K. Conaway

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I am not recorded on today's votes because I was absent to attend a funeral. Had I been present: on rollcall No. 510 on ordering the previous question, I would have voted ``aye;'' on rollcall No. 511 on H. Res. 727, I would have voted ``aye;'' on rollcall No. 512 on recommitting H.R. 4 with instructions, I would have voted ``nay;'' on rollcall No. 513 on H.R. 4, I would have voted ``aye;'' on rollcall No. 514 on recommitting H.R. 2 with instructions, I would have voted ``nay;'' on rollcall No. 515 on H.R. 2, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 85 Veterans from West Texas who will be visiting our Washington DC this week, sponsored by the Permian Basin Honor Flight. On behalf of a grateful state and nation, we welcome these heroes to the nation's capital. The Veterans on this Honor Flight are: Daniel L. Acosta, United States Marine Corps (ret.); Daniel G. Acosta, United States Navy; Clinton H. Adams, United States Navy; Philip H. Altman, United States Coast Guard; Mike A. Barker, United States Army; Jack R. Barnes, United States Navy (ret.); Billy E. Barnhill, United States Navy; Emil F. Beck, United States Army; Harvey L. Benad, United States Marine Corps; Kendall L. Benad, United States Marine Corps; William B. Bowlin, United States Army Air Corps; John Brenner, United States Navy; Donald W. Byrne, United States Air Force (ret.); Miguel B. Calderon, United States Army; Herbert L. Cartwright, United States Army; Nat E. Clardy, United States Marine Corps; James S. Cosper, United States Navy; John E. Crosby, Jr., United States Army Air Corps; Stanley W. Cuba, United States Navy; Robert E. Davis, United States Navy. Roy F. Draper, United States Army; Tharen H. Elcher, United States Army Air Corps; Michael L. Elcher, United States Air Force; Claude C. Firth, United States Navy; Thomas O. Flournoy, United States Army; Daniel R. Frizzell, United States Navy; Joyce O. Funderburk, United States Army Air Corps; Richard W. Galloway, United States Army; Willard B. Gaston, United States Navy; Francisco A. Gonzales, United States Army; Alfred Guardino, United States Air Force (ret.); Manuel Herrera, United States Army; Trisha K. Hildreth, United States Air Force; Walter P. Hildreth, Jr., United States Army Air Corps; Lawrence E. Hill, United States Army; Theodore W. Hogan, United States Army Air Corps; Thomas C. Hogan, Jr., United States Army; Bobbie J. Jackson, United States Army; Joseph E. Johnson, United States Army. Clay M. Keaton, United States Marine Corps; James M. Kelley, United States Army Air Corps; Tom B. Lewis, United States Army; D.H. Livingston, United States Navy; Russell A. Livingston, United States Navy; Grady D. Lobley, United States Army Air Corps; Malcolm R. Manns, United States Navy; Leonard C. Martinez, United States Army; Raymond G. Martinez, Jr., United States Army; Forest H. Mathews, United States Army Air Corps; John E. May, United States Army (ret.); Joe W. Meek, United States Navy (ret.); Max O. Meek, United States Navy; Michael V. Meek, United States Navy; Tommy S. Mills, United States Army; Travis J. Mills, United States Air Force; Jerry B. Morgan, United States Army; Ricky W. Odom, United States Air Force; Cecil R. Odom, United States Navy; John D. Oliver, United States Navy. Douglas R. Peacock, United States Army Air Corps; Leroy W. Pelzel, United States Army; Walter L. Pierce, United States Army Air Corps; Robert R. Pryor, United States Army; David E. Reed, United States Army; Michael E. Rejon, United States Air Force; Joe R. Rickey, United States Air Force (ret.); Curtis C. Rister, United States Air Force; Johnny W. Rister, United States Air Force; Rogelio Robles, United States Army; Heriberto Rubio, United States Army Air Corps; Jonathan H. Ruiz, United States Army; Commodore C. Ryan, United States Navy; Darrell E. Sanders, United States Army; Walter F. Schluter, United States Air Force; James E. Sever, United States Army; Dennis W. Sever, United States Army; Wendell Short, United States Air Force; Vincent T. Sternjacob, United States Army; Steven C. Stone, United States Army. John P. Stroup, United States Air Force (ret.); Fred J. Stubbs, United States Army; Jack Tarter, United States Air Force; Marion L. Thompson, United States Army; Gilberto R. Torres, United States Army; Herbert O. Walker, United States Army; Joe B. White, United States Navy; Louis C. White, United States Marine Corps; Jobert Williams, United States Marine Corps. Mr. Speaker, I am humbled to have the opportunity to meet these brave men and women who exemplify the best of our country. Their sacrifice and commitment to duty to our nation can never be fully repaid, and I hope that when they visit our nation's monuments in Washington DC, the gratitude and respect we have for them will truly be reflected. Colleagues, please join me in thanking these in thanking these veterans and their families for their exemplary dedication and service to this great nation. I would also like to extend a special thank you to the local communities, all of the volunteers, and Mr. Jack Barnes for their extensive work in organizing this Honor Flight. This trip would not have been possible without all the financial and emotional support of the people who have put in so much hard work and personal time to make sure this trip could be possible.