Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am joined today with my colleagues from Washington State to ask you, at the end of my comments, to ask for a moment of silence because, on October 24, the Marysville, Washington, and Tulalip communities were violently ripped apart by a tragic shooting at Marysville-Pilchuck High School. Four students and their assailant have died, and one student was seriously wounded.

Now, as the father of two teenage boys, my heart breaks as I consider the families who were given the worst news imaginable as a result of this horrible event.

Healing is a difficult process, especially as we approach the Thanksgiving holiday. Marysville and Tulalip and the surrounding communities have shown their strength, however, and their resilience by celebrating these young people and giving thanks for their lives, although those lives were cut terribly short--the lives of Zoe Galasso, Gia Soriano, Shaylee Chuckulnaskit, Andrew Fryberg, and, yes, a celebration of even the life of the shooter, young Jaylen Fryberg.

Our thoughts are also with Nate Hatch and his family as he continues to recover.

We all want to thank our first responders and the Marysville-Pilchuck High School staff and leadership for their quick action on that sad day. We want to thank the Tulalip leadership for their resiliency and the faith communities throughout the area for opening their buildings and their arms to the grieving population. Everybody involved deserves our thanks and deserves our prayers.

For our first responders, you put yourselves at risk to keep our children safe, and I know I speak for our whole community when I thank you for your service and your bravery.

I want to commend the strength of the community leaders during this incredibly difficult time. And my colleagues and I want to continue to send thoughts and prayers to students, teachers, and families of the Marysville and Tulalip communities.

So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the House, and we all ask the House, to observe a moment of silence as we remember these young people whose lives ended far too soon.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5266, the reauthorizing of the National Estuary Program.

I want to thank Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Bishop on the subcommittee and, of course, my colleague whom I share the Aviation Subcommittee with, Mr. LoBiondo, for their leadership on getting this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, estuaries are a critical habitat for salmon, birds, and many other species in the Pacific Northwest, where we know that protecting our natural resources is good for our environment and good for our economy.

My district borders on Puget Sound, which is our country's second largest estuary and is a key driver of our economy in Washington State. Trade, fishing, tourism, and outdoor recreation in our region create and sustain thousands of jobs, and all of these activities are dependent on a healthy Puget Sound. I have long supported estuary restoration in the Puget Sound region, including projects like the Qwuloolt Estuary Restoration Project, which will be the largest tidal marsh restoration project ever completed in Washington State.

Estuary restoration can also be a key component for absorbing carbon emissions and increasing resiliency to the effects of climate change. A recent study of the Snohomish Estuary, in my district, found that currently planned and in-construction restoration projects will result in at least 2.55 million tons of CO2 sequestered from the atmosphere over the next 100 years. That is the equivalent of a year's worth of emissions from a half a million automobiles. This bill is important. It is important for all of us.

I want to thank my colleague again, Mr. LoBiondo, for his hard work on this legislation. I look forward to continuing our productive bipartisan relationship on this and on many other issues. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5266.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Keith Jefferts, a constituent and friend of mine. Keith Jefferts was characterized by three great passions: salmon, science, and piloting-- both air and sea.

Keith was born May 10, 1931 and graduated from Edmonds High in 1949. He went on to earn a B.S. in Physics at the University of Washington. After the University of Washington Keith went on the U.S. Naval flight school, and he eventually received several awards for his military service.

He went on to work at Bell Laboratories, where he worked with radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson and helped discover carbon monoxide in the Orion Nebula, work that was eventually recognized with a Nobel Prize.

More recently, Keith founded Northwest Marine Technologies, which was an innovator in tracking and tagging young salmon.

This technology has proven critical in monitoring and restoring endangered salmon populations. More than a billion tags have been implanted in salmon and other marine species worldwide.

The world's fisheries will be beneficiaries of Keith's work for decades to come. I salute Keith Jefferts' life as a Navy fighter pilot, world renowned physicist, inventor, and environmental leader.

I extend my sympathies to Keith's wife Sue, his children Katherine, Ingrid, Steven, Erik, Amy and all of his family.

Let Keith Jefferts' spirit inspire us all to protect the world's fish populations, but I am certain Keith wouldn't mind if we prioritized the protection of the salmon in the Northwest.

Mr. Speaker, July 20th marked the 40th anniversary of Turkey's invasion of Cyprus.

