J. Forbes

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, the Armed Services Committee and especially the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee is probably the most bipartisan committees in Congress. We work very, very carefully to make sure that we are defending and protecting the United States of America. That is why we will have bipartisan opposition to this amendment. If you are against nuclear deterrence, you should vote for this amendment; but, if you are for it, you should vote against this amendment because this sea-based deterrence fund begins us down the path to fund the Ohio class replacement. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind this body that these 12 submarines will carry 70 percent of the nuclear capacity of our deterrence for the United States of America. To not have this deterrence fund would be absolutely irresponsible. It is something we have worked for, and, while it is true it is not the complete solution, it puts us on the road to that solution. That is why I hope we will reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), ranking member on the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, who has worked very, very hard for this fund and done great work on it.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), my friend.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, the sponsor of this amendment would suggest that we need to pick priorities. This is not just a priority--it is the national strategic priority. If you ask the CNO of the Navy, he would tell you that this is his top priority. As far as being open and transparent, how much more could we be than to lay out this fund now and to begin to fund it now instead of waiting until midnight when we need it and say, ``We need $95 billion''? Mr. Chairman, I close where I began: if you are against nuclear deterrence, then vote for this amendment and take away the capacity that we have for ships that will carry 70 percent of our nuclear deterrence. If you believe, as a bipartisan group of people in the Armed Services believes, that this fund is valuable, that this fund is important, and that these votes are vital to the national security of this country, we should reject this amendment. I hope we will vote ``no'' on it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the USA FREEDOM Act, which passed the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support just 2 weeks ago. The bill accomplishes the twin goals of protecting our Nation from our enemies while safeguarding the civil liberties that our servicemembers fight for every day. Americans across the country have called for the NSA to listen less and elected officials to listen more. The USA FREEDOM Act will end the NSA's bulk collection program, which was established under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, and it will further protect Americans' Fourth Amendment rights by strengthening oversight and accountability of the intelligence community. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I work with our servicemembers and military leaders daily to ensure our adversaries do not harm this great Nation. That is why I applaud Chairman Goodlatte and Mr. Sensenbrenner for including provisions in the bill to address the growing threat of ISIL. With continued threats of terrorism, our Nation's intelligence community must be equipped to protect our Nation and national security interests. However, any intelligence framework must be confined within the boundaries of the United States Constitution. Striking this balance between safeguarding privacy and protecting Americans is a challenge in today's post-9/11 world, but it is one that should not tip towards allowing the government to trample on our constitutional rights. Security must not come at the cost of Americans' liberties. That is why I urge my colleagues today to support this bill.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. I want to commend the leadership of Chairman Thornberry in bringing this bill to the floor. His leadership has been instrumental in tackling many of the tough issues this committee has had to address and in getting this bill finished on schedule. That being the case, I am absolutely perplexed by a President that would even suggest that he would veto a bill or Members of Congress who would suggest they would support him in vetoing a bill that gives every dime he requested for the support of the men and women who are fighting to defend this country and for the national security of this country unless he gets everything he wants for the EPA and the IRS and whatever part of his other political agenda he wants to keep. Mr. Chairman, it is time that we put national security and the men and women that defend this country first and leave politics for another day. As to the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, this bill fully funds the carrier replacement program, two Virginia class submarines, two Arleigh Burke class destroyers, and three littoral combat ships. It reverses the administration's request to close the Tomahawk production line and keeps the Ticonderoga class cruisers in active service. It also accelerates the modernization of our existing destroyers and increases valuable undersea research and development activity and sustains our next-generation tanker and bomber programs. I am pleased with the Seapower and Projection Forces' effort in this bill and believe that it is another positive step on a long road to adequately support our national security. Perhaps that is why the bill passed out of committee with such an overwhelming bipartisan margin of 60-2, with so many people on the other side of the aisle being for it before they were against it. I urge my colleagues to support the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate and celebrate the 36th anniversary of the passing of the Taiwan Relations Act, the landmark piece of legislation that provides the legal basis for our bilateral relations with Taiwan, our close economic and security partner and friend with which we share so many principles and values. Our relationship with the Republic of China dates back decades, but it is as important today as ever. Taiwan stands today as a symbol of what countries can accomplish when they commit themselves to democracy, free enterprise, the rule of law, and respect for human rights. The Taiwan Relations Act, accordingly, stands as a symbol of the United States' unwavering support for those values and its commitment to protect and uphold them wherever they take root. The Taiwan Relations Act is also more than a symbol, however. It is a binding resolution that we in Washington will ``consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.'' Today, the peace and security of that critical region is being undermined by a military buildup on the mainland and increasingly aggressive behavior in its littoral waters. In this strategic environment it is critically important that we reaffirm our support to countries that share our values and behave with respect to their neighbors and the norms of international behavior.