Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, it is with great humility that I stand here tonight, and I think you have heard from a lot of Members tonight talk about Bill Young.

I think he has made the same impression on so many Members on this side of the aisle and on the other side about his humility, about his true caring about people, about the caring that he has for the members of the military.

As a father and a parent of three sons who serve in the United States Army, what struck me so much about Bill and his wife, Beverly, was their true compassion, particularly his compassion as it relates to those who serve us. Beverly was really the fire behind Bill with regards to a lot of these issues as it relates to our veterans. Bill led the way, but Beverly was right there carrying the flag along side of Bill.

Madam Speaker, they were a team together. They worked together for the betterment of all, and that is why Bill is such a great American. While you have heard tonight in this House talk about his legacy, you can't replace Bill Young.

When I first met Bill Young here in this Chamber 3 years ago, he was on that side sitting over there, and he had had a fall and he was injured and he had been at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and his health continued to decline over the last few years. But I came in every day in these Chambers to go see Bill Young because Bill was such a good, kindhearted person. He had a great grip when he shook your hand, but he always had a smile. When you asked him, Mr. Chairman, how are you feeling today? It was never about him. You heard that from other Members today. It was always about, How are your sons? How are your boys? He knew that they were serving in harm's way in Iraq and had been in Afghanistan. He was more worried about them than himself.

I saw him and his wife, Beverly, on the airplane ride back to Tampa almost every week, and without fail they would offer their better seats to a serviceman or servicewoman who was in uniform walking down the aisle. They would get up and say, Would you sit here?

That is just the way they were built.

Bill and Beverly were a perfect match, and Bill has gone on to a place that we can only aspire to go. I truly believe that Bill is at the right hand of God. Maybe he is talking about appropriations, talking about what is right with America.

Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the time you have given all of us to be down here to talk about our good friend, C.W. Bill Young, who will be missed by all.

God bless America.

I thank my good friend on the Rules Committee, a member that I have the pleasure of serving with.

Today, I rise in support of House Resolution 322 and the underlying legislation, H.R. 367, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Security Act. I want to thank my friend for bringing this forward as the rule. But this is better known as the REINS Act. The underlying legislation would bring much-needed reform to our broken regulatory process.

Now, my good friend from New York (Ms. Slaughter) talked about chickens--and she mentioned it last night. But the issue really, what she's talking about when you're talking about the number of chickens being observed by the USDA, this is the President. They want to increase the number. They want to go to a private system. So I agree that it's a bad idea. But maybe the REINS Act could actually help in that particular instance because you could bring it back to this House to talk about it because, as a valued member of the Rules Committee, she brought up a good idea.

But somewhere along the line we have lost sight of what Congress' responsibility in the role of regulation is all about. Through the years, we have delegated away our responsibility. We gave it to unelected bureaucrats to make decisions that have far-ranging effects on the American people. I'm pretty sure that our Founding Fathers really didn't envision us doing that; that bureaucrats are going to decide the fates of small businesses and industries. That's exactly what we let happen because it was easy--it's easier. And all too often, in making regulations in D.C., we just aren't in touch with how that actually affects real Americans, real jobs in this country.

We all hear from folks back home about how regulations passed in D.C. are preventing their businesses from growing and expanding. It's a common refrain, Mr. Speaker.

The REINS Act, however, would return us to the vision our Founding Fathers had for this institution and for this Nation. It does so by ensuring that any major rule--that's a rule that has over $100 million in impact to our economy--receive approval from this body and from the Senate before it actually goes into the process of regulation.

Certainly, regulations with an impact this large deserve to have our attention, our review, and ultimately our blessing by our vote. Frankly, they deserve more than just a public comment period that regulatory agencies give the public. For that reason, I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

I'll just give you one anecdote, Mr. Speaker. Back home, we have a cement kiln that produces cement for use all over the United States; employs 200 people right there. And I come from a county today that still has unemployment of 8.9 percent. What the EPA is looking to do is put those businesses out of existence.

When I talked to the folks that actually run the cement kiln, they said, Rich, we can just go across the border into Mexico, where they don't have any restrictions on air pollution, and we can do it cheaper because we don't have to have the pollution controls. But you know what, that air doesn't stop at the border, it comes back into the United States. So when you force companies out--and we have some of the strongest and most stringent EPA requirements for air and water--when you force those companies to leave our country, take the jobs with them, we still breathe dirtier air than we would have. So there has got to be a common ground.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 312 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 312 provides for House consideration of two separate pieces of legislation. The first of these bills is H.R. 2610, which is the appropriations bill to fund the Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and other Federal agencies. The second bill is H.R. 2397, which is the bill that funds our military and our national security programs for the next year. In perfect honesty, I don't think this is a perfect rule, but I know that it's the right rule for what we're doing today.

