Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington, Sheriff Reichert. That is a term of endearment. It is won, a title that you earn. It is an opportunity to lead a great body of men and women. So when Sheriff Reichert wanted to do this hour, it was, like he said, we have each other's back. We have been through issues that we can relate to.

When I first became a law enforcement officer, my mom said: You know, I could picture one of your brothers doing this, but not you. You just don't have that temperament to be that bold, I guess is what she was saying, compared to my brothers.

But at the end of the day, after 39 years, and the last 10 as sheriff before I got elected to this office, those were 39 of the best years, and I guarantee it that Dave Reichert feels the same way with his tenure in law enforcement. I started out as a cop outside the city of Chicago and saw issues that I would rather not even mention.

Coming down to Florida was quite a break, it was different. But at the same time, that changed over time too. From a small, sleepy sheriff's office of about 40 individuals to, when I left, we had over 500 folks that served this great Nation in that community.

You hear a lot on the news about law enforcement in that they want to make it sound like we are not human. In reality, I have been to those scenes where a law enforcement officer has been involved in a shooting where he has had to take somebody's life. And that officer was so emotionally distraught, because that is not why they got into the business. It is not why I ever got into the business. You got into the business because you wanted to help people, you wanted to be there to protect people. That is what law enforcement is about.

And, unfortunately, sometimes bad things happen to good people. Sheriff Reichert mentioned the fact that sometimes police officers and deputies can make a mistake. We are only human. But when things are moving fast as the speed of light, you have got to think back as to what and why that officer did or didn't do what he did at the time.

And I worry about when elected officials see it as a political expedience to condemn police officers for something that occurred before they ever get the facts. Dave Reichert and I sit on the floor and we talk about that, about maybe, just maybe people should wait until the investigation is complete before you condemn somebody, until you walk in their shoes. The sheriff talked about the fact that I can remember back as a rookie having to work, and I took the shifts of guys that had families because I wasn't married when it came down to holidays. I didn't have a family, so I would take the shifts so they could be with their families. But it didn't always work out that way. There was many a time that I missed Christmas, missed birthdays, missed wedding anniversaries because of service, and that is just not me. That is all the men and women that serve this country in local law enforcement and other law enforcement agencies throughout the United States.

Most of the men and women that I served with, I guarantee you could go out and make more money doing something else. They were bright, bright people. But their calling was to be a law enforcement officer. To go out there in the dead of night, climb up in an attic--remember that--you climb up in an attic and you don't know what is up there, except you know there is a bad guy who is up there, and somebody has to go there and do it. At the end of the day, these men and women do it because they love the community they serve.

Congressman Reichert talked about what police officers do with their own money in regards to buying turkeys for Thanksgiving for families, buying Christmas presents for children that would not have a Christmas, doing summer camps for free for children because these children don't have or didn't have the ability to go to one of those paid summer camps--that is pretty neat. And we would, in our sheriff's office, without using taxpayer money, with donations from clubs like Kiwanis and Rotary and others, pay for that so that these young men and these girls and boys could have the opportunity to interact with law enforcement, to actually see that, do you know what? We are human. That when we do these little games out there in the field and we have the things, water balloons or whatever it may be, that we are real people, because a lot of times, the only time they see a law enforcement officer is possibly during a domestic situation where they are arresting their mom or their dad. And that can jade anybody.

But it can also jade law enforcement, because the things that they see no one here would want to see. There were times when I went home, getting off the midnight shift, and walked in my house at 6 o'clock in the morning. And what I had just seen the night before, you would have a hard time going to sleep, where you would grab your child--I can remember my youngest child at the time, my only child at the time-- grabbing him and hugging him because of what I just saw some other parent do to their child that was unspeakable.

Our three sons, they all serve in the military. Our middle son is a Black Hawk pilot in the Florida Army National Guard. He is also a deputy sheriff in one of the major counties in Florida. He wasn't sure if that was the right job because, when they went through the class on child abuse, it struck a chord as a new dad: How could anyone do that to them? But do you know what? He has turned out to be a pretty good cop. And we say that with reverence; it is not a derogatory term.

But the men and women that put on the uniform and that badge do it because they love people, not because they hate them. They do it because they really want to make a difference in their community. Their families are the ones that suffer the most.

When I have had to go to scenes where I have had an officer killed in the line of duty, it breaks your heart. When I was a rookie officer outside of Chicago, right out of the academy, one of my academy mates was killed, shot and killed by a 12-year-old in our first year on the job. You never know when it is going to hit.

When Officer Kondek down in Tarpon Springs went to work on the 21st of December, he kissed his wife and his kids good-bye, expecting to be there for Christmas. Little did he know that that was the last day of his life. The person who killed him shot him and then ran him over with a car. This is not what we want.

Where we want to see the America that I love is, the same respect that we give our soldiers returning from war, that we give that to our police officers. That when you see them in a restaurant or you see them on the street or you see them on a call, thank them for what they do. They will be absolutely surprised and amazed, but grateful.

When my sons are in uniform and people come up to them in the military and thank them for their service, there is no reason we can't do the same for our law enforcement officers.

Congressman Reichert is probably the most humble guy I know in the stories, and he would never brag about himself, but he is a consummate professional. His bravery is unmatched, and his leadership, I am sure, at that sheriff's office in Washington State is better for him being sheriff than not.

Well, I guarantee there are some.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 770 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 770 provides for the consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015. It also allows for the consideration of the Executive Amnesty Prevention Act and for the California Emergency Drought Relief Act, a bill that would provide short-term water supplies to drought-stricken California. This combined rule is necessary because Congress is coming to a close, and we need to get our work done.