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend Chairman Price for shepherding this budget to the floor and doing such a tremendous job; yet, with the great job he has done, I know it is confusing, probably, to people listening to this debate at home because, throughout today and tomorrow, a lot of very smart men and women are going to come to this floor and argue various debates. When all those voices have silenced and everybody sits back down in their chairs, we all know that it is going to come down to two choices. Those two choices are going to be what we refer to as Price 1 or Price 2. Mr. Chairman, we also all know that the difference between those two bills is going to be how much we are willing to spend for the national defense of this country to defend the greatest nation the world has ever known. In addition, one of the things that will be clear is not that we will be spending what we need to defend the country, but we will be spending the amount we have to spend to keep from putting our national defense in a crisis situation and a devastating situation to the men and women who serve this country around the globe. Just two points I would like to leave Members with as they cast those votes and the first one is this. The difference in the amount of money we will be spending for national defense between Price 1 and Price 2, if the budget were $1, would be equal to half of this penny if I could cut it in two--half of this penny; yet, as small as that may seem, it makes the difference between a crisis in national defense and a devastating situation to our men and women in uniform. The last thing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to leave everyone with as they cast those votes is this. It will not be about the men and women in suits who make speeches in here, but it is going to be about the men and women who wear uniforms around the globe because they will fight to defend this country, regardless of what we do. The question is whether we will leave them in a crisis situation and a devastating situation. That is why I hope this body will vote ``no'' to Price 1, ``yes'' to Price 2, and then, if Price 2 passes, vote for final passage of this budget, which is a well-done document by the chairman.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of Andrew Marshall, the recently retired Director of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, and the more than 41 years of distinguished and dedicated service that he has rendered to his office and his country. Always one to avoid the limelight and shun the recognition he deserves, Mr. Marshall has quietly but ably served twelve different Secretaries of Defense and been appointed and reappointed to his long-held position by no fewer than eight U.S. Presidents--Republican and Democrat alike. His accomplishments as a practitioner and proponent of net assessment and truly strategic thinking have shaped U.S. policy for decades and changed the way that generations of strategists and policymakers thought--and will continue to think--about defense. He has my thanks and those of a grateful nation.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, last week I was unable to cast my vote for two important pieces of legislation. Had I been in the chamber, I would have voted YES on H.R. 161, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act and YES on H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act. I voted to pass H.R. 7 in the 113th Congress. This crucial bill will establish a government-wide, permanent prohibition on the funding of abortion, ensuring that no program or agency is exempt from this safeguard. I believe that life-- even in its earliest stages--deserves respect and protection. I am and always have been pro-life, and throughout my tenure in Congress will continue to be a strong advocate for the unborn.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. ``The Congress may determine the time of chusing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States. ``No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.''

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I continue to be impressed with the bipartisan effort that was used to create this bill. I want to thank Chairman McKeon for his leadership and service to our Nation. His time and effort to support our men and women in uniform and to guide our national security will be sorely missed. But he leaves the committee in good hands with the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Thornberry, who will bring two decades of experience and leadership to help navigate our committee through the challenges ahead. I do have to express concern for service provisions included in this bill relating to servicemember entitlements. More specifically, I am disappointed with the cuts to military housing allowances, commissaries, and the pharmaceutical copay increase. While the bill takes important steps forward in honoring our commitment to those who wear our Nation's uniform, I remain concerned that these provisions send the wrong signal to our warriors and their families who have already sacrificed so much for our country. Despite these concerns, I believe that this bill is a strong one and should be broadly supported. As to the Seapower Subcommittee, I am pleased with the provisions in this bill, including the continued funding of the nuclear refueling and complex overhaul of the USS George Washington, construction of two Virginia class submarines, two Arleigh Burke class destroyers, and three Littoral Combat Ships. We were also successful in authorizing the construction of LPD-28, continuing the Tomahawk missile production line, retaining the existing cruiser force structure, and providing thorough oversight of the requirements for the Navy's UCLASS program. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of the Armed Services Committee, especially the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), the ranking member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, for his long service and unyielding support for our men and women in uniform.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, on June 23, 2014, I was unavoidably absent from the House due to a family emergency involving my elderly mother, and missed rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: roll 339; ``aye''; roll 340; ``aye.''