When I came to the Rules Committee as a freshman a little over 2\1/2\ years ago, one of our promises not only to the House but also to the American people was that we were going to return to regular order. We were going to make sure the House worked in an open and transparent process.

We promised the American people they would see what was happening in the House and read bills before they came to the floor for a vote. We promised that all Members would have the opportunity to amend and improve legislation. We also said we were going to have an open amendment process on appropriations bills.

The rule provides for a true open rule on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. However, we're also taking up the Defense funding bill under a structured rule. While that may not be ideal, when I look at the alternatives, I know that this structured rule is the best way forward.

As Members of the House of Representatives, we have a duty to fulfill our core mission of the Federal Government. I can't think of a single function of government more inherently Federal in nature than providing for the common defense of this great Nation.

At a time when our troops are stretched too thin, the Department of Defense has been cut repeatedly in the last few years, and the Pentagon is now facing sequestration head on. We cannot let the new fiscal year begin without passing a Defense appropriations bill.

There isn't anybody in this House who is more concerned about our Nation's involvement in Egypt and Syria or more upset about the allegations of the NSA spying on American citizens than I am. However, we cannot let these issues prevent us from beginning to debate on a bill that ensures our military has the funds it needs to get their job done. So if the choice is between a structured rule and never getting the Defense appropriations bill passed, or a structured rule versus passing a Defense appropriations bill that actually makes our Nation less safe than we are today, then I will vote for a structured rule every time. That doesn't mean I think it's a perfect process, but the alternative is unconscionable.

The Department of Defense already is bearing the burden of half of the sequestration cuts, which, in conjunction with cuts they've already sustained, will completely hollow out our military. We need this Defense appropriations bill if we're going to restore flexibility to our military. And that's an issue that must come to the floor, even if it's under a structured process. So I come here today with a compromise.

Far and away, the vast majority of the amendments offered to the Rules Committee on H.R. 2397 will be allowed on the House floor. Our philosophy when considering amendments really is as simple as this: if it would have been allowed under an open rule, it will be allowed under this rule.

There are only three exceptions to that general rule of thumb. Those exceptions were amendments dealing with Egypt, Syria, and the NSA. And even then, these issues are in no way being swept under the rug. I wouldn't stand for that. I wouldn't allow it.

The rule provides for extended debate time on amendments dealing with both Egypt and Syria. Additionally, the rule provides debate on two amendments getting at the issue of NSA--including one amendment that I personally offered. My amendment would strike a balance between making sure our government has all the necessary tools to keep our citizens safe and protecting American civil liberties. Both of the NSA amendments will get extended debate time.

In total, this structured rule allows for debate on 100 amendments. In comparison, the Defense Appropriations Act of fiscal year 2010 also came up under a structured rule. Back then, however, only 16 amendments made it to the House floor.

As I said, it's not a perfect world. I wish we didn't need to deal with choosing between an unlimited debate on these issues and making sure that our troops have the tools they need to protect themselves and our Nation. But that's the nature of the world we live in today. And when it comes down to it, the Defense appropriations bill isn't the right place to be having some of these debates.

I am downright furious over what NSA has been doing. And the more I learn about the programs, the more outraged I get as it relates to trampling on our rights as citizens of this great Nation. But to try to change these programs on the DOD appropriations bill, where we can't legislate, isn't the right way to go about fixing something that's broken.

I'll be the first one to say that we need to have a long and serious discussion and debate about the current law as it stands. Frankly, it seems to me that we need to fix that law--clearly. That's why I'm a cosponsor of stand-alone legislation to do just that. The fact is that it's impossible to make the real, substantive changes by amending this bill.

Appropriation amendments are blunt tools. If there ever was an issue that needed thoughtfulness and finesse, it's when we're looking at programs that are used to keep our Nation and its citizens safe. So today, I offer you an open rule--the rule for the Transportation appropriations bill--and one

that is as close to open as we could get while still ensuring that the House votes on and hopefully passes a bill this week that keeps our troops funded, our Pentagon open, and our citizens safe from harm. It's not perfect, but it's as good as we can get in an imperfect world, and I'm proud to bring it today to the floor of this House.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

I reserve the balance of my time.

As to the thoughts of the gentlelady from Ohio, I appreciate her comments and her support for the military.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it's always great to hear from Mr. Van Hollen. He has been in front of the Rules Committee, I think, a half a dozen times on this particular issue, but that's not the issue we're talking about today. Today, we are talking about a rule to bring forward two bills. One is the appropriations bill for the defense of this country.