One of the outstanding items that is most important to me is the 2015 NDAA. Mr. Speaker, I was proud to stand on the House floor in May when the House passed its version of the 2015 NDAA. I was happy to highlight the inclusive and transparent process that

the Armed Services Committee and the House, as a whole, took in crafting this year's National Defense Authorization Act.

We held countless hearings and heard hours of testimony from our combatant commanders. We worked a lot of late nights within the House Armed Services Committee. In the committee alone, the NDAA was amended 155 times. When the bill moved to the House floor, it was again amended, and another 160 amendments were considered.

It was careful. It was deliberate. It was an open process. It is precisely how the House and this Congress should work. When the NDAA passed this body, I was proud of what we produced, and I was really proud of the process that we took to get there.

The Senate, though, is absolutely different. As is so often the case, they didn't act. They either couldn't pass a bill, or they just chose not to; either way, it is a shame. They left us with a mess now that we have to resolve. Eventually, a final product was crafted at the last minute between House and Senate staffers.

It was not done in conference because the Senate never passed a bill. It was not done in conference because the Senate just ignored the fact that the NDAA was a priority for this country in order to make sure that we funded and equipped those soldiers and airmen and sailors and marines who fight the fight for this country. They ignored it.

When you don't get to conference, which is where you have Members argue the points of either piece of legislation--whether it is a Senate bill or a House bill--it really does a disservice to our men and women who fight for this country because they don't get to hear the arguments and they don't get to see the arguments. That is unfortunate.

We go through all of the motions. In the House, we get it right, in the House, through the appropriations process, but then again, through the process of the NDAA, we get it right. We have those hearings. We take the testimony, and we listen to those who are most affected. The Senate, I don't know what they do, but they honestly, in my estimation, didn't care enough to get it done for whatever reason.

As a member of HASC, we did an awful lot of work just to get a product to the floor, and when it left HASC, it was unanimous. When it came to the floor, there were 160 times that people had the opportunity to amend it and change it and prove it and add things that they thought were necessary for the defense of their country. Once again, the Senate just ignored that process, and that is unfortunate.

Congress, as a whole, is harmed by this process. More importantly, it is the troops who are harmed by a process that is broken. It is the troops. We are not out there in harm's way, but they are. We owe them better. I think the House has done that. I think the House has actually done everything in its power to make it right with the troops whom we put in harm's way, but the Senate doesn't seem to care, and that is troubling to me.

I am concerned about our warfighters. We are their voice. As Members of Congress, we are their voice. We are the elected Representatives of the people, but they are citizens, too, so we are representing them. We are their voice, and they need to be heard on every issue.

Unfortunately, the NDAA is not everything that everybody wants, and I get it. It is always a compromise, and I get that, but we need to show more solidarity with our warfighters, so they know that their voice is being heard here in the Capitol. I fear that, because the Senate botched the process, their voice didn't come through as loudly as it should have.

Mr. Speaker, the rule also allows the House to consider the Executive Amnesty Prevention Act. This legislation, if enacted, would nullify the President's recent executive action.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the policy goal of the President's, every Member of Congress ought to be concerned about what it means when he takes that type of action, of unilaterally ignoring Congress. If you look at our article I powers, we are elected to pass laws. We are elected to do that.

The President is elected to faithfully execute the laws that are passed by Congress. It doesn't matter if the House did or did not do what the President requested. It doesn't give him the unilateral action to go ahead and say, ``Do you know what? I can just do it on my own.'' That is what this bill addresses.

This Nation has benefited by this delicate balance that we have in our government. It benefits every day when we do things the right way. The Constitution is our guiding principle. It is our guiding document.

You just can't say, ``Do you know what? I want to do it differently because I disagree with what the legislative branch is or is not doing.'' That is not appropriate. It is not the way the Founding Fathers crafted it.

The Executive does not have the power to write law; we do. We need to reestablish our rights as elected Representatives of the people to craft laws that affect the people of the United States of America.

It is really just beyond frustrating as all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, should be jealously guarding our article I powers because it matters not whether it is a Republican President or a Democratic President. This institution matters. Otherwise, what are we doing here? Otherwise, why are the American people voting every 2 years to send Representatives to this body to ensure that the Constitution is upheld and followed?

It is not meaningless. It is important. As I said before, the legislative versus the Executive issue shouldn't be a Democrat versus a Republican issue. It should be the fact that we should guard the rights and privileges that have been extended to us because of our being elected to this body.

I support the rule because it is important that we have a healthy debate on all of the issues that have been outlined, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Cole really addressed the issue. In regards as to how it went down in the Rules Committee, he clearly addressed the issue on this floor in regards to his support of the rule, even though he didn't get everything that he wanted.

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

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

I have none.

If I could inquire, I thought the gentleman was closing.

Mr. Speaker, shortly, I will be offering an amendment to the rule, which is necessary to alleviate the budgetary point of order that currently lies against the defense bill. In addition to clearing a point of order, we hope it will expedite the consideration in the Senate of this critically important bill.

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

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

I think I have made my frustrations readily clear in regards to how we got to the current NDAA. It is troubling to see how the Senate's failure to act is going to end up costing our troops. To me, it is just not right to the men and women, the 1 percent of America that put their lives on the line for this country the Senate has turned a blind eye to.

I am optimistic, though, that with the changing of the guard in January, that we are actually going to get things done. We are actually going to pass legislation to address the issues that are so confronting this Nation that deserve to have discussions in both Houses. It is important that the Senate act. It is important that the Senate has debate. So I think that at the end of the day, in January with the changing of the guard, we are going to see a different set of facts as Congress moves forward.

