K. Conaway

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding the time. I have just recently gotten back from Afghanistan, and it is hard doing what we're trying to get done there, but the narrative we have in place today is better than at any point in time since I've been going to Afghanistan, and I've been going since 2005. I've visited the Arghandab Valley, I've visited Marja, I've visited in Helmand Province, Kandahar Province, and seen with my own eyes the successes that last year's very difficult work done by the Marine Corps, done by the Army, has done in pushing the Taliban out of the settled areas and back into the desert and protecting the citizens of Afghanistan, to give them the breathing space they need to take over for themselves. The work being done to establish the Afghan local police, that third layer of defense, that security by the Afghans, is in place and is working. The Special Forces teams that are co-located with those Afghan local police, particularly in the Arghandab Valley, have settled that and the Taliban has not come back this fighting season, as they expected them to do. We have hard work to do. I understand the emotions, I understand the heartfelt tug that the previous speaker has brought to us, Mr. Chairman. It's hard not to listen to that and not make decisions, but decisions can't be made just simply on those emotions. You cannot separate what's going on in Afghanistan with Pakistan. We have to look at the entire package of that part of the world and our national security interests there, which are linked inexorably together with the interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I rise to respectfully disagree with my colleagues on this amendment. There are better ways to elicit these kind of forward-looking plans than this amendment. I ask my fellow colleagues to vote against the McGovern amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I would just simply respond that, again, the value for the taxpayer at the end of the day is what we need to do. We're going to have to cut costs across this government, and that's going to mean that people are going to have to do something differently than they have done in the past. And to simply say that the American manufacturing jobs should have absolute preference over getting the best deal for the taxpayer, in my view, doesn't make sense. We've got a very complicated acquisition process in place right now. And it reminds me of the headlines that were shown in the last couple of days of the number of folks who got money from the vaunted stimulus plan that was--in fact, whose sole purpose was to really create jobs, unlike acquisition for the military and Department of Defense whose sole purpose is to provide the goods and services and equipment needed for our warfighters at the point and time they need it at a cost that makes sense for the taxpayer. The job creation of the stimulus plan, that emphasis was flawed in the extreme. And I don't believe that adding that emphasis to defense acquisition will make for a better acquisition process or will make for a better piece of equipment that we get. And the analogy that the country that goes out of business costs all of these other kinds of things, that's basically hyperbole. I don't think my good colleague has any of the facts to associate that with. At the end of the day, it's the private sector that drives this economy. You cannot flourish an economy with growing government jobs. It must be in the private sector. The private sector does it best, and this would impede that. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CONAWAY. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose the gentleman from California's amendment. While it is straightforward, it is bad policy, quite frankly. At first blush, where is the 60 miles? It just says ``military installations.'' If you go to Fort Hood, there are a lot of places around that are way further than 60 miles away from the west edge on the east side of the State. The amendment doesn't even say from the flagpole or the central location. Where do you measure the 60 miles? It's kind of a straightforward problem there. It also doesn't provide for historically underutilized businesses. So you've got an historically underutilized business, a HUB, that is 61 miles outside whatever the measurement might be. They would be excluded under this provision from competing for that 40 percent because they would be an arbitrary 61 miles, 60.5 miles, 60 miles and 1 foot--or whatever the criterion is--which is not stated in this amendment. You can't fence out competition. I understand that folks don't like to compete. This morning at baseball practice for the Republicans, we had a bunch of new guys out of the 87, and the coach said, Folks, all nine positions are up for competition. Well, I'm No. 2 on the depth chart. I'm not real happy about that, but it spurred me to compete better for that position. Competition works. It works for the big guys, and it works for the little guys. To arbitrarily and capriciously set a 60-mile perimeter around a military base and say 40 percent of everything has to be provided to the folks inside that is wrong-headed, so I oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CONAWAY. I do oppose the gentleman from Connecticut's amendment on the grounds that it's really bad policy. Having spent several years working with the acquisition system, that is relatively complicated throughout the Department of Defense, to add one more layer of considerations to that system is, in my view, wrongheaded. While the amendment allows this information to be provided, it provides for some punitive teeth in the amendment that should a contractor, either in good faith or bad faith, overstate the number of jobs created or retained, then that contractor would be debarred from being able to participate in the acquisitions process. At the end of the day, at the beginning of the day, whatever part of the day you want to talk about, acquisition by the Department of Defense should be