unwavering

dedication of its leadership, volunteers, and staff, including nurses, social workers, home health aides, clergy, and therapists. Northwest Indiana is not only grateful, but proud to have had the organization's support and help during the past 30 years.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in congratulating the VNA of Porter County Hospice Program on their 30th anniversary. For their remarkable leadership, commitment, and compassion shown through their service to so many in need throughout Northwest Indiana, they are worthy of the highest praise.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and admiration that I congratulate Saints Peter and Paul Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral as its congregation and church leaders join together in celebration of its 50th Anniversary. The congregation, along with Parish Priest, Very Reverend Tome Stamatov, and the Church Executive Board, including President Thomas Traycoff, Vice President Alex Kutanovski, Vice President Dejan Ristevski, Treasurer Naumce Pejoski, Financial Secretary Stojan Trajkovski, Secretary Dimce Alekovski, and Diocese Delegate Nick Nochevich, will be celebrating with a weekend of events from July 12 to July 14, 2013 at the cathedral in Crown Point, Indiana.

Saints Peter and Paul Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral was consecrated on July 14, 1963 in Gary, Indiana, when a group of immigrants from Macedonia came together with the goal of preserving Macedonian culture and religious tradition. Saints Peter and Paul is known throughout the United States and Canada as the first official Macedonian church built in North America. The founders proclaimed the mission of their new church before the Indiana Secretary of State in Indianapolis, Indiana: ``The purpose of this parish is to preach the word of God and take spiritual care of its members; to spread goodness, justice, brotherly love, and respect among its members.''

The cathedral in Gary flourished for many years, and the congregation continued to grow. Due to an increase in membership, a new cathedral and cultural center were built in Crown Point, Indiana, in 1989, and are still in existence today. The members and leaders of Saints Peter and Paul Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral played a major role in the establishment of additional churches throughout the United States and in Canada. Their determination, focus, and commitment laid the foundation for other Macedonian churches to come to life.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in honoring and congratulating Saints Peter and Paul Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral on its 50th Anniversary. Throughout many hardships and trials, the congregation and leaders of Saints Peter and Paul have dedicated themselves to preserving Macedonian heritage, tradition, and spiritual beliefs. Their constant dedication and commitment is worthy of the highest commendation.

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness and the utmost respect that I take this time to remember a dear friend and one of Indiana's most distinguished citizens, the Honorable Rudolph Clay, former Mayor of Gary, Indiana. On Tuesday, June 4, 2013, Rudy Clay passed away at the age of 77. Known for his many years of public service and his countless efforts toward improving the lives of Northwest Indiana residents, Rudy will be missed by his family, friends, constituents, and the many people whose lives he touched.

Rudolph Clay was born in Courtland, Alabama. He and his brother, David, were raised by their aunts, Daisy Washington and Mary Lucy Hunter, in Gary, Indiana, following the passing of his mother. Rudy graduated from Roosevelt High School in Gary before continuing his education at Indiana University in Bloomington, which he attended on a track scholarship. After returning to Gary, he met and fell in love with Christine Swan, whom he wed on November 30, 1957. From 1958 to 1960, Rudy began what would become a lifetime of public service by serving in the United States Army. During this time, Rudy's calling to fight injustice and to serve the public, especially those most in need, and his unwavering desire to be a catalyst for positive change, led him on his extraordinary journey.

Rudolph Clay was elected to the Indiana State Senate in 1972. While in this position, the focus of his efforts included working toward improved training programs for prison inmates and the creation of a victim's compensation fund. Following his service in the Indiana General Assembly, Rudy was elected to the Lake County Council in 1978 and re-elected in 1982. During his time on the Council, Rudy's dedication to equal rights impelled him to be an outspoken leader in the fight to eliminate unfair hiring practices in Lake County government. He was elected Lake County Recorder in 1984, and three years later, he was elected to the Lake County Board of Commissioners, a capacity in which he remained for four terms.

In 2005, Rudy became the first African American elected to serve as the Lake County Democratic Chairman, a position he held until 2009.

In 2006, recognizing the leadership Rudy Clay would bring to the people of Gary, the Gary Precinct Organization appointed him to be the next mayor of Gary, and he was elected to the position the following year. Mayor Clay was the epitome of a public servant. His energetic dedication to serving people and his profound compassion for them, especially those most in need, was limitless. Throughout his illustrious career, Rudy received many esteemed honors for his outstanding commitment and his constant efforts to improve the

quality of life for the people of Gary and throughout Northwest Indiana.