I am really hopeful that Congress takes the steps, and Mr. McGovern talks about it, but we need to talk about the AUMF. We need to talk about those guiding principles that set up where we are today, things that were passed long before I came to Congress, authorizations that go back 12 to 13 years ago.

The landscape has changed, and we need to absolutely have a strong and long, hard debate in regards to how we authorize the use of force in the future in specific instances, as the Constitution requires.

When we talk about the Constitution, we talk about the President just ignoring it, the administration sidestepping Congress whenever it sees fit, the use of force is one of those areas, I think. And the same with what this administration has done in the underlying bills that this bill allows us to address in the President's recent executive order. The bill reaffirms that Congress--Congress--has the power to write the immigration laws. It reaffirms that the President must enforce the laws that are currently on the books, not something that he wishes, but what is currently law of the land.

Mr. Speaker, the President's actions have gotten so out of hand that we now must pass bills to remind him of what the Constitution sets, and that is a shame. We even have to remind the President of what he, himself, has said in the past about what is the appropriate role of the office of President.

Speaking in 2011 in a Univision town hall, the President stated:

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend

deportations through executive order, that is just not the

case because there are laws on the books.

He also said that Congress passes the laws, and it is the executive branch's job to enforce and implement those laws, and then it is up to the judiciary to interpret those laws if there is a question.

The President even said that there are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system. That, for me, is simple enough. And the President said that: through executive order, to ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President. I didn't say that; he said that. I am not a lawyer; he is a lawyer, a constitutional lawyer.

What he hasn't said to us, the American people, is in those 22 utterances where he said those things, why hasn't he justified to the American people that maybe he was wrong when he said that, he didn't get it right, he didn't understand. He never said anything like that. What he has done is come back and to say: Do you know what--and he said it before that--I have a pen and a phone. And he can do what he pleases.

Mr. Speaker, this is an unfortunate time when we have to call the President out for not following the Constitution. This is not something that I look forward to. It is not something that I want to do. But it is so important, as I have said before, that we respect the article I power that this body has in the Constitution, that our

Founding Fathers thought it was so important that there be a separation of powers so that there was no monarchy, so there was no one person that can call all the shots. They sought it because they needed to because of what the impression is that they left that they were under.

We are merely standing up for our rights as citizens of the United States, as I believe we should be enforcing the constitutional requirements, that founding document. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think so. I have been wrong in the past, but on this particular issue, the Constitution is the document that we should live by. The Constitution sets forth the operation of this government, not by whim and not by decree, but by law. We are a nation of laws.

You have heard me talk about the NDAA, and I will say this to Mr. McGovern as it relates to authorization of military force. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to have a separate debate. We need to have it when we have a partner across the other side of the Capitol that will join in that debate about what we should be doing with the use of force and what we do as it relates to our men and women that serve.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the checks and balances our Founders so thoughtfully crafted.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Nugent

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 41 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, December 4, 2014, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation.

Whereas, stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide, responsible for the death of one person every six seconds and nearly six million each year; and

Whereas, stroke is not only a killer, but it is also the most common cause of long-term disability, reducing quality of life and placing burdens on entire families; and

Whereas, we cannot solve our problems by ignoring them, and the threat of stroke to our communities will only increase as our population ages and faces increased lifestyle health risks; and

Whereas, in raising public awareness about this preventable and treatable threat, together we can help save millions of lives.

Therefore, I, Richard B. Nugent, Member of Congress representing the Eleventh Congressional District of Florida, do hereby recognize the 29th day of October as World Stroke Day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the collective attention of the House to an unfortunate case of federal over- regulation and the consequences to a small business in my district. In Ocala, Florida, we have a small family business that has produced and distributed snacks to schools across the country for more than three decades. Country Meats makes a pork-based snack that is common to student fundraisers and the proceeds of its sale in public schools over that time have netted more than $30 million in support of marching bands, athletic teams and academic clubs nation-wide.

New standards established under the Healthy Hunger-Free Kid Act would prohibit the sale of anything in schools that cannot meet the nutrition standards. A well intentioned policy, but one that when rigidly enforced, excludes: cheese, milk, nuts and the snacks made by Country Meats. The Department of Agriculture applied common sense to offering exemptions for each of those items and their many variations, but not to the small family business in my district.

Country Meats is not an international business that can pool resources into a common interest of a multi-billion dollar industry to make its concerns heard in Washington. Its twenty employees in Ocala, whose jobs will be lost as collateral damage to federal overreach. This company does not have the clout to educate each state legislature on how to file exemptions with the Department of Agriculture. It needs to do that in order to continue fundraisers that have been a mainstay in schools dating back to 1978. Instead, Country Meats will be added to the list of small businesses that lost their income because of obtuse federal regulation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Glen R. Bortell's one hundredth birthday.

It is with great pride that I stand to honor Mr. Bortell, not only for his long life but his great contributions to the health and well- being of his fellow citizens. Mr. Bortell has not let life pass him by without many accomplishments for the good of his community and those around him. The dedication and effort of people like Mr. Bortell allow our communities to thrive and reach their utmost potential.

For nearly 10 years, Mr. Bortell has volunteered at Citrus Memorial Hospital in the diagnostic imaging department. At an age when most hope for a quiet and restful retirement, he has dedicated an amazing 5,000- plus hours of his time to the hospital and its patients. Still having so much to give, to this day Mr. Bortell continues transporting patients in wheelchairs and beds to various departments throughout the hospital.

The selflessness Mr. Bortell has demonstrated throughout his life as well as his constant ``can do'' attitude have inspired many members of his community, especially his fellow volunteers and hospital employees. I am extremely proud to be Mr. Bortell's congressman and I invite everyone to join me in wishing Mr. Bortell a Happy 100th Birthday, and congratulating him on his long, rich, and active life.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 694 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 964 provides for consideration of H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013.