about something this straightforward. It should be about buying the gear, the equipment, and the goods and services our warfighters need at the time they need it at a price that is appropriate for the taxpayer to pay. And while jobs get created under that circumstance, that should not be a consideration as to what the warfighter needs, how we get it, how it's acquired, and that process. My colleague has said this is simply a suggestion. That's how you get to mandatory. He already said, if it were up to him, it would be mandatory. We put this in as a ``suggestion,'' and the next step will be for him to ask that it be made mandatory and that we drive higher costs into the systems, because then the criterion for deciding on a contract is not is this the goods and service that we need at a price we can afford, and, oh, by the way, which one of these guys uses the most number of people to do that. That's counter to getting the best deal for the American taxpayer. I want the contractors to use whatever the appropriate number of people is to build a piece of equipment that we need, provide a good or service that we need at a cost that the American taxpayer can afford. At a time when we're going to squeeze on the Department of Defense to force higher costs through this policy, in my view, is wrongheaded. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, if I thought there was a mileage issue that made sense, then the proponent's amendment might make sense. But I quite frankly don't believe that is the case. As my colleague from Pennsylvania said, if we need to streamline the processes within the Department of Defense acquisition to allow small businesses to compete regardless of where they are for some of this work, let's do that. But quite frankly, there is no--and my colleague made the point by saying, well, is it 60? It could be 60, 70, I mean, went up to 60,000-- that would be a bit of a stretch--miles. You can't use a miles fence. And so I am going to oppose the amendment because that's not the way. All of us are for small businesses. There is not anybody in here who is remotely going to stand up and say they are not for small business. We want small businesses to be able to compete. If there are systemic issues and barriers to them to be able to compete, then let's fix that as opposed to some sort of an artificial cone of protection around a particular set. The other point I would like to make is what if the subcontracting work that needs to be done is greater than--that would eat into the 40 percent is not available within the 60 miles? And so we just have that work not be done because we couldn't find a contractor. The other thing this would promote is the artificial circumstances where they will set up a shop just inside the 60 miles with a post office box or whatever in order to comply with this artificial restraint of trade, restraint of competition. If we need to fix the way the Department of Defense goes at it, fine. This one is not the way to get at it. I would urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee in a colloquy to discuss an issue that I believe is imperative to financial accountability in the defense intelligence community. I have been working with my colleagues in various congressional committees on language that would improve the ability of the defense intelligence elements to be appropriately audited. While we are not quite to the finish line on final language, I want my colleagues to be aware of this issue as we work on the NDAA this week.

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those kind words. While I'm disappointed that we were not able to work out an agreement that would include this language in the NDAA, I do understand that there have been issues raised with the amendment, as currently written, that may not provide the focused solution that we need to track disbursements and provide better accounting in the intelligence community. I look forward to continuing our work on this and other provisions to provide sufficient, yet directed authority that will improve the financial accountability in the Department of Defense. It is our responsibility, Mr. Chairman, to the American taxpayer to ensure that the intelligence community has the proper management tools to manage our precious resources that we provide to them.

Mr. CONAWAY. I want to thank the chairman for the colloquy and urge adoption of the underlying NDAA.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, I appreciate the chairman's words, and I hope those aren't mutually exclusive, being distinguished and being from Texas. I rise in strong, strong support of this year's Intelligence authorization bill and encourage my colleagues, all of them, to support this. But with that strong support comes a modest amount of disappointment in that, through no fault of anyone in particular, we had to make a tough decision to strike section 412 from the bill, which would have allowed certain elements within the intel community to set up their own direct accounts with Treasury. It's a bit of an arcane statement, but it allows greater steps toward achieving auditability across the intelligence community. This provision was intended to promote this goal of better financial accountability and insight into our classified spending. The intelligence community, Mr. Chairman, must meet the same financial accounting standards as the rest of the government. Those accounting standards will help uncover savings in current programs that can be reinvested into vital intelligence priorities or returned to the taxpayers. While I am disappointed that the provision was not in the 2011 bill, I have already had good conversations with the chairman in reference to the 2012 bill, which will be in committee in the next couple of weeks, so that we can continue to move the intelligence community, their various slots, toward accountability, which is important for the taxpayer, and it helps give management a reliable tool. If they've got those systems, got the internal controls in place, it will give them tools in order to manage the money, the precious resources that we take from the taxpayers and entrust to the intelligence community to do the great work that they have done over these past years. There is no greater example of that, of course, than the find-and-fix portion of the bin Laden experience that we saw play out on May 1 and 2, a terrific achievement by folks whose faces will never be seen, whose names will never be known except to them and their colleagues. They'll know who they are. They'll have that great pride of knowing they've done great work for this country using the tools that we provide them. I urge my colleagues to support the reauthorization bill.