While Rudy was fully committed to the improvement of Gary and Northwest Indiana, his greatest source of pride was always his family. He is survived by his devoted wife, Christine, and his beloved son, Rudy Jr. Rudy also leaves behind many other dear friends and family members, as well as a saddened but grateful community whose lives have been made better by having had Mayor Clay live amongst them.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in paying tribute to my dear friend, and a true public servant, Rudolph Clay. For his tremendous contributions to the people of Gary and all of Northwest Indiana, he has earned our admiration. Rudy Clay's unselfish and lifelong devotion to civil justice and to serving those most in need will be forever remembered. His legacy serves as an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association (AHEPA), Chapter 78, it is with great pleasure and enthusiasm that I congratulate Saints Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church in Merrillville, Indiana, as its members celebrate the 100th anniversary of the founding of the parish. Father Ted Poteres, along with Parish Council President JoAnn Massow and the congregation, will commemorate this momentous milestone with a celebratory reception on Saturday, May 18, 2013, at the Saints Constantine and Helen Cultural Center in Merrillville, Indiana. Northwest Indiana is especially grateful for the unshakable faith, boundless wisdom, and exemplary service of Father Poteres, a truly outstanding religious leader. I also wish to acknowledge the presence of His Eminence Metropolitan Iakovos and all the other committed religious leaders who have joined in this celebration.

The founding of Saints Constantine and Helen began when a group of immigrants joined together with the goal of preserving Greek culture and religious tradition for the many Greek families that were moving into the Northwest Indiana region. In 1913, the first worship services were held in a rented store building in Gary, Indiana, making Saints Constantine and Helen the first Greek church in the City of Gary. The name was chosen to signify the importance of Saint Constantine, the Roman emperor who, during the fourth century, permitted the freedom of practicing Christianity, as well as Saint Helen, Saint Constantine's mother, in their fight for the sustentation of their religious beliefs and Greek heritage. The church continued to gain support, and as a result of the congregation's dedicated and unwavering efforts, on Easter Sunday of 1919, Saints Constantine and Helen opened their first church building in Gary.

The church has continually been blessed with extraordinary religious leaders, none more exemplary than Father Ted. And we all recall the appointment of Father Evagoras Constantinides as pastor of Saints Helen and Constantine in 1969. Under his leadership, the Hellenic Cultural Center and the Saints Constantine and Helen Cathedral were constructed in Merrillville, Indiana. Father Ev served as pastor for 26 years and was held in the highest regard by church leaders internationally, by his congregation, and by the entire Northwest Indiana community. Father

Evagoras's passing at a time when we are celebrating the parish's 100th anniversary seems to me to be more than coincidental. I believe it evidences his knowledge that he could join our God firm in his absolute faith in Father Poteres's spiritual leadership, the Parish Council's commitment to future generations, and every parishioner's dedication to preserving their religious beliefs and the incomparable Hellenic culture and values we all hold so dear.

The leaders and parishioners of Saints Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church touch the lives of countless individuals through their compassionate service, especially to those most in need. Over the years, the church has come to the aid of so many people through the church's Helping Hand Fund, which provides financial assistance to those in need. The church also facilitates the Ross Township Food Pantry, which fed approximately 20,000 people during the last year.

Mr. Speaker, I am a strong advocate for the promotion of the ideals and morals of Hellenism throughout all of Northwest Indiana. I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in honoring Saints Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church as the congregation celebrates its 100th anniversary. The church leaders and parishioners have dedicated themselves to upholding Greek Orthodox traditions and spiritual beliefs. For their commitment to service, and for touching the lives of countless individuals, they are worthy of the highest praise.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and sincerity that I rise in recognition of High School Radio Day 2013. This year marks the second annual High School Radio Day, a day to observe the uniqueness of each high school radio station and the impact each has on the community, the State, and the Nation at large. Indiana is the birthplace of high school radio. The first station in the United States, WNAS, signed on in May, 1949 in New Albany, Indiana. In the following decades, the students working for high school radio stations in northwest Indiana have exhibited outstanding ingenuity, intellect, and leadership as the stations have grown and thrived.