Forty years ago thousands of Turkish troops invaded and occupied the northern part of Cyprus. Thousands of Greek Cypriots were forced to flee their homes and many remain missing to this day.

Those forced to flee live as refugees within their own country as their former homes remain occupied or sold without notification or consent. Turkey also continues to obstruct the process of determining the fate of the persons missing since the invasion. Reports indicate that their remains were dumped in a mass grave, deemed as a classified military area, and are closed off to families of the missing.

Additionally, freedom of worship continues to be severely restricted, access to religious sites blocked, religious sites systematically destroyed and a large number of religious and archaeological objects stolen.

The continued occupation of the northern part of Cyprus undermines the unified democratic aspirations of our important ally.

Mr. Speaker, today I call for an end to the occupation and division of Cyprus and urge geographic, political, and economic unity. A strong and stable democracy in Cyprus is not only beneficial to its people but to its relationships with its allies around the world.

We must work to end the occupation of Cyprus for once and for all. I stand with Cyprus and urge an end to their 40 year occupation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Giles F. Giovinazzi, Democratic Staff Director of the Subcommittee on Aviation for the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. As Ranking Democrat of the Subcommittee, I had the pleasure of working with Giles on many issues that came before the Subcommittee. His hard work and wise counsel over the past 12 years has been invaluable, and I look forward to continuing to work with him as he embarks on a new endeavor.

Giles began his career on Capitol Hill serving as Legislative Counsel for Congressman James McGovern from 1999 to 2002. Since that time, Giles has served on the Subcommittee in various positions including Counsel, Senior Counsel and Staff Director, since 2009.

Giles is a true public servant and his dedication to the country extends beyond the halls of Congress. Giles is a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy Reserve where he has served since 2004.

His understanding of complex technical and legal aviation issues, policy and politics, has been an asset to the Committee for over a decade. Giles has been instrumental in drafting significant pieces of legislation including The Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010.

Last month, Giles was appointed federal transportation liaison at the California Department of Transportation and the California High-Speed Rail Authority. His expertise and counsel will be truly missed.

I join my colleagues on the Transportation Committee in wishing Giles, his wife Jolynn, and daughter, Kathryn Maribel, all the best.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy of the subcommittee leadership.

First off, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for agreeing to work with me on an issue that is very important to former servicemembers.

After a decade at war, many women servicemembers, for instance, are at risk for reproductive and urinary tract problems. This risk results from deployment conditions and a lack of predeployment women's health information.

In addition, the nature of the current conflict and increasing use of improvised explosive devices have left servicemembers with blast injuries that include spinal cord injury and trauma to the reproductive and urinary tracts.

The result is a severe impact to these servicemembers and their ability to create and raise a family upon their return from the battlefield.

According to the Department of Defense, between 2003 and 2011, nearly 2,000 women and men suffered these life-changing battle injuries during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

Disabled veterans have already paid much too high a price in service to our country. They should not have to pay a higher cost when they come home to try to start a family. The Department of Veterans Affairs cannot provide the care that they need.

While the Department of Defense and TRICARE are already able to provide the necessary treatment to servicemembers with these injuries, the VA services are not able to meet the complex needs of severely injured veterans.

I hope I can continue to call up on the able leadership of the subcommittee to help resolve this issue as we move forward on this bill and move it to conference.

With that, I yield to the ranking member.

I want to thank the ranking member and the leadership of the subcommittee, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the ranking member of the full committee, and the ranking member of the subcommittee for helping to bring S. 404 to the floor, the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Protection Act.

The lookout symbolizes a unique and vanishing part of the Pacific Northwest's heritage, and this bill symbolizes Congress' solidarity with a hard-hit part of our State.

The Green Mountain Lookout is one of few surviving fire lookouts in the West. It is one of only six such lookouts within a wilderness area. It was an early warning station during World War II to alert citizens to possible aerial invasion.

The communities in nearby Darrington and Oso are recovering from last month's tragic landslide that has taken the lives of dozens of people and shut the communities off from much of the outside world. First responders, FEMA, and other Federal agencies have been extraordinary in their efforts to help with recovery.

Passing this bill invests in a longer-term economic recovery of the region. Many of the people in these communities rely on outdoor recreation and the tourism that it brings for their livelihoods. Part of that economy is based on access to its historic and beautiful location, like Green Mountain Lookout.