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the leadership for this extended debate. This is an important conversation we should be having, and to have an unprecedented almost 6 hours of debate just reflects how great we do, in fact, consider this. I also want to thank the leadership for allowing two different votes, a vote on this amendment and then a vote on the CR and not trying, somehow, to combine those two because I think that would have also lessened the gravity of what is going on. Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment, but I do so with grave reservations, and, in fact, in the speech of the Intelligence Committee, I would give this low confidence that this mission will, in fact, be successful. Mr. Speaker, there are no Boy Scouts in Syria. There is not anybody over there fighting that you would want to live next door to you in your neighborhood; but, with that said, we will go through under this President's stated plans a vetting process that will try to find those Syrian opposition teams--people, individuals, and/or groups that are secular that are not Islamic jihadist and they are not a part of the Assad regime--in order to create this force that they are talking about. Mr. Speaker, this will not be in all likelihood the last time we will come to this Chamber and discuss the fight against radical Islam or this fight in Syria. Those discussions may very well be, as General Dempsey said today, involving the deployment of U.S. military assets other than just fighting this thing from the air. I want to be able at that point in time to say to the American people, ``We have explored every other opportunity, every other way of getting at this, of creating ground forces in Syria, short of sending American troops into harm's way again.'' I think it is what we deserve. We clearly want to train these Syrians to be able to defend their own country. That is the most successful model. We have had a long experience with doing that, a checkered past in some instances; but, nevertheless, the best alternative, as we see today, is to make that happen. I would also point out to my colleagues that by December 11, when this authorization expires, we will know a whole lot more than we do today. Today, we are looking at this whole issue from about 10,000 feet, so to speak. By December 11, if this plan is put into place, we will know what the President specifically has in place. We will know how the President intends to vet. We will know how the President--where and how these training camps will be set up. We will have the military's evaluation of how that process will work. We will just simply know a whole lot more then than we know today. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to get us to that point. Help us understand the additional facts that we don't have in the Record today in order to do that, but, to do that, you will have to support this amendment. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the McKeon amendment to get us in this overall group a better sense of understanding of what might or what might not be accomplishable by this December date, whether it is through a new CR or the omnibus or the NDAA so that, at that point in time, we will make a much more informed decision than we will today.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, America is a nation composed of individuals whose ancestors were once part of other nations. As they work for a better, brighter tomorrow for themselves and more importantly for their children, these individuals become Americans. I would like to take just a moment of this body's time to thank and congratulate a group of my constituents who are making sure that the story of how their ancestors helped build America is shared. Today, I rise to recognize Hispanic Heritage of Odessa, which will begin a month-long celebration of Hispanic Heritage Month with a breakfast this morning at McKinney Park. Hispanic Heritage Month first began in 1968, and each year, the celebration and tradition has grown as has our community. This morning Hispanic Heritage of Odessa will continue their efforts to build a stronger community--one based upon hard work, integrity, and the importance of family--by recognizing the good work done by our fellow citizens. The breakfast will honor many influential members of the Hispanic community in Odessa who serve as an example to the younger generation to do good and re-invest in those around you. It is important that these stories are shared, not only with the wider community in which they live, but also with young people, who will benefit by learning how to form the backbone of their community-- one that places their families and neighbors above themselves. Each one of those stories is unique, but through each one of them, children will hear how hard their parents and grandparents worked to fashion a better life for future generations. On behalf of the 11th District, it is an honor to recognize and represent Hispanic Heritage of Odessa and the thriving, vibrant Latino community it serves. As this event and celebration continues to grow, it is my hope that the values they celebrate today are transmitted to and embraced by the next generation of Hispanic leaders in Ector County.