In 1954, high school radio arrived in northwest Indiana with the formation of WGVE-FM 88.7 radio in Gary. First housed in Lew Wallace High School, the station relocated to its current home of the Gary Area Career Center in 1969. WGVE-FM 88.7 began operating at less than 50 watts, but the station has evolved to become the home of a wide array of community news, educational programming, public service announcements, and music. The station keeps local residents connected to their government by broadcasting meetings of the Gary School Board and Gary Common Council.

For over 35 years, WDSO-FM 88.3, Chesterton High School's commercial- free, educational station has broadcast valuable programming to listeners throughout northwest Indiana. It took nearly two years of planning and careful work with the Federal Communications Commission to take the station on-air, with broadcasts beginning in 1976. Since that time, the station broadcasts local, State, and national news coverage, as well as sports coverage and live broadcasts from town meetings, the Duneland School Board, and the Community Bulletin Board. WDSO-FM 88.3 was also one of the first radio stations to use fiber optic cable to transport a radio signal over a mile and a half from the studio to the transmitter.

It is with great credit not only to the dedicated and passionate students who operate these stations but the administrators that ensure their continued success that high school radio stations still leave their indelible mark on the people of northwest Indiana. Specifically, Eric Johnson, Clarence Stevens, Sarita Stevens, Lakisha Walls, and Lionel Chambers, at WGVE-FM 88.7, as well as Michele Stipanovich and Matthew Waters at WDSO-FM 88.3, have done outstanding work to grow their respective stations. These individuals deserve recognition for their committed, energetic approach to the development of bright young students eager to learn the ways of broadcast journalism.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask that you and my distinguished colleagues join me in recognizing these two exemplary student organizations, as well as each of the 43 high school radio stations from 19 States participating in High School Radio Day 2013. Their efforts have molded and continue to mold generations of rising journalists, performing a vital public service for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep respect and admiration that I rise to commend five exceptional leaders from Indiana who were recently honored as the Northwest Indiana Business and Industry Hall of Fame's Class of 2013. Created by The Times and BusINess magazine, induction into the Indiana Business and Industry Hall of Fame is determined by a panel of local civic and business leaders. While there were many deserving nominees, the individuals selected as the 2013 Indiana Business and Industry Hall of Fame inductees include: former Senator Richard Lugar, Tom Collins Sr., Danita Johnson Hughes, Tom Sourlis, and Steve Teibel. For their many contributions to the enhancement of Northwest Indiana, these honorees will be recognized at a ceremony at the Radisson Hotel at Star Plaza in Merrillville, Indiana, on Friday, March 22, 2013.

Former Senator Richard Lugar, from Indianapolis, is the Lifetime Achievement Award recipient for 2013. Richard Lugar's first elected office was on the Indianapolis Public Schools Board of Commissioners, where he served from 1964 until 1967. He was then elected mayor of Indianapolis in 1967, and under his leadership the city and Marion County governments merged through Unigov. After serving two terms as mayor, Richard Lugar was elected to the United States Senate in 1976. During his 36 years in office, Senator Lugar proved to be a noteworthy leader, extending a positive influence upon urban policy, American agricultural policy, and foreign policy. He is an activist for American energy independence, strong national security, U.S. leadership in the world, and economic growth. Senator Richard Lugar and Senator Sam Nunn were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2000 for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which reduced the nuclear threat created by the breakup of the former Soviet Union. Currently, Richard Lugar is working with Indiana University as a distinguished scholar and professor of practice in the university's new School of Global and International Studies. He also co-chairs the new Indiana University International Advisory Committee with former U.S. Representative Lee Hamilton. Senator Lugar is worthy of the honors bestowed upon him and we are truly blessed as a nation for his extraordinary career in American government.

Tom Collins Sr., of Valparaiso, is the chief executive officer of Luke Oil, a family owned and operated business that was founded in 1967 by Tom's father-in-law, Ralph Luke, in Hobart, Indiana. Currently, the company distributes more than 300 million gallons of fuel annually in the Midwest. Luke Oil's sales reached the $1 billion mark last year and their volume has grown 20 percent each year for the past five years. In 2005, the company bought County Line Orchard, in Hobart, where they have held numerous fundraisers to benefit charities including the Food Bank of Northwest Indiana and various veterans' organizations. For his exemplary leadership skills, and his dedication to supporting charitable organizations, Tom Collins is to be commended.

