Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I look forward to a continued exchange on this issue with my colleague. I want to thank him for his passion on this issue and for reminding not only our colleagues, but the American people that there are really consequences to war. One of the things that has frustrated me is that, for too long, we have avoided talking about the wars in this Congress, not just Iraq, but also Afghanistan. My colleague, Mr. Jones, and I had an amendment to the defense authorization bill a few weeks back, which said that President Obama had mentioned a couple of years ago that we would be out of Afghanistan by 2014. Clearly, that is not going to be the case. The amendment said that the President had to notify Congress of what our military plans were going to be in Afghanistan and that Congress should consider that and vote up or down on whether we should continue our military involvement in Afghanistan. That is hardly a radical bill. It is simply a bill that says: Congress do your job, you have an obligation--a constitutional obligation when it comes to war. This amendment, which was germane, it was in order--on the defense bill, no less--at the last minute, we were told we could not offer it, it would not be made in order because the leadership of this House didn't want that debate, they were afraid it might pass. Well, that is the way democracy is supposed to work. If a majority in this place does not want to continue an endless war in Afghanistan or does not want to start another war in Iraq, then that ought to mean something. My criticism right now is not with the White House. I may have some disagreements with the President in terms of what his policy on Iraq might be, but he has done his job, he has notified us, he has sent letters up to Congress that have announced the deployments that he is making, and it says--consistent with the War Powers Resolution, so this is not a complaint about the White House. We may disagree with their policy, but they did what they were supposed to do. Our complaint is with this institution, that we are not doing what we are supposed to do. The Foreign Affairs Committee, in consultation with other relevant committees, ought to bring a resolution to the floor if they want to authorize the use of additional force in Iraq. I would vote ``no.'' There are some in this Chamber that would vote ``yes,'' but there ought to be a debate. We ought to go into any new deployment--any new military intervention with our eyes wide open. We have lived through enough deception. We have been lied to over the years too many times. It is time for us to demand some truth when it comes to war. People ought to know what we are getting into. By the way, one other thing that has troubled me greatly about these wars that we have been involved with is that we don't pay for them. We all complain about the deficit and the debt, and we have to dig ourselves out of this hole of debt. Trillions of dollars of that debt are directly related to these wars. We don't pay for these wars. We put them on a credit card. I offered a bill a few years ago calling for a war tax, saying that if we are going to go to war, then we ought to pay for it--the American people ought to pay for it, and if the American people don't want to pay for it, maybe we ought not go to war. This notion of going to war and putting it on a credit card and making believe like it is not a big deal has to stop, has to stop. The first George Bush, when he went to war in Iraq when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait--I wasn't for that war, I wasn't in Congress then--but nonetheless, when he went to war, he got the cooperation of all the Arab states in the region to pitch in to pay for it. What wasn't paid for, Congress paid for, but it wasn't added to our debt. Now, it has become commonplace, and we don't even question it. There are huge costs to these wars, not only in terms of blood, but also in terms of treasure. We nitpick on this House floor over whether or not we are going to feed hungry children or make sure people have adequate housing. We say we don't have enough money, but when it comes to these wars, the sky is the limit--whatever you want, you can get. Here is the deal: I would argue with you that that money has not been spent wisely. Notwithstanding the incredible service of our men and women, we are in Afghanistan right now propping up one of the most corrupt governments in the world, in the world. In Iraq, we are now reentering a situation where even our own administration is saying the Maliki government is lousy, and we obviously hate this extremist group called ISIL, so we are going right in the middle, and I worry that we are going to be target practice for both sides. One other thing--the Iraqi Army, as I mentioned earlier, has been trained by the very best of American military personnel. They have the best equipment, they have the best weaponry you can imagine. They outnumber, overwhelmingly, these extremist groups that are now attacking Iraq. We read in The Washington Post last week that commanders of the Iraqi Army in areas that come under fire decide to leave--they basically desert--and so do the troops. If they are not willing to fight after all that we have sacrificed, why the hell are we going back in there and thinking of fighting this? Now, this is the beginning--this is the very beginning of our reentry. As Mr. Jones and I have said, we hope that it doesn't go any further than this, but this is the time when we ought to have a debate about what might happen and what we are prepared to do. I am happy to yield to my colleague.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his eloquent remarks. I want to associate myself with every single word that he has said. I believe deep down that the President of the United States does not want to get involved in another endless war in the Middle East, but sometimes things have a way of happening and sometimes things have a way of spinning out of control, and that is why this debate is so important and so timely now. Mr. Speaker, the Iraq war has already claimed 4,500 American lives. 