On Monday, the House had a full and thorough debate on H.R. 935. While the bill did not gain the two-thirds majority necessary to pass by suspension, it did receive 253 bipartisan votes.

It is important we pass this bill in order to reduce the regulatory burden that has been placed on the nearly 365,000 pesticide users, and this rule allows us to do that.

The rule also allows the House to consider H. Res. 676.

This resolution will allow the Speaker to initiate litigation for actions by the President--or other executive branch officials-- inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution.

The fact that we have to sue the President simply to ensure that he is working within the constraints of the Constitution, to me, Mr. Speaker, is troubling, but that is the situation we are facing.

While there have always been disagreements between the legislative and executive branches about how expansive the President's authority is, the Constitution is explicit that Congress writes the laws and the President's role is to ``take care'' that those laws are faithfully executed. No President may have both powers.

Our Founding Fathers understood the danger of having a President who not only enforced the laws, but made them. An executive with those powers would easily infringe on citizens' liberty. Our Founders saw this firsthand. That is why they were fleeing to come to this country and form this country. They knew the Executive would try to exceed the power afforded under the Constitution, even when it is occupied by someone who previously taught the limits the Constitution puts on Presidential power. That is why they were so careful in delegating among the three branches.

This system of checks and balances has served America so well for so long. Now, I am sorry for the civics lesson, but it is clear that some on the other side of the aisle have temporarily lost sight of how important these checks and balances are to the functioning of this House and to the legislative branch in general.

But that wasn't always the case. When Representative Conyers, for instance, was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he remarked:

We are coequal branch of government, and if our system of

checks and balances is going to operate, it is imperative

that we understand how the executive branch is enforcing or

ignoring the bills that are signed into law.

Representative Nadler, for his part, cautioned:

And I hope that anyone who thinks that inquiring into the

excesses of the executive branch and into what appears to be

a concentrated effort in every different aspect of law to

destroy the power of the Congress and the judiciary and to

limit our power to protect the liberties of the American

people against encroachments by the Executive are a waste of

time, I hope they will rethink what they are doing here.

Mr. Speaker, I read these quotes to illustrate the concern of the executive branch overstepping its authority isn't confined to just one party or one President. This is a legislative versus executive issue; it is not a Democrat versus Republican issue. And, to be frank, the legislative branch has been on the losing end of this for quite some time.

But my point is that we shouldn't be so callous or shortsighted as to not defend our article I powers simply because the President in question happens to belong to one party.

If we don't take action now, what stops future Presidents--Republican or Democrat--from eroding our powers further? Congress, itself, has shown little opposition to the harm it has done to the separation of powers over the years. That is why it is critical that we take action now. This should be a cause that the legislative branch can unite around, not divide over.

Instead, we have Members of Congress standing in applause when the President says he will bypass Congress to enact his agenda. Mr. Speaker, half of this body stood up in applause. It should be done in defiance. Here we have Members of Congress cheering for the President for basically saying he is going to eliminate their purpose here.

This isn't the first President whose actions have raised the alarms of an overreaching executive, and it is clear if we do nothing, it will not be the last.

I urge my colleagues to defend our role in government, and to stop the assault on the separation of powers.

Let's finally say to the Executive: ``Enough is enough.'' Let's finally say: ``Support the Constitution, support the separation of powers, and support this rule.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), chairman of the House Administration Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx, my distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee.

I do not, Mr. Speaker. I want to reiterate my earlier announcement that all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only, and we are not yielding for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice).

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot here today. A lot of it, I don't know exactly where they are coming from. But we have heard a lot of things today.

Democrats would like to believe--or would like the American people to believe, or go to that narrative--that Congress hasn't done its job. Well, you have to remember that the House of Representatives is one- half of that. The Senate is the other half.

Now, if you think about it, we have sent 40 jobs bills over to the Senate, where they are gathering dust on Leader Reid's desk. We have passed seven of the appropriations bills here in the House. The Senate, zero. We have passed important tax legislation to ensure our economy continues to grow and that companies continue to hire.

We will be voting today on a veterans package to help our veterans. And tomorrow, for the second time, we are going to consider a bill as it relates to the highway trust fund.

So perhaps the Republicans in the House are getting the job done with support of Members on the other side of the aisle. How many bipartisan bills are sitting there in the Senate just languishing away because there is a decision made just not to move anything forward from the House? That is unfortunate because that hurts the American people.

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of things that are supposedly what we want to do. But here is what I believe we are trying to do today. It is about defense of the Constitution. It is pure and simple. It is about the protection that is given by the Constitution to the two houses of the legislative branch and to the President of the United States and the executive branch and to the judiciary, and that separation of powers is within the Constitution. That is what we are fighting for.

Forget about all this other stuff that has been thrown up as a smokescreen. We are fighting to defend the Constitution.

And people say, well, you know, it could cost money. Well, thank goodness. Thank God that our Founding Fathers didn't say, well, you know what? It is a reach too far. It will cost too much. It could cost our lives. They didn't make that decision. What they said was, it is important for the future of this country that we live by the Constitution, that we design a Constitution that will endure into the future.

And, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that this Constitution has endured and has provided the guidance for this country to move forward every day. It is not by happenstance. It is by the fact that we are supposed to live by and defend the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, when I was a deputy sheriff, if we just said, You know what, I don't agree with the free speech portion of the Constitution, we would have stopped free speech. I had to defend people, stand there and put my body in front of people who were opposed to what the people behind me were saying that was repugnant to us and to most Americans. But I had to put my safety at risk for their free speech. And you know, I could have said, You know what, I don't agree with that. That is just part of the Constitution. Let's not worry about free speech. But we didn't do that. We didn't rewrite the law. We didn't rewrite it.