Danita Johnson Hughes is the president and chief executive officer of Edgewater Systems for Balanced Living in Gary. Edgewater is an organization that provides behavioral healthcare services to individuals and families in the community of Gary and throughout the region. Under Danita's remarkable leadership, the organization has become a respected resource for those in need, and through its services, Edgewater touches the lives of more than 100,000 people each year. Danita continues to give back to the community and dedicates much of her time to the One Region, One Vision initiative and the Northwest Indiana Forum.

Tom Sourlis is the founder and chairman of Mortar Net Solutions, in Burns Harbor. Mortar Net, a product invented by Tom, prevents mortar droppings from clogging weepholes designed to allow water to exit a building wall. Mortar Net is a hugely successful product and is currently used on cavity wall construction throughout North America. In addition to his successful business, Tom devotes much of his time, efforts, and support to charitable organizations throughout Northwest Indiana, including Tradewinds, the Crisis Center, Parents as Teachers, and the Porter County Community Foundation. For his passionate devotion to such causes, Tom is worthy of the highest praise.

Steven Teibel is the third generation of his family to own and operate Teibel's Family Restaurant, in Schererville, which originally opened in 1929. Due to Steven's tremendous leadership skills and excellent customer service, Teibel's continues to succeed and remains a staple in Northwest Indiana. Steven also dedicates much of his time and efforts to serving those in need and is very active in numerous community organizations, including Meals on Wheels, the Hammond YMCA, the American Heart Association, and the Shrine of Christ's Passion. For his commitment to community service, Steven is to be commended.

Mr. Speaker, the lives of every citizen living in Northwest Indiana has been enriched because of the selfless good work of these five extraordinary individuals. I ask you and my distinguished colleagues to join me in commending these outstanding leaders on their induction into the Northwest Indiana Business and Industry Hall of Fame. These individuals are most deserving of this honor, and for their leadership and commitment to the Northwest Indiana community, each of them is worthy of our respect and admiration.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to congratulate several of Northwest Indiana's most devoted and proficient workers. The Northwest Indiana Federation of Labor, American Federation of Labor- Congress of Industrial Organizations, recognized several individuals for their dedication during the 38th Annual Labor and Community Awards Reception, which was held at Duneland Falls Banquet and Meeting Center in Chesterton, Indiana on Thursday, March 7, 2013. These individuals, in addition to the other Northwest Indiana Federation of Labor members who have served Northwest Indiana so diligently for such a long period of time, are the epitome of the ideal American worker: loyal, dedicated, and hardworking.

At this year's event, several individuals and organizations received special recognition. Thomas Conway Sr., United Steelworkers International Vice President, Administration, received the Service to Labor Award for assisting organized labor to improve the quality of life of workers throughout Northwest Indiana.

The Union Label Award was presented posthumously to William Cantrell and Steven Skvara, retired members of United Steelworkers and Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees (SOAR), for their unselfish devotion to the Labor Movement through its promotion in all areas of endeavor: social, civic, education, and political.

Michael Flores, of Teamsters Local 142, and Eric Jania, of Carpenters Local 272, received the George Meany Award for their significant contributions to the youth of their communities through their involvement with the Boy Scouts of America.

Brenda Bowler, of United Steelworkers Local 6787, was honored with the Community Services Award for her exemplary service to her community and to the enhancement of the quality of life for the people of Northwest Indiana.

Ray Jackson, Treasurer, United Steelworkers Local 6787, is this year's recipient of the President's Award. Mr. Jackson was honored for enhancing the well-being of workers throughout Northwest Indiana through countless contributions to further the philosophy of the Labor Movement.

The Industrial Sector Award was presented to Michael Young, Vice President, United Steelworkers Local 6103, for his leadership and support of working families throughout Northwest Indiana.

Thomas Williamson, Business Agent, Ironworkers Local 395, was the recipient of the Building Trades Award, which was bestowed upon him for his many years of service to the Labor Movement and his outstanding dedication to his fellow union members.

David Sikes, Director of Allocations/AFL-CIO Community Services Liaison for the Lake Area United Way, was honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award for his many years of Labor activism and his commitment to his community. For the exceptional service he has provided to the people of Northwest Indiana, he is worthy of our admiration and respect.