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Riley Rambo and Taylor Lyckman from Menard, Texas on their historic 1A Mixed Doubles Tennis State Championship, on April 30th--a noteworthy accomplishment in and of itself. While any state championship is impressive, this duo made U-I-L history by being the first mixed doubles team to win the title four years running. Over the course of their high school careers, they have exemplified hard work, perseverance, and tenacity; and have become hometown heroes because of it. They are role models inspiring the younger generations of Menard. Riley and Taylor are not your normal doubles team. They are not just teammates or friends; they are cousins. They are family. They have grown up together, competed together, and won together. I can only imagine the overwhelming excitement and pride their entire family feels from this accomplishment. I encourage them to savor their historic feat and wish them all the best in their bright futures. Again, I congratulate Mr. Rambo and Ms. Lyckman on their historic fourth Mixed Doubles Tennis State Championship title.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ethicon, a member of the Johnson & Johnson family, in San Angelo, Texas on their 50th anniversary. Throughout the years, Ethicon has been an essential part of the community and has grown side-by-side with San Angelo. Ethicon opened its doors in West Texas in 1964. During this time, Ethicon was a surgical suture manufacturing site that was critical to the Vietnam War effort. Over the past five decades, the company has expanded and modernized their production to meet the needs of today's world. Ethicon has been a global leader in providing medical supplies for critical and lifesaving procedures. Their standard of excellence is not only evident in the lives they have saved, but the families they have impacted across this nation. The Ethicon family gathered last week to celebrate this tremendous 50-year milestone together. The smiles on the faces of their 450 employees, their families, and friends said it all. They have provided opportunities and inspiration for their people. This company is so much more than a job or a shift to its employees or this community; it is a source of pride. And I am proud to have Ethicon located in the 11th District and honored to be part of their joyous occasion. Again, I congratulate Ethicon on reaching such a distinguished marker in their company history. I wish them many more in the great town of San Angelo, Texas.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I submit the following exchange of letters: American Public Power Association, Washington, DC, June 16, 2014. Hon. Frank D. Lucas, Hon. Collin C. Peterson, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson: On behalf of the American Public Power Association (APPA), I am writing in support of House passage of H.R. 4413, the Customer Protection and End-User Relief Act. The legislation includes important relief for public power utilities and other end- users seeking to use swaps to hedge commercial-operations risks. APPA is the national service organization representing the interests of more than 2,000 not-for-profit, locally- owned electric utilities in the United States. These public power utilities are in every state in the nation (except Hawaii) and provide power to more than 47 million Americans. In particular, the legislation incorporates the provisions of H.R. 1038, the Public Power Risk Management Act (PPRMA). As you know, PPRMA was approved on a 423-0 vote in the House on June 12, 2013, and has since been introduced on a bipartisan basis in the Senate. The legislation is needed to address Commodity Futures Trading Commission rules which resulted in public power utilities losing--on average--half the available counterparties to swaps needed to hedge their commercial operations risks. The legislation will allow public power utilities to hedge commercial-operations risks on an even playing field with other end users in the power and natural gas utility sector. This means continued reliable power at affordable--and predictable--prices to customers. H.R. 4413 would take other important steps to improve protections for consumers and commercial end users. By addressing issues related to margin requirements for non- financial end-users, the definition of ``bona fide hedging,'' swap reporting in illiquid markets, and forward contracts with volumetric optionality, the bill improves the CEA to better reflect the needs of end users. Finally, we praise the clarity provided as to the intent of the legislation in the accompanying committee report and the changes made to the bill in response to legitimate concerns raised by other stakeholder groups. We understand that concerns remain and hope that you will continue to work toward consensus. We stand ready to assist if we can. Thank for your continued efforts. Sincerely, Susan N. Kelly, President & CEO.