You know, yesterday or the day before--I am not sure which day it was--but in the Rules Committee, we heard an impassioned description from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster), who was the speaker of the house in Florida, who was sued by the Governor in regards to the implementation of law. And guess what? That body won.

And thank goodness that the house won in the Supreme Court of Florida and that they just didn't say, You know what, you don't have standing. So forget about that.

A lot of people are trying to presuppose what the Supreme Court is going to say or do. I would suggest to you that I am willing to go along with whatever the Supreme Court says. Now, I may not like it. But I am willing to go along with it because I do believe they are the ultimate arbitrators as to what is constitutional and what isn't.

It is amazing that this document that we are talking about, that there is a question about it, that there is a question about the separation of powers.

I would like to read a quote from then-Senator Barack Obama:

We have got a government that was designed by the Founders

with checks and balances. You don't want a President that is

too powerful, a Congress that is too powerful, or a Court

that is too powerful. Everybody has got their own role.

Congress' job is to pass legislation.

The President can veto it or sign it, but what George Bush

has been doing as part of his effort to accumulate more power

in the Presidency, he has been saying, well, I can basically

change what Congress passed by attaching a letter that says I

don't agree with this part or that, I'm going to choose to

interpret it this way or that way.

It is not part of his power, but it is part of the whole

theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he goes along.

I disagree with that.

Once again, quoting then-Senator Obama, Senator Obama says:

I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the

Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United

States.

Now, I don't know what happened on the trip from the Capitol down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, how that changed, but I guess the Presidency can change your view of the world. It may not be an accurate view of the world, but it can change it.

I think what then-Senator Obama said rang true then and rings true today. It is about the separation of power, and let me tell you something, my friends on the other side of the aisle should be standing there with us because, for too long, this House has now become irrelevant. Congress in general is becoming irrelevant.

When I got elected just over 4 years ago, I came up here with a purpose. I came up here with a belief in the Constitution and that there is separation of powers between the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch, but now, I hate to say it, in my 4 years, I have become disenchanted with the fact that this House for way too long has just had a ``cooperate and graduate'' kind of attitude, and I don't think we should do that.

That is why, today, the buck stops here. We have got to make a stand in regards to is the Constitution relevant, is this House relevant. If not, we should just all go home. There is no reason to be here.

I have three sons that serve their country and that have put their lives on the line for this country, not by their own choice--I mean, they serve their country at their choice--but when they go off into war, it is at the direction of the President.

It is a direction to protect this country, and they do so willingly. They raised their hand to say they are going to support and defend the Constitution. I raised it as a police officer outside of Chicago, I raised it as a deputy sheriff, I raised it as sheriff, and I raised it here when I got sworn in as a Member of this body.

I take that seriously, and I take it seriously when anybody thinks they can trample on the Constitution. I take it seriously when anybody thinks that they are above where we need to be.

This legislation is about empowering the Speaker of the House, if he so deems it, to sue the President. I happen to agree with that. Mr. Speaker, we can talk all day--at least I could--in regards to why it is important that this House protect its prerogative in regards to passing legislation and reminding the executive branch as to what their duties are.

Mr. Speaker, this isn't about Democrats and Republicans. Let me tell you something, I wasn't here before this. I got here 4 years ago. I don't care if it is a Republican or Democrat or Independent or whatever. I believe in this institution. I believe in the Constitution of this country, and I believe we should do everything in our power to defend it no matter who is trying to usurp it.

So I encourage my colleagues for the last time to support this rule, to support this institution, and to support this Constitution. It is about are we really serious about the checks and balances that our Founding Fathers so rightfully created.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider House Concurrent Resolution 105 in the House, if called up by the Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or his designee;

that the amendment printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and numbered 1 be considered as adopted;

that the concurrent resolution, as amended, be considered as read;

and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution, as amended, to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by Representative Royce of California and Representative McGovern of Massachusetts or their respective designees.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Chair, as a past sheriff, we utilized that equipment in a responsible way. All of the helicopters we had in our fleet were all surplus helicopters that flew as far back as Vietnam. Some of the weapons that we had came from the military. We didn't receive any bombs.

At the end of the day, you can always find misuses of any equipment that is given or utilized by law enforcement. It is the responsibility of those communities to keep that law enforcement agency in check.

To just outright ban the usage of that equipment would devastate local law enforcement agencies across the Nation, not just in Florida, but everywhere.

With that, I do appreciate the comments of the gentleman from New Jersey.

Madam Chair, I have heard a lot of things in my life as a sheriff and in my 38 years in law enforcement, but I will tell you this: first of all, the Federal Government does not give local law enforcement or any law enforcement agency bombs.

The helicopters that local law enforcement receive are all demilitarized. They are all stripped out of any capability of having weapons in them. Those are used to save people's lives. They are used to find guys that have murdered people or to find rapists.

This is absolutely ludicrous to think that the equipment that is utilized by law enforcement is utilized for any reason except for public safety interests, and it happens across this Nation every day in a responsible way.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, the amendment treats the National Guard dual status military technicians as uniformed personnel in the event of furlough.

Dual status technicians are uniformed full-time guardsmen, but a lot of their workweek falls into a legal gray area between active duty and civilian. Essentially, they wear two hats.

They are trained to perform a particular job in the Armed Forces, and they drill in that role like all other guardsmen. However, these dual service technicians are the ones that actually keep the equipment operational.