Keeping the lookout in place means Darrington has one more reason to tell people from across this country that Darrington is open for business. With the summer recreation season coming up, protecting Green Mountain Lookout sends a message from Congress to these communities as well that we are with you.

For 12 years, I represented these communities in Congress and for 3 years before that on the local county council. I introduced legislation identical to this bill in June 2012 right after an ill-advised court decision suggested that Green Mountain Lookout should be taken down.

I was pleased that Senators Murray and Cantwell followed that with the introduction of companion legislation in December of 2012.

In February 2013, Congresswoman DelBene reintroduced this bill, along with our Senate colleagues.

I appreciate my colleagues' willingness to protect the lookout, and I appreciate the support of Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member DeFazio, and

others to put this bill on the President's desk.

By protecting the lookout, we will protect the economic livelihoods of many of those who have struggled after last month's tragic landslide.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to vote for S. 404.

Mr. Speaker, the Arctic is fast becoming the 21st-century version of the Northwest Passage. Just four years ago, two German ships followed a Russian icebreaker to complete the first commercial shipment across the Arctic. Last year, with the warmest Arctic summer on record, 46 ships made the crossing. An active and well-maintained icebreaker fleet is a key part of our country's responsibility as an Arctic nation.

As Ranking Member of the Coast Guard subcommittee in the 112th Congress, I had the privilege to work with Representative LoBiondo, who was the Chairman at that time. We agreed it was time for the Coast Guard to make a decision about how to move forward with its icebreaker fleet. In the last Coast Guard reauthorization bill, we asked the agency to look at the business case for reactivating the Polar Sea, which is currently docked in Seattle.

That analysis showed that for about $100 million, we could have a functioning Polar Sea, which is about one-tenth the price tag for a brand new icebreaker. In my view that is a bargain.

However, the Coast Guard still has not come to a conclusion about what to do with the Polar Sea. Instead, it is currently sitting in cold storage in Seattle. Every day the Polar Sea sits without maintenance it loses value.

The bill before us would require the Coast Guard to use the analysis Representative LoBiondo and I requested and make a decision about the Polar Sea.

I was pleased to hear Coast Guard Admiral Papp talk about reactivation of the Polar Sea in a positive light during a subcommittee hearing last week. I believe the right course of action is to reactivate the Polar Sea.

But that decision needs to be made soon.

The Coast Guard also needs to start moving on the next generation of icebreakers.

I understand that the intent of this legislation is to encourage the Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation and other interested agencies to partner with the Coast Guard in building a new fleet of icebreakers.

However, I am concerned that by tying the Coast Guard's hands until those agencies fully engage in this process, we may be delaying much needed progress towards building a new icebreaker.

That's why I am pleased that Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member Garamendi included some changes I requested to the icebreaker language in this bill to ensure that we do not hinder what little progress is being made on icebreakers today.

I hope we can continue to work together to ensure our country meets its responsibilities as an Arctic nation.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Chair, today I rise in opposition to

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

I rise in support of H.R. 3578.

I want to thank Chairman LoBiondo for bringing this issue to the attention of the committee and for working hard to bring it to the floor so quickly.

This bill would require the Federal Aviation Administration to go through a rulemaking process if it chooses to propose and implement new pilot medical certification requirements for sleep apnea.

Under current law, in order for a pilot to be certificated, every pilot is screened by an aviation medical examiner to ensure he is safe and capable of piloting an aircraft. If a pilot is diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea or with any other disqualifying medical condition, that pilot must obtain a ``special issuance'' medical certificate from the FAA to keep flying.

Last November, the FAA abruptly announced changes to the medical certification process as it pertains only to sleep apnea. The new policy would require all airmen with a body mass index, or BMI, of 40 or more to undergo new testing and evaluation requirements for obstructive sleep apnea in order to maintain their medical certificates.

General aviation groups and pilot unions have raised concerns that the FAA's proposed policy changes could impose significant undue costs on thousands of airmen without an adequate opportunity for the public to comment on the relative safety merits of these new requirements.

H.R. 3578 would ensure transparency and would require the FAA to initiate a rulemaking if it chooses to implement a new pilot medical certification requirement for sleep apnea. This bill would not prohibit the FAA from implementing new medical certification requirements, but the rulemaking process will provide the opportunity for all interested parties to comment on any proposed changes. So I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3578.