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for allowing me the time. I rise, Mr. Speaker, to pay tribute to the renaming of this courthouse for two of west Texas's favorite sons, President George Herbert Walker Bush and his son, George W. Bush. The community I call home could not be prouder of our two most famous residents. We are grateful for their faithful service and stewardship of the powers entrusted to them and their legacy in advancing freedom, human dignity and the rule of law across the globe. Texas ought to be rightly proud of our neighbors who rose to lead our Nation. These two men, bound by blood, but bonded by an unshakeable commitment to human liberty, shared a vision for America and the world that was mined in Philadelphia and forged at the Alamo. It is a vision that is rooted first and foremost in liberty and all her attendants-- individual rights, free markets, and fair elections. Both Presidents understood that America's wealth and power are not what make us an exceptional Nation. It is those faded words written large across four sheets of parchment over 200 years ago that form the soul of this Nation. In those words, the rights that we cherish are forever set apart from the machinations of man. In those words, we became a Nation of laws, of discourse, and of reason. It is fitting that we are choosing to name a courthouse in their honor today because it is fidelity to the law, above all else, that secures the blessings of liberty these men worked so hard to promote. This courthouse will be a symbol of the triumph of law over violence, the triumph of free minds over the iron wills of dictators. From the dissolution of the Soviet Union to the liberation of Kuwait, and from the first shoots of democratic order in Afghanistan to the parliamentary elections in Iraq, both father and son have helped to lift the crushing burdens of tyranny from millions of people. In each effort, the nations liberated have embarked on the difficult path of making laws and holding one another accountable. These are not easy steps; but in the end, with the continued support of the United States, these efforts will prove to be an enduring and lasting legacy for both these men and our Nation. Mr. Speaker, in my life I have had the privilege to work alongside the Bush family, both in Texas and in Washington; and today I am humbled and grateful for the opportunity to work here in Congress and to represent the people of west Texas. On behalf of the people of District 11, I would like to extend my humblest gratitude to President George Herbert Walker Bush and President George W. Bush for their service to their community, our State and our Nation. We are a better Nation for their service. I would also like to acknowledge the role that Federal District Judge Rob Junell played in getting this courthouse renamed in honor of these two fine gentlemen. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, playing politics with our troops and their families is simply wrong. We must not allow for a soldier's family to worry about making their house payment or putting groceries on the table because Congress can't pass a budget. And while Senate Democrats and the President continue to drag their feet, we have stepped up to do the right thing: To keep military funding out of the debate. I will not stand by and allow for this petty argument to damage those servicemembers and their families who are on the front lines defending our freedoms. This temporary continuing resolution is just that: a temporary fix. I am disappointed that we find ourselves in this situation. Madam Speaker, the amount House Republicans are cutting over the next six months, while historically large, is embarrassingly small compared to the size of the deficit. I am ready to get on with this conversation and get to the real plan here. We're ready to start talking about trillions, not billions. Yet, given the refusal to act by Harry Reid and the Administration, this is what we're faced with today. Madam Speaker, the American people want Washington to stop the spending binge that is hurting our economy and threatening job growth without shutting down the government. It's been 47 days since the House passed H.R. 1 and Senate Democrats still haven't passed a bill to keep the government running for the fiscal year or offered a credible plan to cut spending. This troop funding bill will give them another week to offer a credible plan that shows Washington is serious about addressing its spending addiction.