My son serves in the Florida Army National Guard as a Black Hawk pilot. These dual service technicians are there all week long, to make sure that the helicopters he flies are viable, are safe, and can do a mission.

When they were furloughed last time under this President, we lost the ability to respond to natural disasters within the State of Florida. When we were in the hurricane season and the helicopters were not flyable because our dual service technicians had been furloughed and not treated like other full-time military personnel, we lost the capability to respond to issues that are State issues.

More than that, this same unit that I am talking about--and it goes across this Nation with regard to National Guard units and dual service technicians--they have deployed to Afghanistan, to Iraq; and when they deploy, they actually go with them because they are in uniform. They are military.

Because of the gray area they fall in, they can be furloughed by the President, like they did this last time, and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo) and I had come to this floor to talk about that issue, and we had this same amendment, which passed unanimously, I believe, because it protects not only the States, but it also protects our national mission of self-defense here in the homeland and being able to project the force that we need.

So at the end of the day, these technicians who during the day wear a uniform of the United States--this time it would be the Army--in keeping the equipment serviceable and operational--and in this instance were Black Hawk helicopters--they were furloughed. And guess what? They can only be there when they were on the drill weekend. Well, unfortunately, 3 days out of a month is not enough to keep a Black Hawk operational.

So this is really important. We are lucky this time that sequestration is put off in 2015. But that doesn't stop the Commander in Chief from changing that and furloughing these employees, another reason to save money.

At the end of the day, it is about readiness. We should do nothing that hurts readiness in our military, whether it is National Guard or Reservists, but particularly, and I will tell you from my standpoint in the State of Florida that is hurricane prone, those Black Hawks deliver rescue capability that no other vehicle provides for. And we need to make sure those dual-service technicians are treated with respect and kept on the payroll to do the job of keeping our military active with that Reserve component, the National Guard, keep them ready to respond to emergencies here at home and abroad.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. And, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your comments, and I appreciate the work that you have done on this.

With that, Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

I certainly do appreciate the ranking member's comments about other Federal employees, and I am the last one to malign Federal employees, but this is specifically in regard to--do you remember back when we passed the Pay Our Military Act? It was that act that allowed for the President and the Department of Defense to make that determination that these folks were essential. They decided that they weren't. And, in fact, we know they are because they are the ones, like I said, that keep the equipment operational, that allows our pilots and, in particular, Black Hawk pilots the ability to fly to respond to missions at home and abroad.

So while I don't disagree with a lot of what the ranking member said, this is really about those that wear the uniform of this country and allowing them to make sure that they are paid, A, and make sure that they are on duty to keep that equipment operational.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 628 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 628 provides for the consideration of H.R. 4870, the Department of Defense Appropriation Act for FY 2015 under a modified open rule.

This resolution will give Members on both sides of the aisle the opportunity to offer as many amendments to the bill as they wish, provided they comply with the rules of the House. It ensures that all Members can be active participants in shaping this bill. I think my colleague on the Rules Committee from Georgia described it best when he called this process a ``festival of democracy.''

The underlying legislation will give the Department of Defense the resources it needs to protect our country at home and abroad. I am encouraged that both sides of the aisle can usually unite around this cause. This bill is another example of that bipartisanship, as it was reported out of the committee unanimously.

The DOD Appropriations Act will also provide support for our warfighters, the 1 percent who risk all in defense of this Nation. It is critical that we give our troops the tools they need to carry out their mission abroad and the resources they need to support their families here at home. This legislation will fully fund a 1.8 percent pay increase for the military instead of the 1 percent raise requested by the President.

Secondly, this rule allows us to begin ironing out the differences between the House and the Senate attempts to address the VA scandal. While we have yet to uncover the full scope of this scandal, it is apparent the problems are systemic to that institution.

There have been secret wait lists, unacceptable patient wait times, inadequate care, backlogs, a culture of retaliating against whistleblowers, and a serious lack of leadership, to name only a few of the issues plaguing the VA.

Tragically--tragically--veterans have died because of these problems. Mr. Speaker, it is disgraceful. The fact that a veteran died waiting for care from this country that they fought for, it is just tough to come to grips with that reality, but it is a reality.

As a father of three sons serving in the military, I am appalled, I am horrified, and I believe the American people are, too, as to the treatment of our veterans. Our veterans deserve a whole lot more, a whole heck of a lot more from their government than to have the government turn their back on them. They deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and the House will make every effort to ensure that these problems never happen again.

One of the ways we can begin this effort is by giving the VA the authority to terminate employees for performing poorly, much like the private sector, much like I had as sheriff. It is what most employers have the ability to do. This will give the Secretary of the VA the ability to quickly remove bureaucrats who falsified, in this instance, wait times.

As we have come to find out with all other scandals this administration is engulfed in, it is difficult to hold people accountable in the executive branch, try as we might. Therefore, the provisions are sorely needed.

We can also require the VA to reimburse private health care for veterans who live more than 40 miles from a VA facility or those who have not received timely medical treatment at the VA.

This will allow our veterans to get the care that they need when they need it.

Finally, it is a bit discouraging that we even have to codify this into law, but we need to end the bonuses and awards at the VA for at least the next two fiscal years. Incredibly, the Phoenix VA--where veterans actually died waiting for care--felt it was appropriate to pay out $10 million in bonuses over the last 3 years.

By prohibiting this practice, we can ensure that the funds we provide to the VA are going where they are needed: toward the care of our veterans and not to fatten bureaucrats' pockets.

I stand in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

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

I have none.

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

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us allows for an open and transparent consideration of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015. Chairman Frelinghuysen has done an excellent job in the appropriations area, working with his minority member, to craft this appropriations bill to fit the needs of our military. They have done an excellent job.