With that, I 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.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to again ask my colleagues to support this legislation. It is bipartisan. We have worked hard to get it here quickly, and we appreciate people supporting this.

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

Mr. Speaker, last week, the House agreed to the conference report on H.R. 2642, the Farm Bill. Section 12313 of this legislation addresses an issue that should not go unnoticed, and I would like to make its intent clear.

In the 112th Congress, the House passed H.R. 2541, the Silviculture Regulatory Consistency Act, introduced by Representative Herrera Beutler. The stated intent of this legislation was to return Clean Water Act permitting of silvicultural operations around forest roads to the same standards that applied before recent court decisions created uncertainty about which standards should be used. Before court actions, a Clean Water Act permit was not required for nursery operations, site preparation, reforestation and subsequent cultural treatment, thinning, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting operations, surface drainage, or road use, construction, and maintenance. Permits were only required for activities that involved rock crushing, gravel washing, log sawing and log storage. That standard has worked for many years, and I support continuing that standard.

However, as originally written, H.R. 2541 could have created legal ambiguity on what should be covered with a Clean Water Act permit. I introduced an amendment to H.R. 2541 in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee clarifying that activities exempt from permitting are limited to the silvicultural activities specified in the bill, and not all silvicultural activities. The language I sponsored and set forth as an amendment of this bill is generally the same as that in Section 12313 of the Farm Bill. Thankfully, the Farm Bill addresses this issue without ambiguity. Put simply, those activities which required a Clean Water Act permit in the past should continue to do so. Those which did not should continue to be exempt.

I appreciate Representative Herrera Beutler's efforts on this issue and I am pleased that this issue has been addressed without ambiguity.

Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, I know how important it is to end the shutdown of the FAA, but I do have to ask the question, if safety were so important, why wasn't this the first bill brought to the floor in this piecemeal approach that the Republican side has taken?

Now, look. A safe and efficient aviation system isn't just good for travelers; it's the lifeblood of the economy where I come from. In our State, 131,000 people across over 1,200 companies work in the aerospace industry, but these folks don't just depend on the FAA. Is it safety to say that police departments that need Federal grants to put cops on the beat should have to wait? Is it safety to say that our functioning transit systems have to wait for grants to make the transit systems more safe? Is it safety to say that the EPA can't issue grants in my district or around the country to make sure that we have safe and clean drinking water? This bill funds none of these priorities.

We should not be opening just parts of the government to serve just some of the people. We should open the entire government for all Americans. The Republican solution to the Republican shutdown, this piecemeal approach picking winners and picking losers, is no solution at all.

It's great that this House wants to make sure that air travel is safe, but why should we stop there? What about safety on our highways?

In the last 10 days, there have been three major, fatal transportation accidents across this country. A plane crashed in Santa Monica, California, killing four; a bus crashed in Tennessee, killing eight and injuring another 14; and less than a mile from this building, one person died and two others were injured during a Metro repair accident this week. But the National Transportation Safety Board can't investigate because this Congress sent the investigators home on furlough.

Let's end this piecemeal approach and move on to a vote on a Senate bill that opens all of the government for all Americans. If it's about safety, let's do it that way. This continued unwillingness to allow one vote--just one vote--to open the government for all Americans and not just some needs to stop. One bill, one vote for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Ranking Member Slaughter's motion to call up the SAFE Bridges Act.

In May, a portion of a bridge on Interstate 5 in my district collapsed into the Skagit River. Like most of my constituents, I've driven over that bridge hundreds of times. The fact that no one died when it collapsed was a blessing, but not everyone has been so lucky. My colleagues will remember in 2007 when a bridge spanning the Mississippi River in Minneapolis crashed down during rush hour, killing 13 people and injuring 145.

So, today, I want to ask my colleagues a very simple question: Should not Americans be able to drive across a highway bridge with the reasonable expectation that it will not crumble away from underneath them?

There are 67,000 bridges in our country that are rated structurally deficient--67,000 bridges. When those bridges fall, it isn't just the unlucky few on those bridges who suffer. Whole economies that rely on safe and efficient transportation suffer. The I-5 bridge across the Skagit River doesn't just connect Burlington and Mount Vernon. It connects the entire west coast and carries millions of dollars' worth of trade every day between Canada and the U.S.