I appreciate his comments, but he also forgets to mention that, in the last Congress, this House passed two pieces of legislation to actually do what he was talking about doing. And guess what? It went over to that place where they have rocking chairs--where they do nothing. They didn't discuss it; they didn't debate it; they didn't even send it back to us, because they just didn't have the time to do it in their busy schedule, and I understand that.

I would be glad to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

In reclaiming my time, regarding shutting the government down, those are the gentleman's words, not ours. I don't think you've heard that at all from this side. It's not about shutting the government down; it's about passing 12 appropriations bills. That's really what we are supposed to be doing, and we are committed to doing that. We don't want to see a government shutdown, and I think our bringing appropriations bills to this House floor shows, in fact, that that's not the intent and that that's not the desire.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have none.

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

I do appreciate the comments my friend from Massachusetts has made in a lot of areas, particularly as it relates to the open rule.

I do want to remind him--and I wasn't here in 2010--but the Rules Committee that my good friend sat on made a determination in regards to a structured rule, and that structured rule only allowed for 16 amendments to come to the House floor. That structured rule locked out a lot of folks' ideas in regards to how to better the appropriation bill for the Department of Defense 2011 fiscal year.

I agree with my good friend that this rule is not perfect, but I do want to point out that it does make over 100 amendments in order that are going to be debated here on this floor: an amendment on Syria; an amendment on Egypt; two amendments on the NSA, which are appropriate to have a debate here. And as we talk about authorization, particularly as we look at the NSA, that debate is going to come up in a very robust way because I truly believe that we need to have that.

As it relates to Syria, I have three sons that currently serve in the United States military. The last thing I want to do is see us arm rebels where my sons may have to face those arms at some point in time. I've had sons deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan; and as a Member of this House, there are very few of us that have served in the military in the same way as it relates to having our family members serve in harm's way. So I take it right to heart that we want to make sure that we don't put our sons or daughters in any jeopardy, particularly as it relates to arming those that we have no idea who they are.

I think I've said enough, but my position on arming the Syrian rebels, those that we don't even know who they are or what we're doing in Egypt or what's going on within the NSA as it relates to our civil liberties here in the United States as American citizens, we certainly are going to address those issues as we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I encourage my colleagues to do so, as well. As a father of three sons in the military, I'm disappointed that we've gotten to this point where ideological factions have divided this House so deeply that we're forced to put a structured rule in place in order to simply consider a bill that funds our Department of Defense.

Just to note, 2 years ago when we were having this discussion, I got a call from one of my sons who was deployed to Iraq, worried that his troopers were not going to get paid because that's what they were being told, because of actions of this House.

The last thing is that when our sons and daughters go off to fight, the last thing they should have to worry about is how they're going to take care of the car payment or feed their children back here at home. They should have one focus, and that's the fight ahead of them and returning back to their families and loved ones in the best possible condition they can be.

To me it's about as pathetic as it gets when these men and women are putting their lives on the line each day and we're playing politics with our national defense and we can't put differences aside long enough not to even agree to a funding bill, but just to agree that we should debate the funding bill at all.

I wish we could have an open rule on both of these appropriation measures. You know I do. But when it comes to funding the Pentagon and when it comes to funding our military, the issue at hand is too important to leave this subject to the political whims of select Members who could tie up the debate for days and end with irresponsible amendments that might ultimately put this Nation and its citizens at risk. That's why we're here. That's why we've taken the three most hot- button politicized issues and selected specific amendments to address each of these concerns while still making in order every other amendment that would not otherwise be subject to a point of order.

I welcome debate on how we need to change the laws of this land. I'm an active proponent in having it. Millions of Americans, including me, are questioning many of the laws right now, especially when it comes to the use of military force and the powers given to the NSA under the PATRIOT Act. It's clear that those are conversations that must happen in this forum here, but we can't let it derail the basic funding of our troops. That's what it comes down to.

This bill cannot possibly give the issues at hand the justice they deserve. It's an imperfect tool, and with only 10 minutes per debate per amendment, it would cut short the conversations that we have. That is why, although it is a departure from the normal appropriation process, this resolution brings up H.R. 2397 under a structured rule.

That said, the second half of House Resolution 312 is proof that this House is still dedicated to the open process. We fulfill our promise to both our constituents and ourselves by providing an open rule on Transportation and Housing appropriations. It's a reminder to us that the Defense bill is an example

of extraordinary times calling for extraordinary measures. At the end of the day, what's most important is that we fulfill our core mission. As anybody in the military will tell you, sometimes we have to adapt.