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, we have already talked at length about the benefits of cost-benefit analysis, and section 203 would bring the discipline necessary to the agency for them to consider the costs and benefits when prescribing a new rule or regulation. The gentlelady's remarks would be much more in line if she were strictly asking to strike the section, but she is asking for a sense of Congress. Why would we need a sense of Congress based on her arguments that CFTC doesn't need this issue at all? I would understand her arguments a lot better if she would have simply asked for a strike. I am going to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment because her amendment is a stalking horse, because it would simply replace the bipartisan, well-crafted consideration for the new cost-benefit analysis for the CFTC with a sense of Congress. That, in my view, would gut and negate the value of having the agency actually go through, as they propose a rule, to determine what will be the cost and what will be the benefits. We are always going to have regulations. God started us off with 10. We are going to have regulations, but they ought to make sense, they ought to regulate the minimum amount needed to regulate, and when the usefulness goes away, they should expire as well. So as an agency conducts that process, taking into consideration the cost and benefits is an appropriate step as they put together regulations. It doesn't mean that the cost-benefit analysis will control in every instance, but it does allow for a better sense that those who are being regulated here have their voices heard during the process. And then if the agency has done a proper cost-benefit analysis, those who are regulated will stand a better chance of voluntarily complying with those new rules, we will have less acrimony during the process, and perhaps even less litigation if the agency would use a proper cost-benefit analysis and reflect the impact of that analysis in the rules. With that, I will oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, throughout the debate on this bill--in committee, in subcommittee--we have made the point over and over that this is simply a prospective change to the rules for the Commission. It has absolutely nothing to do with the rules that are already in place. The 60-some odd rules that are in place to protect under Dodd-Frank are unaffected by this change to the CFTC's rules and cost-benefit analysis. In the future, if Congress decides on a massive law change, as they did with Dodd-Frank--one side of the House decided that--and the CFTC has to go through this, at that point in time these rules come into effect. But title VII to Dodd-Frank and all the changes that were made at the CFTC are in place. So this is not going backwards. It is not looking backwards. This is simply a prospective change to the way the CFTC should operate going forward. They should have been operating under this rule anyway, but they weren't. The rules were antiquated. There were not enough teeth in them. So Chairman Gensler and others took advantage of it. This will close that loophole and future chairmen will have to abide by a rational cost-benefit analysis program that will improve the regulations. With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I, too, agree with the gentlewoman that we all want a very effective CFTC. Reauthorizing the agency ought to be a part of looking at its operations. Given the work that it did and didn't do during the Dodd- Frank regulatory scheme that put in place 60 new rules, we don't believe that the cost-benefit rules that were in place under section 15(a) were properly used and did not generate the benefits that the impact of a properly vetted cost-benefit analysis would have on each and every rule. With that, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very dangerous to require the regulated community to follow rules or regulations that have not been properly considered. A cost-benefit analysis is an essential requirement for any rule or order. Only after a regulator considers the costs of imposing a rule and then compares that cost to the anticipated benefits can a rule be properly analyzed. Far too often, regulators at the CFTC ignore cost or important cost factors, so that their regulatory agenda can be implemented unimpeded. The ability of the regulated committee to ask a court to review the cost-benefit analysis of a rule or order is an essential deterrent to such a practice. The threat of litigation forces regulators to make sure they properly consider costs and attest that the regulation achieves the goal set out in the law passed by Congress in the most cost-efficient manner. Striking the ability of a court to review the cost-benefit analysis of a CFTC regulation would vitiate the carefully negotiated bipartisan compromise just offered by Ms. DelBene. It seems odd on the logic that you would support the DelBene amendment, which improves judicial review and narrows its scope, and then categorically oppose judicial review. I think her amendment, allowing courts to determine if a cost-benefit analysis of a CFTC-promulgated rule or regulation is an abuse of the Commission's discretion, is a measured approach that will lead to a sound and effective policy. We have also got an indication from the IG, the inspector general, that throughout the entire Dodd-Frank regulatory process, which the CFTC put in place some 60 rules, that generally speaking--according to the IG, generally speaking, it appears that CFTC employees did not consider quantifying costs when conducting cost-benefit analysis for the definitions as indicated. It