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentlewoman. We have to get this right. I rise in opposition to this motion. I use that phrase, it comes from David Petraeus' testimony in the last 2 days in front of the House Armed Services Committee. He tells a poignant story about a black day in Iraq when he was commander of the 101st in which two helicopters collided midair and 17 troops were killed. Really, one of his darkest days. And in the emotions of all of that and the trauma and the fight to move forward, a young PFC came up to this two-star general, which is pretty odd, and he said: General, I know of 17 reasons why we have to get this right. That analogy can be spread across all of the lives lost, all of the grievous injuries that we have suffered in this war over the last 10 years in Afghanistan. We have to get this right. And this emotion that they have brought forward is not remotely going to get it right. Whatever your position is, this is not the right thing to do. We should not do this. These conversations have consequences. They are heard around the world. And while the other side, the folks who will vote for this, the folks who brought this forward have a right to do this and, in their mind, perhaps an obligation to do this, to have this conversation, these conversations affect the men and women in the fight. And for us to stand here over and over to tell them that they cannot win, that they cannot make this happen, is irresponsible on our part. David Petraeus is the man who knows more about what is going on on the ground in Afghanistan today than anybody walking the face of the Earth. And, Mr. Speaker, in all deference to the fellows who served 20 years ago there in whatever capacity, that was 20 years ago. Today, David Petraeus says the strategy is correct. We have got the inputs correct. We are moving forward, and we can make the circumstances to get the end results that we want in which the Afghan people are in charge of Afghanistan and responsible for Afghanistan security. This resolution is incorrect. It will not get it right, and I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate being here to participate in the Constitution Caucus's comments on our Constitution. We labor under sometimes, basically all times, the misguided idea that we're the smartest people that ever walked the face of the Earth, that no new ideas are created except through us. Sometimes it's helpful to look back at some of the things folks who have gone before us have said to help us reflect on those and see how they apply to today's circumstances. A couple of those things, one is from a speech that Robert Kennedy made on the Day of Affirmation address that he gave in South Africa back in 1966. And while much of what he talked about, the revolution of youth and the civil rights movement and other things, are not germane to what we're talking about tonight, there is a section that is particularly relevant to this conversation, and I would like to read into the Record his comments in some of those early paragraphs. He started off by saying: ``We stand here in the name of freedom.'' ``Freedom'' is that wonderful word that conjures up inside of all of us those kinds of feelings that are unique to just certain words. ``Liberty'' is another word that does that, that has that kind of visceral experience inside each one of us. It's different but nonetheless inspiring almost every single time you hear that. Kennedy went on to say: ``At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value, and all society, groups, the state, exist for his benefit. Therefore, the enlargement of liberty for individual human beings must be the supreme goal and the abiding practice of any Western society. ``The first element of this individual liberty is the freedom of speech, the right to express and communicate ideas, to set oneself apart from the dumb beasts of the field and the forest; to recall governments to their duties and obligations; above all, the right to affirm one's membership and allegiance to the body politic, and to society, to the men with whom we share our land, our heritage and our children's future. ``The essential humanity of men can be protected and preserved only where government must answer, not just to the wealthy, not just to those of a particular religion, or a particular race, but to all its people. ``And even government by the consent of the governed, as in our Constitution, must be limited in its power to act against its people so that there may be no interference with the right to worship or with the security of the home, no arbitrary imposition of pains or penalties by high officials or low; no restrictions on the freedom of men to seek education or work or opportunity of any kind so that each man may become all he is capable of becoming. These are the sacred rights of Western society.'' Senator Kennedy got it right. These are the sacred rights of Western society, and we are in danger of having those rights trampled on by this continued growth in the size of our Federal Government. If you look at the trajectory that we find ourselves on from a financial standpoint, you can have estimates by think tanks on the left, estimates by think tanks on the right, the CBO, the GAO--all of these have 75-plus-year projections on the path that we're currently on. If you stack each of those projections on a light table to look through all of them at the same time, there's not a chigger's whisker difference between the path that we're on. Nobody disagrees that the path that we're on is absolutely unsustainable. I tell my constituents back home we're very much like the fellow who fell off the 10-story building. As he passed the fifth floor, he said, So far so good, so far so good. Well, we are that guy; and although our financial wreck is 10, 15, 20 years down the road, we are in a free-fall that has an abrupt immediate stop somewhere in our future. We are bright, intelligent, smart people, present company excepted. We ought to be able to look at those projections, Mr. Speaker, and take action. We have for 5 years now, 6 years this August, failed to reform Social Security. When I first joined Congress in 2005, that was one of the leading issues on our table at that time. And, yes, we got distracted about whether or not part of it should be personally owned and part of it should not; but at the end of the day, we had set the predicate for why Social Security needed to be adjusted. Most of us spent that first 8 months in 2005 trying to lay out to our constituents exactly what the issues were that are familiar to all of us in this Chamber. That lasted until the end of August 2005. And then Hurricane Katrina happened and distracted us from the goal of getting it done, and we have not touched Social Security since. We've continued to choose each and every year to not adjust and not renegotiate Social Security. That choice