It's not perfect, but we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, especially when we're talking about keeping our troops and our citizens safe. For that reason, I'm proud to support the rule, and I encourage all my colleagues to do the same.

When the Committee on Rules filed its report (H. Rept. 113-170) to accompany House Resolution 312 the summary of amendment numbered 43 was inadvertently omitted. The summary of amendments should have included the following:

43. Cole (OK), Kilmer (WA), McCarthy, Kevin (CA), Bishop, Rob (UT), Jones (NC), Loebsack (IA), McCollum (MN), Scott, Austin (GA): Provides that none of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to implement a furlough of Department of Defense federal employees who are paid from the Working Capital Fund (WCF) Account, which is a revolving fund and does not receive direct funding from Congressional appropriations to finance its operations. (10 minutes)

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

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

Mr. Chairman, it's not every day I get to stand up here in front of the House and talk about a government program that is actually doing well and running ahead of schedule, but that's what brings me here today.

The Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Missile Project, or CHAMP for short, is an Air Force program to develop a capability to disrupt or eliminate an adversary's electronics without causing physical destruction to people or facilities. The only real question with CHAMP is what vehicle to use to deliver that microwave to the intended target.

As it turns out, we have an available stockpile of cruise missiles which are expensive to build and for which we have no other use. Fitting CHAMP into our existing cruise missiles is far cheaper than trying to construct a new vehicle just for that purpose. My amendment, which is fully offset, would provide $10.5 million toward that end.

By making this investment now, we can ensure that CHAMP will be able to put this weapon in the field years ahead of schedule and at a lower cost, while also continuing to develop a longer-term solution. It's a shame that fixing every government program isn't as simple as this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, all I can tell you is this: the offset from the Rapid Innovation Fund--currently the outlay rate, I think, for the first year was 43 percent from that fund.

This is a ready project. This is actually one that the Air Force has tested in a positive manner with positive results in regards to actually eliminating a threat without destroying a building or without destroying lives. If we had something like this when we went into Iraq or that area, we possibly could have done something without having to rebuild an entire infrastructure while still doing what we needed to do to be able to do our military mission.

Mr. Chairman, all I can tell you is that it is, in fact, a program that is working. It just needs a delivery vehicle. This is offset in regards to no additional spending that would be required, other than what comes from that fund that is sitting there. That's what that rapid development fund was actually designed for.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).

This is a simple fix to a problem that is an oversight. And I will tell you, from the State of Florida's perception--I live in Florida--we are obviously prone to hurricanes.

Our National Guard are our first responders when it comes to a natural disaster like a hurricane. These dual status technicians are in a position to keep the men and women of the Florida Army National Guard up and flying those helicopters that are utilized across the gulf coast to rescue people.

Without these dual service technicians, without these women and men who actually repair and keep the equipment running, we are at risk, particularly in the State of Florida, but all along the gulf coast when we can't field the force to go out and protect us here at home, much less out in the world.

And our National Guard, and particularly the aviation unit in my hometown, that's affected, they're currently deployed in Europe. But the fact that they have the inability to keep their equipment maintained, and we're furloughing these dual service technicians, it puts us at risk. It hurts our readiness.

And so from a Florida perspective, I will tell you that it is imperative that we pass this. I really appreciate Representative Palazzo from the great State of Mississippi bringing this forward.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, July 23, 2013, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

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

Mr. Chairman, since coming to the House of Representatives a little over 2 years ago, I have made it a priority to revitalize the economy in central Florida. As a result, I have had the opportunity to meet with community leaders in my district and the surrounding areas to talk about projects that matter the most to them-- dredging of canals and the building of new roads.

Again and again, I find, however, that the Army Corps of Engineers is slow rolling many of these projects, not because they want to, but because they're forced to.

The Corps continues to move the goalpost on these communities. And once permits have been given and work has already been done, the Corps has come back with fines and penalties and mitigation.

When I asked the Army Corps what happened with these projects, it's the same thing. I constantly hear from the Corps that they're worried about being sued. They're worried because the advocacy groups all over this country are dedicated to doing nothing other than taking away Congress' responsibilities for setting our Nation's laws, regulatory policies, and giving it to the courts or the executive branch.

These activists don't want people of the United States of America or their elected officials to have any say in how this country is run. They want to force their own agenda on everybody else through the courts; and even more disturbing, they're doing it with taxpayer money.

These groups receive Federal grants; and once they take the Army Corps, the EPA, or any other agency to court, they oftentimes get a cash settlement or payout to go away. That money goes back into the litigation system, furthering the problem.