4,500 Americans have already been killed in the Iraq war. According to one study, over 500,000 Iraqis have also perished over the past decade of war. The UNHCR states that over 1 million additional people have been displaced in Iraq this year alone. Linda Blimes, an expert in public finance at Harvard University, estimates that the total cost of the Iraq war for the United States will be $4 trillion when we take into account the long-term costs of health care and benefits for the veterans of that war. The human and financial costs for us and for the Iraqis have been severe. Let me just quote a few experts on military and foreign policy about this possibility of reentering the Iraq civil conflict. Gordon Adams, a former senior White House budget official, said in mid-June: What is happening in Iraq right now is both a cautionary tale and an unfolding tragedy. The caution is about the blithe American assumption that the United States is omnipotent, and that with enough money, goodwill, expertise, equipment and training, Americans can build foreign forces and bring security to troubled areas around the world. The tragedy is that what the U.S. does, and has done, leads down the road to failure. Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Robert Gard, Jr., stated, on July 6: The collapse of the Iraqi Army was not due to a shortage of trained Iraqi troops or the inferiority in firepower or equipment. The case was their lack of confidence in, and commitment to, Iraqi national institutions and leadership, both military commanders and political authorities. This intangible but essential element in combat effectiveness depends upon legitimate governance, not admonitions from foreign military advisers. Retired General Barry McCaffrey, on June 12, said: At the end of the day, if your army won't fight, it's because they don't trust their incompetence, corrupt generals, they don't trust each other. This is an enduring civil war between the Shi'a, the Sunni, and the Kurds. So I don't think we've got any options, and we'd be ill-advised to start bombing where we really can't sort out the combatants or understand where the civilian population is. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the United States should be involving itself militarily in a civil war, a sectarian war, a religious war, a struggle for power that has been going on for generations. We shouldn't be taking sides in this conflict. I do believe that a region in turmoil is not in the best interest of the United States. But as so many have said, including the President, this requires a political solution and it requires the political will of all the key actors in the region, not just outside actors like the United States and the Europeans, but those in the region. The countries and leaders in the region need to step up to the plate and actually lead on finding a political solution or watch their neighbors go up in flames and hope the fire doesn't jump to their homes and destroy them as well. This is why we need a full debate on what is happening in Iraq, in the region, what our options are, and whether or not we should keep sending troops to Iraq or not. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the bipartisan Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, which I cochair with my good friend Congressman Frank Wolf, held a briefing on the human rights and humanitarian crisis in Iraq. We had witnesses from the administration, the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees Office, and several NGOs. The situation on the ground in Iraq that they described is horrifying, but it stretches back over a year. The human rights and humanitarian crisis in Iraq did not begin with ISIL coming back into Iraq, but that certainly has worsened and accelerated the decline in security, protection, and basic rights for the civilian population. Yesterday, Antonio Guterres, the head of UNHCR said: There will not be a humanitarian solution for the Iraqi crisis. It is absolutely crucial that the Iraqi political system find a way to overcome its political divisions and contradictions. He urged Iraq's neighbors and Western countries to work together to find a political solution as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, this is where we should be putting our energy, not trying to find some sort of military path to civility in Iraq, because there is none. I will enter into the Record today's Washington Post article on UNHCR's assessment of the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. [From the Washington Post, July 17, 2014] Refugee Chief Urges Political Deal in Iraq (By Abigail Hauslohner) Baghdad--The head of the U.N. refugee agency said Wednesday that he was increasingly frustrated with Iraq's skyrocketing number of displaced people--and with governments worldwide that expect humanitarian aid organizations to ``come clean up the mess.'' ``There will not be a humanitarian solution for the Iraqi crisis. There is no humanitarian solution for the Syrian crisis,'' Antonio Guterres, the U.N. high commissioner for refugees, said in a closed briefing with reporters here in the Iraqi capital. ``It is absolutely crucial that the Iraqi political system find a way to overcome its political divisions and contradictions,'' he said. Iraq's Political factions are negotiating the key positions in a new government that they hope will guide this fractured nation out of its worst crisis since U.S. troops pulled out in late 2011. In recent weeks, Iraq has come dangerously close to breaking apart as Sunni militants calling themselves the Islamic State have seized control of a vast swath of territory stretching from Syria to central Iraq. The Shiite-led government has fought back with the help of militias, raising the specter of sectarian war as violence-- including airstrikes, bombings, and executions of Shiites by Sunnis and vice versa--racks many parts of the country. Iraqi Kurds, meanwhile, are pressing for a referendum on independence in their largely autonomous--and relatively stable--region in the north. On Wednesday, Guterres urged Iraq's neighbors and Western countries to work together to find a political solution as quickly as possible. He said about 1.1 million Iraqis have been displaced since the start of the year, when serious violence first broke out between government forces and Sunni insurgents in the western province of Anbar. At least half a million have fled their homes in the past five weeks alone, Guterres added. During his weekly televised address Wednesday, embattled Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki congratulated the Iraqi parliament on electing a new speaker. The vote Tuesday was a crucial step toward forming the desperately needed new government. ``I hope that they will work in harmony and to agree on running the parliament . . . away from all differences and calculations,'' Maliki said, according to the Associated Press. But the parliament still needs to vote on a president and a prime minister. Maliki is facing growing pressure to step down, and his reluctance to do so has been the main cause of Iraq's political deadlock. In his address Wednesday, however, he did not comment on whether he would seek a third term.