has a consequence, and the consequence is that we're adding about $600 billion of unfunded mandates to the debt of future generations of Americans because we choose not to take action. That choice is ours to take. It is our freedom to take that choice. It's our liberty to take that choice. But collectively both sides of the aisle--this isn't a Republican issue or Democrat issue--both sides of the aisle have, for good or for bad--I would argue for ill--chosen to not address a fundamental spending issue that, among those that we have to face, I would argue is the least difficult. Let me finish a quote from George Washington in his first inaugural address. George Washington declared: ``The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are finally staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.'' Trust is placed in the people precisely because they are, in the words of the Declaration, equally created and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. We have that precious gift in our hands: those of us in the 435 of us who get to vote in this House, the 100 on the other side of this building who get to vote, the man, the woman who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We have the tools of choice in our hands. Do we choose to preserve liberty and freedom for future generations, or do we choose to continue, as that fellow falling off the 10-story building said, So far so good, so far so good? I argue that we should not. I argue let us use our intellect, let us use our will, let us use the wisdom of the American people who last November made a pretty dramatic statement as to what they thought we ought to do. We now need to take those reins of choice in our hands and lead this Nation to a sustainable Federal Government that does not mortgage our grandchildren's future and that does not hand off to them an America that is less prosperous and that has less opportunity for standard of living increases that you and I enjoyed as we stepped into adulthood. If we continue to ignore the problem and stick our heads in the sand, as the ostrich sometimes does--a pretty unflattering position, quite frankly, for any of us, including for the ostrich--then the future generations will simply ask: Why did they do that? They saw it coming. They understood the consequences. They had within their power the ability to make it different. We have chosen so far not to do that. We have chosen so far to expand the Federal Government at an unprecedented rate. We have chosen to take away from States the rights to conduct those affairs that are individualized, that are properly left to the States and to our local governments and that are, quite frankly, left to us alone, as individuals. We have chosen as a Nation to empower this Federal Government, year in and year out, to take away our freedoms and our liberties. All I can say to that, Mr. Speaker, is shame on us. Shame on us if we don't right this ship of state by shrinking the size of this Government, by limiting what it does in our day-to-day lives, by getting back to the fundamental founding principles that our Founding Fathers built this country on: that of a limited Federal Government, one with limited powers and everything else being reserved to the States and/or to the local municipalities--or not at all--and left to the people. So, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express these comments tonight, and I yield back.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. While far from perfect, this agreement was arranged by the Obama administration and the country of Brazil. This will incite a retaliatory trade war against the United States' intellectual properties. It won't have anything to do with tariffs on U.S. agriculture, but it will hurt other segments of our economies. The 2008 farm bill was a contract with American farmers. They have put business processes in place based on that 5-year contract. We will renew and renegotiate that contract in 2012. It makes no sense to unwind this on a piecemeal basis right now. This is a smokescreen by the other side who wants to go after the farm bill. Madam Chairman, they have gone after it time and time again. But the contract with American farmers, which allows Americans to enjoy the cheapest, most affordable, most abundant and safest food and fiber supply in the world, is on the backs of this farm bill. Reopening it now on an ad hoc piecemeal basis is the wrong policy for this country. Voting for this is a vote to institute a trade war with Brazil, no matter what the rhetoric is from the other side. Oppose this amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It is wrongheaded at this point in time, as my colleague from Georgia has said. The farm safety net is an integral series of compromises and changes from 2002 to 2008 that the folks went through in order to come to that agreement. To pull out one segment of that safety net, and in an ad hoc manner without any testimony, without any references to what it might do to the overall program, in my view, is wrongheaded. Next year is the time to do this. We will go through a rigorous debate across the section. The conservation folks will be able to weigh in. All segments of the farm safety net will be represented at the table during the farm bill debate next year under the leadership of Chairman Lucas. That is the time in order to do this. We will have opportunities to do this work thoughtfully. There will be trades and compromises that will have to be made because, in all likelihood, we will have less money under the farm bill next year than we had in 2008. As an aside, if we could go back to 2008 levels, I'm sure most of our agriculture guys would love to do that, since that is the mantra of the Republican House this week, to go back to 2008 levels. We'll take that. Throw us into the briar patch. But to do this today on an ad hoc, pulling this element out and changing it in this manner, is wrongheaded and I oppose it.