Take, for example, the group Earthjustice, which in their tax year of 2011 nonprofit 990 tax form described themselves as a ``public interest law firm'' dedicated to pursuing ``far-reaching, big-impact litigation.'' In that filing, Earthjustice used the phrase ``our litigation'' or ``our lawsuits'' over a dozen times. Their 2011 filing includes seven pages of attorneys' fees that have been awarded to them; and that document celebrates the fact that because of the work, the Federal Government is forced to back down. They have an entire section dedicated to their work to stop the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Moreover, they are doing it with our money. Groups like this get Federal dollars through grants. Then they use the money to help fund lawsuits against the Federal Government and these agencies. They take that settlement money that we pay out, to the tune of $5 million in 2011 for just one group, one advocacy group, Earthjustice; and, guess what, that money comes from the pockets of the American people.

Whether or not you support the policy goals of groups like Earthjustice, every single person in this room should be worried about their tactics. Their self-stated mission is to take regulatory power out of the hands of Congress and hand it to the courts. The goal is diametrically opposed to the vision our Founding Fathers had.

Nobody in this Chamber should support abdicating our constitutional responsibilities to activists who then charge the tab back to United States citizens and then come back asking for even more money.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the work that the chairman has done in moving this particular bill through. In discussions with the chairman of the committee, we're going to withdraw this amendment because I believe that we can work together to try to resolve the fact that these groups shouldn't profit on the backs of American taxpayers, blocking justice and the ability for these places, communities that I serve and others in this great Nation to create jobs.

With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Nugent

Amendment No. 38: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, this Sunday marks the fourth year since Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl was reported missing in action in Afghanistan.

It is on this sober occasion that veterans and concerned citizens across the United States will appeal to their government, asking those who have the means to find every unaccounted soldier, sailor, airman, marine, or guardsman and bring them home.

Currently, less than 1 percent of the American population serves in the Armed Forces at any time. Though their sacrifice is great, many Americans are not touched by this on a personal level because the numbers of our servicemembers are so few.

The men and women who step between us and those who would harm us are young, but they are brave and they are strong, so it's easy to forget that they are so young, filled with an ambition, passion, honor--and a full life ahead of them with unrestrained potential.

Our troops are the children of concerned parents. Many of them are also parents of scared children, and that collective fear is endured by every family left behind. When warfighters do not come home, when they are held as captives or their whereabouts are unknown, the strain on loved ones is unbearable.

All three of my sons are highly capable and well-trained soldiers, but every time they deploy, I worry about when they are away.

My wife and I know the anxiety of Blue Star parents. Our hearts and prayers go out to Gold Star parents, but I cannot imagine what it is to not know the condition or fate of a child missing in action or held as a prisoner of war. So it is today that we recognize the solemn responsibility a Nation has to servicemembers and their families.

Congressman Andrews and I join with our Senate colleagues in this bipartisan, bicameral resolution: to support the military's efforts to rescue or recover every warfighter; to remind the American people and their elected representatives of our national responsibility to the families of those who protect us; and to assure every member of the Armed Forces--past, present, and future--that we leave nobody behind.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that those here remember Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind the United States Senate that although this country has turned a corner on the economy, there are millions of Americans who are out of work. And as we inch closer every day towards the implementation of ObamaCare, these businesses are at risk. Jobs are on the line, Mr. Speaker. Precious employment hours are on the line.

There are steps this House has taken over the last 2\1/2\ years. We have voted almost 40 times to repeal and replace ObamaCare with something special. We've passed bills here in the House for over 400 votes, and those bills to help small businesses have withered on the vine in the Senate.

So while the White House continues to stumble from scandal to scandal, it's still incumbent upon the President to show leadership as it relates to jobs. There are bills waiting for consideration in the Senate that will make a very real difference to the American people.

The House has done and will continue to do everything possible to put American people back to work, and this cannot be done alone. We need the Senate and the President to work with us, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 260 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 260 is a structured rule that provides House consideration of amendments to this year's National Defense Authorization Act.

As I explained when I was down here yesterday, the Rules Committee receives hundreds of amendments to the NDAA every single year. This time we had 299 amendments to make our way through.

While the volume of amendments was massive, the Rules Committee evaluated each and every one in developing this rule. We were not able to make every amendment in order, but I believe this rule will allow for the exhaustive debate of a vast majority of the issues presented in committee.

Yesterday's rule provided for 1 hour of general debate on the underlying bill, H.R. 1960. Today, we're considering a structured rule that provides Members of the House with the opportunity to have copious and free-flowing debate on many of the issues contained in the underlying legislation.