Mr. FORBES

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

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, if you turn on your TV tonight, you will see U.S. foreign policy in shambles almost across the globe. It shouldn't surprise us because basically this administration has given our adversaries or potential adversaries almost everything they wanted, even when it jeopardized our national defense. Let me just walk you around the globe. The number one concern the Russians had was for us to pull our missile defense systems out of Europe, and we did that, even though it left huge gaps for us in our missile defense. The number one concern the Iranians wanted was to pull off their sanctions, and we agreed to that. The number one concern the Afghan insurgents had was a time certain when we were going to get out. The number one concern the Chinese had was that we not increase our Navy and we decrease it, and we saw the President send over a budget that would have effectively taken an aircraft carrier out of our fleet, would have beached half of our cruiser fleet, would have essentially eliminated or severely impacted the production of our Tomahawk missiles, and they have plans to bench six destroyers next year. Now they are getting ready to do something that is probably as egregious as all the rest, and that is to execute within the next couple of weeks the Ottawa Treaty, which would require us to pull our landmines up along the DMZ, which is the number one concern for the North Koreans. When President Clinton looked at this, he rejected that treaty because he realized that those landmines were what kept the North Koreans from invading South Koreans for decades. When George W. Bush looked at it, he rejected it because he realized how militarily impractical it would be. And when this administration looked at it in 2009, this is what their State Department said: We would not be able to meet our national defense needs nor our security commitments to our friends and allies if we signed this. Then when a White House aide pushed back on that about 3 years later, the commander of our forces in South Korea, General Thurman, said this: I wake up every morning with 1 million North Korean troops right across the border. When we asked our current general, who is in charge of our South Korean forces, whether he thought we should move those landmines, he said they were critical to the defense of South Korea. When we asked the top uniformed general in the United States, General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he said it was a critical part of our defense. And when we asked him if anything had changed since 2009, he quickly came back and said things have gotten worse, not better. Mr. Chairman, these are not the landmines of yesterday that were just dropped somewhere and you worried a child would come along and stumble on them. These landmines are very targeted. They only come on when we activate them, and then they deactivate within a certain number of hours after that. In fact, the United States has already spent more than $2 billion over the last 20 years taking those up. So, Mr. Chairman, what this would do is to prohibit any funds from being made available under this act for the implementation of that Ottawa Treaty. It is time we start listening to our military experts at the Pentagon and we start taking their advice on what we need for national security. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, first of all, this is not moot. We have it on widespread information that the administration is planning to do this within the next 2 weeks. We even had various embassies tell us the same thing. Secondly, as he mentioned, he is talking apples to oranges. These are not the same two kinds of programs. There is nothing more humanitarian than preventing war. We have 28,500 troops in South Korea facing all those troops in North Korea, and the thing that stands between them and us are those landmines. The gentleman can't tell me one thing that is going to stop them from coming over there if we pull those landmines up. That is why it is crucial we act now and make sure we don't make this crucial mistake and see another part of this globe in shambles over our foreign policy. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, if you listen to some of the debate on this rule, you would not realize that both the underlying pieces of legislation here were enormously bipartisan. I want to thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee--Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Congressman Nadler, Congressman Scott, and Congressman Sensenbrenner, the original author--for their hard work in bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor. The bill passed out of the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 32-0 and as amended passed the Intel Committee by a voice vote. The underlying bill takes important steps toward reforming our Nation's intelligence-gathering programs by banning the bulk collection of data. The bill enhances civil liberty protections for all Americans while at the same time preserving our ability to protect the national security of this country. National security and international terrorism investigation will now be conducted on a case-by-case basis, using specific selection terms and with permission from the FISA court, thereby ending the vacuuming up of data by the NSA. Finally, the bill creates more transparency and provides more information to the American people. Companies will now be able to publicly report on the requests for information they receive from the government. The bill also requires new comprehensive reviews and extensive public disclosure. The act includes legislation that I offered with my colleagues, the Intelligence Oversight and Accountability Act, which requires the government to provide to Congress, within 45 days, a copy of each FISA court decision, order, or opinion that includes a significant construction or interpretation of FISA. The Federal Government has the responsibility to ensure that the intelligence community is taking appropriate action to root out threats to the security of the American people within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution. Today, we are striking this balance between safeguarding privacy and protecting Americans from terrorist threats in today's post-9/11 world. Also, Mr. Speaker, we have heard talk about the NDAA bill and amendments that weren't allowed. What you did not hear is that from 10 o'clock in the morning until 12:30 the next morning, the amendments were offered--over 155--and the chairman of that committee was so gracious he continued to ask, ``Are there any additional amendments?'' until there were none, when we finally passed on a bipartisan basis the NDAA bill. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that is a good bill that strengthens and supports our men and women in uniform. I hope that my colleagues will support the rule and support the underlying bills.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. With the chairman's leadership and stewardship, I believe that this bill provides the right authorities within the budget limits provided. I continue to be impressed by Chairman McKeon's commitment to our national defense and particularly his leadership and zeal to complete the 54th annual National Defense Authorization Act. His inspirational determination and effort to provide for our national security will undoubtedly serve as a benchmark for our future. I also want to recognize my friend and ranking member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee on the occasion of his retirement from the House of Representatives. Mike McIntyre has been a resolute supporter of the men and women in uniform. His departure after providing 18 years of support for our national defense and this institution will be sorely missed. As to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, I continue to be concerned about the trajectory of our national defense and believe that our national security will be irreparably harmed if we continue on our current path. History is full of examples of nation- states that underestimate the value of national security and the severe consequences of their failure. Our inability to change these trend lines will be measured in the sweat and blood of the men and women whom we collectively hold in such high esteem. While we support these men and women in words, I fear that the real damage to our servicemembers is being caused by the benign neglect of this administration and, at times, Congress, in terms of funding and effort. We must not stand idly by watching the continued dismantling of the world's finest military. As to the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee mark, I am pleased that we were successful in reversing the administration recommendation to eliminate an aircraft carrier. By restoring $796 million for the long lead item procurement and detailed planning for the refueling and complex overhaul of the USS George Washington, we are taking the right steps to retain strategic options for future Presidents. I am also pleased that we funded two Arleigh Burke class destroyers, two Virginia class submarines, and two littoral combat ships. I want to especially highlight our incremental funding of the San Antonio class amphibious ship. This amphib will bring important support to our United States Marine Corps as we continue our strategic rebalance toward the Pacific. I remain very pleased with the direction of our projection forces. This bill provides strategic Air Force investments in terms of procuring 13 C-130J military transport variants, six KC-46A tankers, and significant research and development investments in the long-range strike bomber. While we have a long way to go to reverse some negative trends, I think this bill does a good job of supporting our forces within the budget constraints provided. However, we need to vigorously and resolutely seek another path to change our national security funding trajectory. I think this bill is another positive step on a long road to adequately support our national security, and I would urge my colleagues to support the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to media reports that have suggested the closure of military commissaries in the United States and that that may be under consideration by the Department of Defense. Our national defense, and the men and women who volunteer to serve, are not the cause of our current financial fiscal crisis. Proposals that ask them to carry the weight of solving it are unacceptable. Commissaries are a vital recruitment and retention tool essential to maintaining the all-volunteer force. President Obama recognized this fact earlier this year when he visited Camp Pendleton during a furlough day and said commissary closures are ``not how a great Nation should be treating its military and military families.'' Each year, commissaries provide an average 31 percent savings for military families. Additionally, by allowing the Defense Commissary Agency, based out of Fort Lee, Virginia, to purchase products at higher volumes, the 178 commissaries in the United States bring down costs across all our commissaries. I urge my colleagues to oppose any effort to close our commissaries, a system that is highly valued by our servicemembers and part of the commitment we make to take care of them during and after their time volunteering in service to our Nation.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2014. With the chairman and ranking member's leadership, I believe that this bipartisan bill supports our men and women in uniform and provides them the necessary authorities and funding levels to defend our national security interests. As to the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee effort, I continue to be concerned about both the size and composition of our Navy's fleet. I am especially troubled by our physical trend lines that serve to diminish our military capabilities and embolden potential aggressors. In testimony before our subcommittee, Navy admirals indicated that sequestration may serve to reduce our Navy's force structure to 257 ships by the year 2020. The commandant of the Marine Corps indicated that he sees ``the beginning of a hollow force we have fought hard to avoid.'' This path is simply unacceptable. I think this bill does a good job of reversing some of these negative trends and moves us in the right direction by authorizing eight combat ships and ensures that we retain