took a very cavalier approach to the process. We think that, based on the testimony we have heard from many of the regulated, the CFTC did a very poor job on the front end of estimating the cost of what all of these rules that they were putting in place with respect to Dodd-Frank would be and, therefore, did not consider them properly, and the benefits were far less than the cost imposed. With that, I respectfully urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by thanking the chairman of the committee, Frank Lucas, and our ranking member, Collin Peterson, for the bipartisan tone that they have set on all of the work that we do in the Agriculture Committee. Under their leadership, we work together to examine the issues under our jurisdiction, and we work together to develop legislative solution to the problems we discover. Their leadership is reflected in the bill we have before us today. Over the past 2 years, the General Farm Commodities and Risk Management Subcommittee has heard from two Commissioners, the exchanges and SROs, market participants, end users, and foreign regulators on a broad cross section of issues facing the CFTC. The testimony and questions that we heard formed the foundation of what has become the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act. True to its name, the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act makes important progress in protecting Main Street. We strengthen safeguards against another MF Global or PFGBest and significantly reduce damage a failed FCM can inflict on its customers. We also protect end users from being roped into registration, reporting, or regulatory requirements that are inappropriate for the level of risk they can impose on financial markets. It is clear that end users did not cause the financial crisis. They do not pose a systemic risk to the financial markets, and they should not be treated like financial entities. As we drafted this reauthorization, we also examined the internal organization and processes of the Commission. Over the past 5 years, it has become clear that Dodd-Frank has fundamentally changed the role of the CFTC. The law has moved the Commission from a conferring, principles-based regulator to a more adversarial, rules-based regulator. As the Commission changes, so must the rules that Congress sets for its operation. Today's legislation addresses these changes by making the CFTC more responsive and accountable to each Commissioner, and by ensuring that each Commissioner, not just the Chairman, is given a greater voice on Commission and staff activities. It also creates and defines the Office of Chief Economist to provide every Commissioner with objective economic data and analysis. Finally, one of the most important changes this bill makes is to require a meaningful quantification of the costs and benefits of a rule when it is first proposed. This analysis, done by the chief economist, will strengthen the rulemaking process and will result in better regulations and safer markets. This small mandate on the economists at the CFTC will ensure that regulatory burdens are justified in the real world, not just in the pages of the Federal Register. Rules that reflect the impact of a proper cost-benefit analysis will be better accepted by those being regulated and may result in less acrimony during the rules-making process. As I close, I would also like to thank my ranking member, David Scott. Over the past year and a half, we have examined these CFTC issues together and collaborated on legislation and hearings. I am pleased with the fruits of our labor, and I couldn't ask for a better partner on our subcommittee. The Customer Protection and End User Relief Act is a commonsense, bipartisan reform package. In it we protect customers and end users from overreach and make meaningful changes to the operation of the commission. I urge my colleagues to support passage of the bill.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Committee on Ethics and along with my colleague, Linda Saanchez, the ranking member, and other members of the committee, past and present, we rise today to honor the life and work of Carol Dixon. Every so often, through hard work, immense talent, and a zealous dedication to the mission of this body, a staffer becomes an institution of the House. Carol Dixon had achieved that status. Known to many simply as the Ethics Lady, Carol's intelligence, candor, and infectious laugh made the House a better, more honorable place. As director of our Advice and Education section, Carol's command of the ethics rules was unmatched, as evidenced by the large number of Members and employees from both sides of the aisle who continually sought out Carol to specifically ask for her guidance. Her sudden passing this weekend is a tremendous loss for both the Ethics Committee and the House.