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I rise in support of efforts to highlight the need for the Department of Defense to become audit ready. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense was instructed by Congress to provide taxpayers with audited financial statements for the first time in the 1990s. Now it's 2011, more than 20 years later, and we are still talking about the same issue while our country faces a grave economic downturn. As a CPA, I understand the painfully difficult process that will go into auditing the largest enterprise on the face of the Earth. But as General Petraeus told us last year, hard is not impossible. The American people made a very clear statement last November that they're ready for their government to get its fiscal house in order. The Department of Defense cannot continue to get a pass on this issue. We cannot allow the status quo practices to hinder our ability to provide for the finest military the world has ever known. This challenging goal will require buy-in from the top down, and it begins with the Office of the Secretary of Defense. We call on him for sound leadership to exercise fiscal responsibility. I will continue to press Defense officials across the river to get their fiscal house in order. We must not be having this conversation two decades from now. Support this amendment.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, I am here today to address regulations, primarily pending, that fall under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee I chair. These regulations, many of which seem to be both illogical and prescriptive, possess the ability to adversely impact economic growth. The General Farm Commodities and Risk Management Subcommittee has jurisdictional oversight over the CFTC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Historically, the CFTC has been a model regulatory agency. As the implementation of Dodd-Frank has begun to unfold, however, this reputation has begun to suffer. With each rule proposed, a newfound distrust is growing between participants and the CFTC. I believe this springs largely from the arbitrary and confusing way in which the Commission is undertaking its mandates. Currently, the commission's consideration of costs and benefits is sorely lacking. By prioritizing speed over deliberations, the Commission is not only producing poorly understood proposals; it is also creating an irrational sequence of rulemaking. Because so many of the rules hinge upon components of other rules, the order in which they are drafted and put before the public matters. For example, the Commission has still failed to provide certainty regarding its definition of what constitutes a ``swaps dealer'' and who may be captured in that definition. The Commission is already attempting to categorize various commercial entities as ``swaps dealers,'' which makes no sense. Following the financial crisis our country faced, Dodd-Frank was enacted. Make no mistake that the intent of Congress and the act was not to manage the individual risk on behalf of market participants but rather to mitigate those broad systemic risks that threaten the entire financial system. Yet the Commission is currently headed down a path that extends well beyond the statutory requirements of Dodd-Frank and is attempting, at the request of no one in particular, to micromanage individual risk across all industries and sectors. To return to the ``swaps dealer'' example, in his confirmation hearing 2 years ago, CFTC Chairman Gensler stated that there were roughly 15 to 20 swaps dealers around the globe that represented 99 percent of the market for over-the-counter derivatives. Compare those comments to Chairman Gensler's stating just yesterday in front of the Agriculture Committee that he now believes over 200 entities would be captured by the definition. This expansive definition will categorize far more firms as ``swaps dealers,'' and it moves far beyond the intent of Congress. It isn't difficult to see that the continued overreach of the Obama administration has become the rule, not the exception. Again, Madam Speaker, we and the varied agencies of this country, independent or not, owe it to the American public to ensure the assorted regulatory schemes carried out by the Federal Government work to promote economic growth, competitiveness, and innovation. The CFTC's current track seems to be sacrificing these principles for the sake of political expediency.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. ``No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of 30 years and been 9 years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.''

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I, too, want to add my deep respect and gratitude to the outgoing chairman, Ike Skelton, a man that I have come to know and love these 4 years under his tutelage in the chairmanship, and I wish him and his terrific wife, Patty, all the very best in the next chapter in their life. I also want to brag on the fact that the acquisition reform language made it into the final cut. A lot of work went into that from really good folks. I'm looking forward to being part of the monitoring system to make sure that it gets implemented properly. As a part of that, we're also anxious to continue to hold the Department of Defense and all of the various branches' feet to the fire with respect to auditable financial statements. As you know, the Department of Defense cannot audit its own books today. It is an important initiative. There are great folks in the Pentagon working hard. I'm looking forward to the next 2 years, being a part of that process that makes sure they continue to have the resources they need to get the audit work done so that the Department of Defense can tell the American people that they are, in fact, spending the money that we so preciously allot to them properly in the way to go. Again, let me add one last thank you to Ike Skelton for his tutelage and mentorship over the years on the committee. We're going to miss you, Ike, sir, and all the best and Godspeed in your next career.