As a member of both the Rules Committee and the Armed Services Committee, I know how complicated and far-reaching the National Defense Authorization Act can be. I've sat through multiple subcommittee marks on this legislation. We had a nearly 16-hour-long full committee markup on this bill, a meeting that started early Wednesday and lasted into Thursday morning. And now we've had two Rules Committee hearings on this bill, including yesterday's hearing, which took almost 10 hours from start to finish.

Having spent as much time with this legislation as I have, I can promise you this: the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014 is a good bill. That's why the Armed Services Committee passed it with an overwhelming vote of 59-2. And we need to acknowledge Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for fostering such a bipartisan and collaborative approach. This rule is the next step in that transparent and cooperative process.

Of the 299 amendments that we received in the Rules Committee, H. Res. 260 makes 172 of them in order. To use a technical term, that's a lot of amendments. Despite that, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will remind us that even with 172 amendments allowed on the floor, it's still not an open rule; and, clearly, they're right. But let me assure you that this is also a fair and inclusive rule.

Having considered each of the amendments that was offered in the Rules Committee, I can honestly say that what we have here today is a rule that gives the House the opportunity to debate all of the major topics contained in the underlying legislation without duplicating efforts and having multiple amendments on the same issue.

For example, we heard many Members speak on the House floor yesterday about sexual assault in the military. The underlying legislation takes significant and necessary steps to combat, prosecute, and prevent this heinous crime. But given the importance of this issue, the Rules Committee understandably received five different amendments all related to sexual assault. So I'm proud to say that H. Res. 260 provides the House with the opportunity to debate this issue and ask ourselves if there isn't more that we can do.

Another major topic, one that none of us can ignore, is the nature of our military's operation in Afghanistan. We need to ask ourselves what's going to happen at the end of 2014, at which time President Obama has indicated we will have moved strictly to a security operation in that country.

The Rules Committee received no less than four different amendments on Afghanistan. I'm happy to say the rule allows for debate on the issue by way of an amendment offered by my colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, and I look forward to that. I look forward to having the opportunity to join the gentleman from Massachusetts in supporting that important--and I think commonsense--amendment, and my hat's off to you for that.

And the list goes on--energy, the use of drones, Guantanamo Bay, missile defense. The rule allows for amendments on all these important topics. I am going to vote for some of the amendments that this rule makes in order; I'm going to vote against others. But first and foremost, I'm going to vote for this rule.

The bill was done the right way. It went through the subcommittee process; it had a thorough and lively markup in the full committee; and it went to the Rules Committee, where we were diligent about making sure we gave it the consideration it deserves and provided it with two rules.

H. Res. 260 is the next step in a thoughtful, bipartisan process. I'm proud of this rule and the underlying legislation and the process that has gotten us to where we are today. For that reason, I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in passing this rule, passing the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014, and making sure our men and women in uniform have the tools and resources they need to complete the mission safely and successfully.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), my colleague on both the Rules Committee and the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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 have none.

Mr. Speaker, this may be my third National Defense Authorization Act as a Member of Congress, but it's my first NDAA as a member of the Armed Services Committee. Let me tell you, it's been an experience. It's an educational, time-consuming and sometimes an exhausting experience, but it's always been a gratifying one.

As the father of three sons that currently serve in the United States Army, I never forget the overarching purpose for all of our work on the Defense Authorization Act. I know that my HASC colleagues never forget it either.

I've had sons that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, sometimes simultaneously. I know what it's like to send a son or a daughter off to war. As a family, it's something that causes you anguish all the time. It's not something that should be done lightly. So I appreciate the McGovern amendment because it's going to provide the opportunity to actually discuss and put on the floor an ability for this House to actually authorize or continue authorization of any force.

I think this House has been, unfortunately, somewhat derelict in its duties because of what we've done in the past and what we've called the President to do when we went into Libya, even though limited by air support only. We should never put our men and women at risk unless this House has a say in that which is so precious to us, and that's our sons and daughters.

You heard Mr. Turner speak as relates to sexual assault, and I heard a lot on the floor about Ms. Speier. She had the ability in the Armed Services Committee--the committee I serve on--she had the ability to bring that up in committee and have unlimited debate--unlimited debate--within that body in regards to her amendment. She chose not to do that. Instead, she chose to bring it in front of the Rules Committee that has a limited time slot.

Of the 299 amendments that were brought forward, 172 were made in order that are going to be heard on this floor today. That's what this rule is about, about giving everybody access and to be heard on all the important aspects of the NDAA. So to say that she was locked out just isn't so. The ability was there. As a Member of the HASC Committee, she had the ability to have unlimited debate.