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. This is a pretty straightforward amendment, Mr. Chairman, that would simply require that any effort under the Defense Production Act to build a hundreds- of-millions-of-dollars refinery for biofuels could not happen until it was authorized by this body. It is not allowed to stop this from happening. It simply means that the Department of Defense and the Department of Agriculture, who both are funding this misguided attempt, in my opinion, couldn't do that until they bring a business case to this body for consideration. I would think my colleagues on the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee as well as the MilCon Subcommittee would be offended by this backdoor approach to spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a project of dubious value. The Defense Production Act is a World War II, post-World War II vintage program supervised by the Financial Services Committee--not the Defense, not the Armed Services Committee or the Subcommittees on Appropriation--but the Financial Services Committee. There is currently a refinery that is being proposed to be joint- funded by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Defense to build a biofuels refinery. Neither of these agencies' core competencies is in this arena. They each have their own core competencies, and it has absolutely nothing to do with biofuels. I would argue that the Department of Energy--if anybody--should be the one who authorizes this work, but they have got a dubious distinction, as well, with decisions such as Solyndra and others of making really poor decisions. The other side will argue that this somehow protects the Department of Defense from price shocks on oil and gas that they have simply purchased. They have never brought us that business case. We have no clue what the break-even point on biofuels is against some equivalent cost for fossil-based fuels. Currently, they are spending somewhere between $16 and $27 a gallon for algae-based jet fuel versus the $3 to $4 a gallon commercially available. These folks who are proponents of biofuels are not proponents of better alternative resources like coal to liquids. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment to require an authorization for the spending of some $300-plus million on a refinery that is, in my view, of dubious distinction. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. I did misunderstand you. I thought you were saying I was disqualified from offering an amendment like this because I simply represent west Texas, which is the leading oil and gas producer in our country. So if I misunderstood you, I will accept that.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I would not take offense--I should--but I won't take offense that the gentleman suggests that somehow this amendment has anything to do whatsoever with respect to oil and gas that we produce in Texas. When you don't like the merits of your own argument, you go ahead and attack the folks on the other side, and I understand that technique. The truth of the matter is the Department of Defense can, in fact, make judgments for themselves once a product is available to them at commercial products. This just prevents them from going ahead and trying to build something, build up a market and build a fuel that no one else wants. It is only available here in the United States. It would not be available anywhere else in the world to fuel our airplanes, or our ships, or our tanks and other things. So, this is a misguided attempt driven by the White House on this green initiative that is spending millions and millions of dollars of taxpayer money, and it is a waste every time they do that. I would argue that the better argument is to say ``no'' to this, allow the Department of Defense to spend their dollars, as has been said previously, on guns, tanks, ships, and salaries for our soldiers. This is a wrong-headed tip. It ought to be authorized by the HASC and by the Senate equivalent, and these two subcommittees on Appropriations ought to be offended by this backdoor approach at spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a program that has no oversight. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good colleague for yielding. I rise in support of the rule, as well as the underlying bill, the National Defense Authorization Act. One of the provisions in there is the addition of a defense audit advisory panel. It comes as no shock to anyone in this room that the Department of Defense is unauditable, or their financial statements are unauditable. There are Herculean efforts going on across the river at the Pentagon and throughout the entire system to try to correct this issue. There are millions and millions of dollars being spent to try to make this happen and try to get to a point, in fact, where they can. The current law requires that the Defense Department be auditable by the end of 2017 and that the fiscal 2018 books and records be audited and a report provided to Congress by 2018. There will be important decisions going on throughout that timeframe. We need a canary in the coal mine. We need an early warning system in this House that tracks that process, and this panel will do that. I was pleased that it was included in the underlying bill. It is important that Congress watch this process throughout. The Department of Defense gives us a report every 6 months, but we need better insight, we need a line of sight into what is going on on a much more relevant basis quicker so that we don't wait until the end of 2017 and suddenly discover that the Department is not achieving that goal, or we don't get to the end of 2018 and can't, in fact, audit the books and records of the Department of