Providing for the common defense is a constitutional responsibility that we share with the President. This Congress shares that with the President. Without a strong defense, we have no way of ensuring that our liberties we enjoy and the safety of our citizens from threats, both foreign and domestic, keep us safe here at home.

The underlying legislation helps fulfill Congress' responsibility to provide for our national defense by funding the Armed Forces and addressing critical readiness gaps.

The DOD Appropriations bill provides $1 million to be used exclusively for improving military readiness. That commitment is vital because we need to give our warfighters the best possible chance to complete their mission and make it home safe and sound.

As a father of three soldiers, I can only tell you that the ability to train and equip our men and women that have volunteered to serve this country is the utmost responsibility that this country has to them to make sure that they have the ability to come back. We need to give them the best possible fighting chance to come home to their families.

As a father who has sons serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we have got to make sure this country provides the best possible military, second to none in the world.

We want to make sure that our men and women have the ability to have the medical treatment that they so rightly

deserve when they come back after serving their country. I think that we have taken the steps in the Rules Committee to do just that.

This rule and this appropriations bill actually rejects, again, the President's proposed cuts to TRICARE. Once again, in the last 4 years, TRICARE has come under fire.

We don't believe that we should balance the budget on the backs of our men and women who fight for this country. We need to make sure of our priorities that we owe our troops, which is a debt we can never repay, but you don't repay it by cutting their benefits, and you don't repay it by cutting their pay, you don't repay it by ignoring them as it relates to when they come back with a service-connected disability, go in front of the VA, and be denied the service they rightfully earned.

Finally, the rule provides for the motions necessary to go to conference with the Senate because, if you remember right, the Senate passed a bill, the House passed a bill as it relates to the VA, in regards to trying to fix the VA. It is a good first step.

Those bills have already been passed. Now, it is the opportunity to provide an opportunity to conference with the Senate to come up with a compromise that puts our veterans first--not last, not behind bureaucrats, but in front of the line, not the back of the line.

We can quickly resolve those issues between the House and the Senate by going to conference, and that is what this bill helps us do.

I think we all agree the treatment of our veterans has been shameful. It is a complete disservice to those who risked their lives for us. The severity of this issue, the sheer gravity of it, demands input from both Chambers.

We have heard about how keeping GTMO open makes us less safe. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that releasing five members of Taliban's senior leadership positions makes America less safe--which we just did, without input from this House or without input from the Senate, as required by law. It was just done.

Are we safer because we released these five Taliban leaders? They are not the trigger pullers. They are not the guys on the ground. These are the guys that actually helped design and implement the Taliban and the attacks on us. Some of those leaders are purported to be members of that group that helped design and implement those.

I agree with my good friend from Massachusetts. We agree on a lot of issues, particularly as it relates to our military and open-ended conflicts. We do agree on that.

Having sons that have served both in Iraq and Afghanistan, I want to make sure that this body has a say in what happens. I want to make sure this body hears from the President in a cohesive way in regards to what he expects to accomplish and what our mission is.

I have two sons in Iraq in the conflict. I happened to travel there and got to see my two kids. The night that I was there, a U.S. base was struck by an IRAM, which is an Iranian rocket warhead.

The only place you get that is from Iran. You don't find it on the shelf at a store. Iran provided a warhead that killed five troops the night I was in Iraq. They were part of the division where my youngest son served.

Here we are, talking about working with Iran, who has been the most destablizing country in the world, as it relates to Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a sectarian issue going on between the Sunnis and the Shiites.

I don't know what the best way forward is, but I want to hear from the President what his plan is. We sent more troops to Iraq. I want to hear specifically what we expect to get out of that. What do we expect?

I will tell you that the ISIL in the media, they want to hurt America. They are the ones that are advancing towards Baghdad. They have the ability, from what I am reading in the press, to reach out and touch America.

Do we have a vested interest in seeing what happens in Iraq? I believe we do, but I want to hear from this President about how you move forward and how you fix something that my good friend from Massachusetts talked about, the corrupt government within Iraq.

We have some of the same issues in Afghanistan. How do we do that?

I think he hit it on the head. The people of those countries have got to stand up and take control. The problem is we don't want terrorists to take control. The ISIL is a terrorist organization; there is no doubt about it.

Lastly, I just want to touch on the conference allowing us to give instructions to conferees as relates to the Senate. We want to make sure that that gets done--and it gets done right and done in a timely fashion. It is amazing that the Senate, when motivated, can do the right thing and move a piece of legislation through.

I support this straightforward rule and the much-needed underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same,

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Missile Project, better known as CHAMP, is an Air Force program to disrupt or eliminate an adversary's electronics without causing physical damage to facilities or people.

My amendment would transfer $10 million within the Air Force R&D budget from directed energy technology to advanced weapons technology. This will move duplicative funds from laboratory development of high- power microwave technology to integration on a delivery vehicle for actual use on the battlefield a decade ahead of schedule.

The Air Force intends to develop CHAMP for use on a reusable delivery vehicle that will be available to combatant commanders in 2025. For a small investment of $10 million this year, the Air Force can get CHAMP to the combatant commanders on a cruise missile delivery system 18 months after enactment of this bill, almost a decade ahead of schedule.

The reason we can do this so quickly and at such a low cost is by utilizing unused cruise missiles, just like the ones the Air Force used to test CHAMP recently. There is an existing stockpile of cruise missiles that have been removed from their original mission and can be cost-effectively repurposed as a delivery vehicle for CHAMP. Over the next few years, the Air Force has an opportunity to fit CHAMP on a proven delivery vehicle already in stock.