Remember, the NDAA passed out of that committee 59-2. That's about as bipartisan as you can get, and it really talks about the issues that are important to America and particularly as it relates to protecting our sons and daughters that are called upon to protect this Nation and called upon to go out and sacrifice for this Nation. We owe them that much. We want to make sure that they're successful in any mission that they're sent forward to participate in to protect the interests of this Nation and our Allies.

The American people hear in the news media about how partisan Congress is today. Although we have our disagreements, and I know those reports and folks back home can't be looking at the work we're doing on the Armed Services Committee if all they see is partisanship, because it's not there. If they were looking at the Armed Services Committee and this year's National Defense Authorization Act, they'd see the kind of collaboration that legislation is supposed to be about. They'd see a chairman and a ranking member who work together on a common goal. They'd see staff that works to benefit our warfighters and not a political party. They'd see an

NDAA that was passed out of the largest committee in the House of Representatives with only two people opposing it.

And, tomorrow, I hope they'll see a House of Representatives that can put politics aside and support our troops by overwhelmingly passing the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014.

It's a good bill. H. Res. 260 makes it even better by allowing the House to consider amendments covering all the major issues covered by NDAA and the Department of Defense at large. I always like to say that nobody has a monopoly on good ideas. And that truism is evidenced by the 299 amendments that were offered to this legislation. The rule provides time for a vote on the majority of those ideas. That's why I support the rule, I support the underlying legislation, and I hope the House, as a whole, can do the same.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 256 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam 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

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

House Resolution 256 provides for House consideration of two separate pieces of legislation. The first of these bills is H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act, which will be considered for 1 hour, with time divided between the Committees on Financial Services and Agriculture, under a closed rule.

Secondly, and the reason why I am so proud to be the sponsor of this rule, H. Res. 256 provides for 1 hour of general debate for this year's National Defense Authorization Act.

The Rules Committee traditionally receives hundreds of amendments to the NDAA; and with just under 300 submitted by the end of the day yesterday, this year is no different. Therefore, as is the tradition for this bill, this first rule in the NDAA consideration process provides for general debate while a second will provide for consideration of the plethora of amendments we have before us.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have had the

honor of helping craft this legislation for the past few months. As I think anybody can imagine, when you're talking about a bill that authorizes the Department of Defense, there is a lot to discuss and consider. That point was illustrated by our full committee markup in the Armed Services Committee last week, which started first thing Wednesday morning and went through to almost 3 a.m. on Thursday, 16 hours. We worked long and hard, and I'm proud of the product we've presented to this House for consideration.

But for as much time and effort that we on the Committee on Armed Services put into the Defense Authorization Act, I know that other Members who don't serve on our committee will want to make their mark on this bill, too. To ensure that the House has an opportunity to really have a comprehensive, free-flowing debate on such an important topic, we've decided to break the rule for the Defense Authorization Act into two parts.

That's why today's rule provides us with 1 hour of general debate time. It gets us started on the path to consideration. It also allows Members from both sides of the aisle to have a full discussion about the broader themes running through this base legislation. There are important debates, and the sooner we get them started, the better. But with nearly 300 amendments submitted to the National Defense Authorization Act, the truth is we on the Rules Committee couldn't give each and every amendment the full weight and consideration it deserves and produce a comprehensive rule that starts debate on the full bill and all amendments today.

If something's worth doing, it's worth doing it right. Therefore, while the House works on the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act and starts general debate on the NDAA, we, on the Rules Committee, will return to the committee room and we'll continue to sift through all the amendments that Members have offered on this bill.

We want to make sure the House has the opportunity to weigh in on each and every important issue in the NDAA. That's why we need to take our time. And once we have a full understanding of the amendments submitted to the committee, we'll come back with a second rule setting the universe of amendments for this legislation.

I know that we all share the same commitment to making this a fair and collaborative process. Quite frankly, it's the spirit of cooperation and the knowledge that we're serving a common purpose that has been one of the most gratifying parts of serving on HASC to date. As Chairman McKeon said to the Rules Committee yesterday, we may disagree sometimes, but it doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable. We're able to put partisanship aside, and we know that our work directly impacts the life of each and every servicemember and his or her family in a personal and direct way.

We're providing for the common defense, which is part of the Federal Government's most fundamental roles, part of our core mission, as I like to say. And if you want proof of how collaboratively we worked on this bill as a committee, you only need to look at the fact that we passed this bill out of committee 59-2. And as the father of three sons serving in the Army, I'm heartened to know that politics can be set aside when it comes down to making sure our troops are equipped with the tools that are required, funded at the levels they need, and trained for the mission at hand.