and modernize our current fleet proposed for retirement until the end of its designed service life. It also provides surety to the continued construction of our aircraft carrier and attack submarine force structure, while continuing necessary oversight and cost-control efforts to preserve affordability. The negative fiscal trend lines are not only resident within the naval forces, but are also significantly impairing the ability of our Air Force to project power. The chief of staff of the Air Force indicated that he anticipates an almost 10 percent reduction in the Air Force's force structure. Once again, this is not sustainable and erodes our combat capability. While I am pleased with the efforts of my subcommittee regarding the projection of global force capabilities, we still have a long way to go. This bill provides strategic Air Force investments in terms of both the KC-46A tanker program and the Long Range Strike Bomber. These are capabilities that need to be nurtured carefully. This bill also includes important cost-saving initiatives that provide the Navy and Air Force with the ability to procure the E-2D Hawkeye and C-130H Super Hercules aircraft using multi-year procurement authority. Mr. Speaker, for all of this, I hope that we will support this bill and give the added resources that we need for our men and women in uniform.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, religious freedom is a fundamental human right--a right which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Many of America's earliest settlers came to her shores seeking religious freedom. As individuals around the world face persecution because of their religious beliefs, America has stood as the beacon for the importance of protecting the ability to freely exercise religious beliefs without fear of intimidation, reprisal, or harm. It is impossible to defend religious freedom for the civilian and yet deny it to the soldier. The full expression and practice of faith in the military has strong roots. General Washington oversaw the formation of a military chaplaincy in 1775 to support and sustain his men in their religious beliefs. President Franklin D. Roosevelt composed the forward to a military edition of the New Testament, in which he wrote, ``Throughout the centuries men of many faiths and diverse origins have found in the Sacred Book words of wisdom, counsel and inspiration. It is a fountain of strength and now, as always, an aid in attaining the highest aspirations of the human soul.'' Faith permeates every aspect of a person's life; it cannot be confined to a belief that is maintained only within one's head, home, or place of worship. It is essential that our military policies and leadership respect the fact that a person's faith also informs the way in which they serve. Anything less is a disservice to their brave and noble sacrifice. It is for this reason that Congress enacted conscience protections in last year's National Defense Authorization Act. However, these protections have fallen on deaf ears. President Obama called these protections ill-advised and unnecessary. Over eleven months have passed since these protections were signed into law, and the Department of Defense has yet to implement policies to enforce the conscience protections. Furthermore, I fear there is a growing lack of understanding for the importance of preserving the integrity of the chaplaincy. A chaplain's purpose is first and foremost to facilitate the free exercise rights of servicemembers and their families. They serve as an essential pillar of support, especially for those who are not able to freely access religious services and support in the way they could as civilians. Chaplains are more than counselors, honorably and indiscriminately serving all servicemembers. The members of our Armed Forces do not leave their faith at home when they commit to serve our country, and I remain committed to ensuring they are never required to do so.

Mr. FORBES

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work on this bill and for the arguments that have been presented in favor of the bill today. But it's because of those arguments that I have to rise today in grave opposition to this bill because of a provision in this bill that could seriously undercut our Nation's ability to protect its embassies. It's been over a year since terrorists attacked our diplomatic mission in Benghazi, leaving four Americans dead. In the wake of the attack, the State Department's investigation board questioned the ``grossly inadequate'' security at the mission and recommended that staff at high-threat posts undergo extensive security training at a State Department center. The independent, nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, however, has called current training facilities ``inadequate'' and has said that they pose a ``critical challenge.'' The State Department has long recognized this serious deficiency and has been looking for a dedicated training site for over 3 years. In testimony before Congress this year, Assistant Secretary Gregory Starr said: The capacity of the current facility . . . cannot meet our training needs . . . doesn't even meet our highest threat- level requirement and . . . at some point may not be available to us. And yet this bill on the floor of the House today specifically prohibits the Department of State from developing the center it so critically needs for diplomatic security. Make no mistake about it: it's not because of cost. It's not because of efficiency. It's because of a protection for those inadequate facilities because of the districts they're in. This is an urgent need that must be accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner, but is one that this body cannot or must not delay with more bureaucracy. And that is exactly what this bill will do. America has an obligation that we have adequately trained those responsible for the protection of our diplomats and their families around the world. It's absolutely unconscionable that we are prohibiting the State Department from moving forward on the facility they need to prevent another Benghazi attack. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. A ``no'' vote might not stop it, but it'll send a message to the Senate to fix it in conference.