Northwest Indiana has a rich history of excellence in its craftsmanship and loyalty by its tradesmen. These individuals are all outstanding examples of these qualities. They have demonstrated their loyalty to both the union and the community through their hard work and self-sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my distinguished colleagues join me in congratulating these dedicated, honorable, and exemplary citizens, as well as all of the hardworking union men and women throughout America. They have shown commitment and courage toward their pursuits, and I am proud to represent them in Washington, D.C.

I appreciate the time and, first of all, want to thank Chairman Young of the Defense Subcommittee for his very good work. I want to thank the members of all of the subcommittees for their efforts throughout the years but, again, particularly those on the Defense Subcommittee, as well as our staff.

I do intend to support the measure, but do ask a question: Where are the other 10 bills for the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, and others, with less than 6 months left in the fiscal year?

For some of my colleagues who would vote for no appropriation ever in their life, I ask: What is there to fight over with the National Institute of Standards, or the Copyright Royalty Tribunal, or the Mine Safety and Health Administration?

I am grievously concerned, Mr. Chairman, that we no longer legislate in this body, but we lurch, we lurch from crisis to crisis. I find it inexplicable that some of my colleagues would vote in a heartbeat for a continuing resolution to run the government looking backwards last year at exactly the same amount of money for a similar appropriation bill with all 12 bills so that we could make decisions and exercise our constitutional responsibilities.

Continuing resolutions look back and run the most powerful Nation on Earth like we did last year. We are absent any legislative decisions, and it is an abdication of our constitutional responsibility. I would push it further and say we have a mandate. In article I, section 9, there is one sentence, it says:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in

consequence of appropriations made by law.

It is time that Congress begins to appropriate measures and runs this government and country and stops lurching.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would concur with the gentleman's remarks and would note that in my remarks I mentioned the Congress fails to appropriate, which includes the United States Senate.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect and sincere admiration that I rise today to celebrate Black History Month and its 2013 theme--``At the Crossroads of Freedom and Equality.'' This year's theme reminds us of two very important landmark events in American history, the 150th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln's issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights March on Washington in 1963. This year we recognize the perseverance, sacrifice, and struggle of those who fought for the freedom and equality that has shaped our great nation.

This year's theme,'' At the Crossroads of Freedom and Equality,'' focuses on our nation's struggle for equality and civil rights, beginning with President Lincoln's issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and the abolishing of slavery. Some one hundred years later, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. led the Civil Rights March on Washington fighting for, amongst other ideals, meaningful civil rights legislation, including better employment opportunities and an end to segregation. These historic events have had an immense impact on our nation's fight for the equal rights of all human beings, regardless of race, gender, or religious, cultural, or social beliefs. Although there is still work to be done, we must take a moment to commend the many Americans who have, against all odds, strengthened our union, fought for our freedoms, and built a better nation. This month and always, it is important to remember the courage of inspirational leaders including President Lincoln, Dr. King, Rosa Parks, Thurgood Marshall, W.E.B. Du Bois, and the many others who have played such a critical role in changing the landscape of American society for the better.

I would be remiss if I did not also pay tribute to one of Northwest Indiana's finest citizens, who passed away only a few weeks ago. As the representative of the First Congressional District of Indiana, I have had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Quentin Smith. Born in 1918, Mr. Smith saw firsthand the great injustices faced by African Americans throughout our country's history, as well as the courageous strides made toward equality and civil justice. A member of the heroic Tuskegee Airmen, Quentin's service in the 99th Fighter Squadron will forever be remembered in working to conquer America's racial divide. In a time when segregation existed not only in our communities but in the military as well, the Tuskegee Airmen are now rightfully remembered as one of the most successful units in our military's history, not only for their bravery and sacrifice in the air, but for the position they played in the progression of the military and American society as a whole. As a civilian, Mr. Smith continued to serve his community as an educator, counselor, and principal at the elementary, middle, and high school levels, as well as a professor at the collegiate level. Held in extraordinary regard in the educational community, Mr. Smith was able to utilize his vast experiences to positively influence generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my distinguished colleagues join me in celebrating Black History Month and honoring those who fought, and those who continue to fight, for civil rights. Let us also remember the selfless and brave Quentin Smith. We are forever indebted to him for his contributions toward freedom and equality, and Northwest Indiana is proud to have been his home.