Here's the good news: we know how to build safe bridges. There are thousands of civil engineers devoting their lives today to building good structures that don't fall down, but we need to pay for them. We need to maintain our bridges until they're old and replace them when we need to. We can't wait for them to crumble into the water below.

In light of this obvious need, how much has this Congress done to improve bridge safety or invest in infrastructure?

Mr. Speaker, that was the sound of how much congressional action has been taken--nothing.

Just yesterday, house leadership pulled the Transportation appropriations bill because they couldn't find enough Republicans to support its draconian cuts. Instead of rushing home, we should take up the SAFE Bridges Act introduced by Mr. Rahall to immediately invest in bridges. Rather than repealing ObamaCare for the 40th time this Congress, we should invest in our infrastructure for the first time.

If you think your constituents should be able to drive over a bridge without wondering whether it will crumble beneath them, then this Congress must act on robust transportation funding.

Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record a State-by-State funding table under the SAFE Bridges Act.

Offered By: Mr. Larsen of Washington

Amendment No. 17: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if this amendment passes, we will strip away one of the main tools that we have in the defense budget to ensure that small businesses continue to be part of the defense industrial base.

The Rapid Innovation Fund was created a couple of years ago in order to ensure that small businesses that had technology, that had resources to help the war fighter could get funding to develop that technology to develop those resources and get service to the warfighter sooner rather than later.

In 2011 alone, over 3,500 white papers were submitted and evaluated-- proposals for the Rapid Innovation Fund--3,500. Two hundred final proposals were invited. Out of that total 3,500, 177 awards were made, 95 percent of which went to small businesses, 80 percent to current or prior SBIR participants; and the average product value of $2.2 million, awards to companies in 32 States and in the District of Columbia.

This is an important program to help small businesses continue to be part of the defense industrial base. We should not strip RIF funding out of the bill. If we are going to deal with operations and maintenance, let's do what everybody on the committee wants to do: let's stop the sequester, replace the sequester with something more balanced to ensure that the O&M accounts, as well as great programs like RIF, are funded.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to request how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Mr. Chairman, could I request how much time I have remaining.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In conclusion, I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I think we have made a good case. I think folks have heard the argument.

Just a final note. The defense business panel that Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania spoke of, we did travel around the country, talking to small businesses all around the country in many States; and everywhere we heard that this is the program, the Rapid Innovation Fund is the program that they see as most valuable. They want us to keep this in place.

I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and with that I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, do I understand that we have the right to close?

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

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

I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I'd encourage our colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. The amendment implies that the President is negotiating some secret deal with Russia that would weaken U.S. security for the ideological pursuit of nuclear weapons reductions.

Now, we know the President has the constitutional power to conduct formulations, and Congress has the authority to provide advice and consent to ratification and to deny funding for any implementation of any treaty. The administration has provided regular briefings and has supplied senior State and Defense officials over here to our committee and to the House Foreign Affairs Committee and informed us on talks on Russia.

This amendment also is not necessary. The bill already contains numerous provisions asking for information on U.S.-Russian missile defense cooperation and blocking nuclear weapons reductions. So I'd ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, again, I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

We have heard from this side not just the content of this amendment being sort of out of whack with reality, but also when we consider whether or not it's necessary to commit a case, this is not a necessary amendment given the provisions that are already in H.R. 1960.

So I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers on the en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment and encourage our colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer amendment 33 as the designee of Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would restore funding for commonsense nuclear weapons reductions that have already been approved with the advice and consent of the Senate and that the Navy and the Air Force have planned for fiscal year 2014.

The $70 million cut in the bill keeps nuclear weapons at Cold War levels, and denying fiscal year '14 funding risks the United States missing the deadline for treaty compliance as there will be insufficient lead time for procurement and installation to support conversion efforts to implement the reductions required by 2018, the date of entry into force.

This amendment is funded by an offset of $50 million from DARPA's space technology program due to the recently terminated System F6, which was aimed to distribute functions of big satellites into several small ones orbiting in tight formation--so this funding is available-- and $20 million from the $2.1 billion in the Office of the Secretary of Defense O&M funds which pays OSD staff. This is a 1 percent cut with minimal impact, as the Secretary of Defense has indicated that he intends to make cuts to overhead.

So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Madam Chair, I too, encourage my colleagues to support this en bloc, and I now yield 3 minutes to Mr. Ellison from Minnesota.

Madam Chair, we yield back the balance of our time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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