This is an important time for our country and an important time for those members of the military who serve us every day. These young men and women put their lives on the line for us so we could be here today and debate the issues of the day. So they deserve our undivided attention and support when it comes to making sure that they have everything that they need, and there's no more essential role for our Federal Government, in my opinion, as to what we are doing today.

H.R. 1960 fulfills the promise to our warfighters and to their loved ones. I'm proud of this rule, which gets us on the road towards considering and passing this essential bill. For that reason, I support the rule. I support the underlying pieces of legislation and look forward to coming back here tomorrow in the next step of getting the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 passed.

I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that everybody knows that there were almost 300 amendments that have been submitted, and they'll be discussed later today, and Mr. McGovern is a part of that process and will be discussing those amendments today.

But I agree with both of my colleagues as it relates to sexual assault in the military. Having only been on Armed Services now for 6 months, I will tell you that I agree with Mr. McGovern, particularly as it relates to oversight. And I believe that this Congress should exhibit and utilize its oversight capacity to the fullest, especially as it relates to sexual assault within the military.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to 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, Mr. Speaker.

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 continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I have none.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well. It allows the House to take action on two different but very important pieces of legislation.

It provides us with an opportunity to force the SEC and the CFTC to finally and jointly promulgate rules governing the U.S. institutions' use of swaps and other financial derivatives while accessing international markets. This action will help ensure that we have a vibrant financial system and that American companies can manage the risks while remaining competitive in an international market. Additionally, it begins our consideration on the National Defense Authorization Act, providing the House with an hour of general debate on programs that make up our Department of Defense.

As a Member of Congress, as a three Blue Star parent, and as an American, I can think of nothing more important than providing our military the tools that they need to carry out their missions. These brave men and women put their lives on the line for our Nation each and every day. This legislation isn't a thank-you to the troops, it's our duty as citizens to acknowledge that we live in the land of the free only because of the service of the brave.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot of discussion here on the floor, particularly as it relates to Dodd-Frank. First of all, this does not repeal Dodd-Frank. If it were a vote for a repeal of Dodd-Frank, I'd vote for it, but it's not a repeal of Dodd-Frank. As a matter of fact, this piece of legislation, the Swap Act, was actually voice voted out of the Agriculture Committee, which has joint jurisdiction over this piece of legislation. It was voice voted. In the Committee on Financial Services, 100 percent of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats voted for its passage, so it isn't exactly as one would hear the other side say.

When we talk about open rules, I think one of the things that distinguishes this Congress versus the 111th Congress is that this is one of the most open Congresses in the 112th Congress versus the 111th, which had absolutely zero open rules. I will remind my colleagues of that just because, as we talk about this and move forward on both of these issues, it's important to know that we have an open rule coming up in which we have almost 300 amendments that we are going to be considering in the Rules Committee in just a short period of time with the NDAA.

Lastly, I hear my colleagues talk about how for 25 years they have allowed sexual assault to go unabated. I can hardly stomach the fact that this body would allow that to happen over the last 25 years. As a former law enforcement officer, as one who vigorously prosecuted cases of sexual assault and rape, it should be no different for our armed services.

That is where my good friend Mr. McGovern had mentioned the oversight of armed services and of this House to make sure that we hold people accountable; to make sure, as other Members have talked about, that members of our military are kept safe, and that those who would prey upon members of their own military unit will find swift justice so that nobody can say there is not justice in regards to the fact, if you commit a rape or a sexual assault in the military, that you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; that we make sure that we have victim advocates for those who are assaulted, and that we have good investigators who focus on those types of crimes and have the forensics to back it up so you have a strong prosecution. I think that's what this NDAA bill is an attempt to do.

I strongly support the bill and the underlying legislation.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 1 minute a.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until today, Thursday, June 13, 2013, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, as many of you know, this is National Police Week. Law enforcement officers throughout our country are gathered here in our Nation's Capital to remember those who have fallen in the line of duty. As a former sheriff and police officer, I couldn't be more proud to be part of this family.

Unfortunately, last year, we lost 120 brave men and women, and this year we've already lost 41.

When tragedy strikes, as it recently did in Boston, we're reminded of these officers' selfless courage. Yet we often forget that these men and women are at risk every time they report for duty. Every time they kiss a loved one good-bye, they never know if it's going to be for the last time. Day in and day out, they put their lives on the line to keep us--our communities, our towns, and our cities--safe. For this, we owe them a debt of gratitude.

So in honor of these law enforcement officers who made the ultimate sacrifice to keep us safe, may we please have a moment of silence.