In this window, it is very cheap to make a cruise missile-delivered CHAMP system and very expensive for adversaries to defend. The $10 million my amendment allocates to advanced weapons technology will improve the size and weight of the weapon to optimize its performance on a cruise missile.

It is important to note this amendment will ensure that sufficient funds

exist to develop both the short-term cruise missile system and the long-term reusable delivery system.

The offset for this amendment pulls from an increase in another directed energy program in the Air Force that is doing duplicative work to reduce the size and weight of high-power microwave.

Instead of just doing lab work, we can do the lab work and get it out into the field. As I said, these two programs are doing duplicative work, and one is closer to the finish line than the other.

This is a bipartisan bill. I am happy to have support of the ranking member of the Armed Services subcommittee of jurisdiction and cochair of the Directed Energy Caucus, Mr. Langevin. The authorization for this program increase has been in the National Defense Authorization Act since the chairman's mark and was in the bill the House passed earlier this year.

In the Armed Services Committee, we have heard the desire of this game-changing technology in testimony from combatant commanders and from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

Let's get the warfighter this capability in 18 months by passing this simple amendment today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his consideration. What I would like to add to this is that the Air Force tested CHAMP on that delivery vehicle--a successful test, as it may be--and the testimony from those combatant commanders, the guys in the field that actually need it, are saying: hey, I would rather have it in 18 months than in 2025.

It is just that simple. We heard testimony with regards to China and about Russia. Wouldn't it be better to use these limited funds that we have already spent millions of dollars on to develop the process, develop the technology, wouldn't it be better today to spend $10 million to actually get it in the field to support our troops and our warfighters? That is our argument.

While I respect the Air Force, I think what the Air Force has--and they are looking at a long-term solution, a reusable vehicle, which I support, but I also support those who are out on the front line today. I have three kids out on the front line.

This helps those soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors with more protection. We can do it cheap, and we can do it today, and we can have it done in 18 months.

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

Offered By: Mr. Nugent

Amendment No. 26: Page 31, line 6, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000) (increased by

$10,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Nugent

Amendment No. 27: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Trinity Catholic High School Baseball Team's State Championship Title.

It is with great pride that I stand to honor this momentous accomplishment. On Wednesday, May 14, with great determination and skill, the Trinity Catholic Celtics rose to win Marion County's first baseball state championship. These young men, after dedicating countless hours, were rewarded with a well deserved victory. Moreover, this honor was received with true sportsmanship and class.

This distinguished accomplishment is indicative of the power of our nation's youth. The drive, as well as the athleticism displayed by Trinity Catholic High's Baseball Team should serve as a model for all those who dream of great feats. The people of Florida's 11th Congressional District are extremely proud and I invite you all to join me in extending our most sincere congratulations.

Therefore, I, Richard B. Nugent, Member of Congress representing the Eleventh District of Florida, do hereby recognize the Trinity Catholic High School Baseball Team's State Championship Title.

Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Chairman Wolf, I want to thank you for your leadership and all the years of service to this body, and to the Nation in general.

Each day, more and more Americans are realizing that we need to take action to deal with mental health issues in this country. You merely need to watch the news. We need to make it a priority.

My amendment, in keeping with that sentiment, would provide additional funding for programs under the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act, or MIOTCRA, and for Veterans Treatment Courts. These programs have a proven track record of effectively addressing some of the important issues associated with mental health illnesses.

My amendment would offset this increase by taking $4 million from the periodic censuses and programs account, which I have heard had been hit over and over again. This is less than one-half of 1 percent.

Madam Chairman, both of the programs that would receive an increase in funding under my amendment highlight the need for our justice and mental health systems to work together.

As a former sheriff, I can tell you cooperation is vital. If our justice and mental health systems are collaborating, we can provide more positive outcomes--not only for those with mental health issues, but for our taxpayers as well.

Grants provided under MIOTCRA are used, among other purposes, to set up mental health courts, for community reentry services, and training for State and local law enforcement to help identify and respond to people with mental illnesses, which should be obvious to folks back home, just as with what happened in California.

During my 37 years as a cop, I saw firsthand how our jails are becoming warehouses for people with mental health issues. No one is well served by this process--not those with mental health issues, not our taxpayers, and certainly not our veterans.

Let me provide some numbers to illustrate what is actually going on in our jails.

According to the Florida Mental Health Institute, over a 5-year period, 97 individuals in the metro Miami-Dade area accounted for 2,200 bookings into the county jail, 27,000 days in jail, and 13,000 days in crisis units, State hospitals, and emergency rooms. The cost to the State and taxpayers was nearly $13 million for just 97 people over a 5- year period. However, the type of programs my amendment supports have shown to dramatically reduce these rates.

In Pinellas County--another county in Florida--for instance, a mental health jail diversion program showed an 87 percent reduction in rearrests for nearly 3,000 offenders that were enrolled in that program. Not only does my amendment support these programs but recognizes the unique responsibilities that we have to our veterans.

Veterans are disproportionately affected by mental health issues. Even more, they likely wouldn't have these issues had it not been for their service to our country. We owe them a better outcome. And Veterans Treatment Courts can help.

The point, Madam Chairman, is we don't have to waste taxpayer dollars warehousing people in jail. We don't have to be content with a system that isn't effectively serving the people it is supposed to. We have programs to help and that save money. And we can make this a priority.

I know that this account has been hit numerous times, but I would tell you that you need only to see what is going on in this country. Mental illness is a

problem that needs to be addressed. The Veterans Treatment Courts that can be put in place by this, I think, is owed to our veterans, and certainly is owed to the people we represent.

So I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.