Defense. This is a stunningly difficult problem to fix. For decades, the Department of Defense has had an accounting system that was set up to meet its needs and the needs of providing the mission support. It was not set up to be audited. Consequently, in order to be able to audit something, they have got to go back and rebuild all these legacy systems that are out there. This is hard work and a lot of it. The Department of Defense, as my colleague earlier said, this is one of the largest enterprises on the face of Earth. It is not easy, and it takes good hardworking people to get it done, and that is what has been going on. Our Congress, though, needs to have the insight into that process to make sure that they get it right. This effort doesn't fall, really, within the structure of the committee or of the subcommittees, naturally, so this defense audit panel will correct that oversight, and it will allow us to see the progress in as real time a basis as we can get. If we do need to take corrective actions and if we do need to do something to make that happen, then this will give us a quicker insight into that. For this reason and for a whole lot of others, I support the underlying bill, and I support this rule. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and, when it comes time for the bill itself, to vote ``yes'' on the National Defense Authorization Act, which would be the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mrs. Leona Eunice Dayton on her 100th birthday. It is an honor to have the opportunity to recognize the life of such a distinguished citizen. Mrs. Dayton, known to her family and friends as Bobby, was born on this day in 1914 to Amos and Lelia Brewer in the small town of Erna, Texas. As a member of the ``Greatest Generation'' she witnessed many historic events during the 20th century and played a part in making this nation great. Bobby married her high school sweetheart, Jack Cooper Dayton, and together they embodied the entrepreneurial spirit that has defined this country and its people since its inception. With a little bit of luck and a lot of love and hard work, they began several small businesses, including the Dayton Oil Company, which they owned for over 30 years. Throughout her life, Bobby established herself as a pillar of the community in London, Texas where she devoted herself to the service of others through Eastern Star and as Postmaster of the London Post Office. She could also often be seen at the London Methodist Church teaching Sunday School or playing piano for early morning services. Today, she continues her commitment to others by spending her days traveling, gardening, and filling her house with love, laughter, and great food. The fruits of her life-long endeavors can be seen by the smiles on the faces of her children, five grandchildren, ten great grandchildren and four great-great grandchildren as they gather to celebrate this momentous occasion. We all, including my colleagues in the House, could learn a bit from Mrs. Dayton's commitment to family, friends, and community. I am honored to have the opportunity to help celebrate this special day. Her accomplishments throughout her life represent an important part of the American story. Again, congratulations to Leona Eunice Dayton and Happy 100th Birthday.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, Kent Hance was headed for a life of crime and waywardness before he attended Texas Tech University. Texas Tech would not be where it is today without Kent Hance, but Chancellor Hance wouldn't be who he is today without having attended Texas Tech in 1961. A storied career as a political servant, one of Kent Hance's political accomplishments, as it has been said, was that he was the only person to defeat President George W. Bush in an election. He won Texas' 19th Congressional District seat with his folksy humor, quick wit, and good old-fashioned hard work. Kent Hance once remarked that had President Bush defeated him in that congressional race, Bush would have wound up as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee instead of Governor and President of the United States. Everyone has a Kent Hance story. Some of us have even been the victims of his punch line. But his ability to weave experiences, real and imagined, to make a point or disarm an opponent, is legendary. Kent Hance has been known as many things--an attorney, a professor, a State senator, a railroad commissioner, a Congressman, and friend--but I believe his best role has been as chancellor of Texas Tech University. We thank you for your service at Texas and our Nation. Your leadership and legacy will shine bright for years to come. And I wish Kent Hance and his family Godspeed in the next chapters of their lives.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. No, the pay-for will be added through the Rules Committee.

Mr. CONAWAY. The specifics of the pay-for have not yet been finalized. There are lots of things under consideration. We, too, want this done in advance of the March 31 date so, like I said earlier, physician offices can continue their billing as is without the interruption that a failure to extend or fix the doc fix would cause. We are keen on making that work, and the specifics of what the pay-for will be are currently under discussion.