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, July 20th, will mark the 40th anniversary of Turkey's invasion of the island of Cyprus. This is not a happy anniversary, Mr. Speaker. It marks 40 years of invasion, occupation, and the forcible division of Cyprus. The time has come to end this tragic conflict, which the people of Cyprus have endured for far too long. Thousands of Greek Cypriots are still being denied their fundamental human right to return to their homes because of Turkey's continuing occupation of northern Cyprus. Greek Cypriot properties are constantly being illegally confiscated or sold without their owners' consent. Turkish troops remain stationed on the island, and thousands of colonists from mainland Turkey have been moved to this occupied area. Freedom of worship is severely restricted, access to religious sites blocked, religious sites continue to be systematically destroyed, and large numbers of religious and archaeological objects stolen. Turkey continues to obstruct the process to determine the fate of missing persons--military and civilian--since the 1974 invasion. It prohibits the exhumation of remains from mass graves that are located in areas that Turkey has classified as ``military areas,'' even when such a process would take place under the supervision of the United Nations. On this grave and poignant humanitarian matter, I urge the U.S. government to exert its influence over Turkey, allow these exhumations to take place so that the bodies in mass graves might be identified, and so that families may finally, after 40 years, be allowed to grieve the loss of their loved ones and respectfully lay their remains to rest. This is not too much to ask of any government, anywhere in the world. I applaud the fact that the Cyprus Government remains fully committed to the U.N.-sponsored process to reach a sustainable and enduring settlement that would reunify Cyprus based on a bizonal, bi-communal federation, in accordance with relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. I hope the United States will continue to press the Government of Turkey to move forward with advancing confidence-building measures and initiatives to achieve a final, just and lasting settlement to reunite Cyprus.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, being poor in America is hard work. Despite what some of my colleagues and many right-wing pundits might think, it simply isn't easy to be poor in America. Mr. Speaker, week after week, I come to this floor to talk about how we can end hunger now. It is a simple concept. We can end hunger if we muster the political will to do so. We have the food and we know how to do it. We just need the commitment to make it happen. Unfortunately, Congress has very consciously decided to make hunger worse. In November, this Congress let a massive, across-the-board cut to SNAP take effect. The result was a benefit cut of $30 per month for a family of three. Imagine living on a fixed income, relying on food stamps to put food on the table, and then seeing your monthly allotment cut, without the cost of food going down. It is hard to make those numbers work. On top of that across-the-board cut, this Congress passed a farm bill that cut an additional $8.5 billion from SNAP. Thankfully, a number of Governors have stepped up, covered those costs, and ensured that this cut would not impact poor people in their States. But not every State did the responsible thing, and poor people in those States will see an additional cut of $90 per month. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, this is an assault on poor people. Part of the problem is that very few Members of Congress have even the faintest clue what it is like to be poor in America. How many Members of Congress have actually visited food banks, talked to SNAP recipients, or stayed overnight in a family shelter? How many of my colleagues have even looked at a WIC, LIHEAP, or Medicaid application, let alone tried to fill one out or gone through the approval process? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is very few. Too many of my colleagues either turn a blind eye to the poor or go out of their way to dismiss their struggles. Many of these Members who don't take time to learn about the struggles of the poor are actually dispensing misleading information and are advocating for cuts to programs they mistakenly refer to as bloated and fraught with fraud, waste, and abuse. Take SNAP, for example. Yes, it is a large program. We spend a lot of money ensuring that poor people have access to food. But until we do something about wages--and the first thing we should do is to raise the minimum wage, Mr. Speaker, so that people can actually afford to live their lives--we will be forced to either let people go hungry or help them buy their food. SNAP is that lifeline that helps put food on kitchen tables. By the way, a majority of people who rely on SNAP actually work for a living. Opponents of SNAP continue to describe it as fraught with fraud, waste, and abuse. This is absolutely false, period. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently released a report explaining that the rates of both over- and underpayments have fallen considerably in recent years. In fact, the center found that less than 1 percent of food stamps go to ineligible people. It is time we hear from people who are struggling to make ends meet. I was pleased that my friend, Congressman Chris Van Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, invited Tianna Gaines-Turner to testify before the Budget Committee last week, at the request of Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California. Chairman Paul Ryan has held five hearings on the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty, and this is the first time a poor person actually testified before the committee. It is amazing that it took so long to hear from a person who is actually trying to dig herself and her family out of poverty. That is the good news. If you want to hear the bad news, you should watch some of the questioning she endured at the hands of some of my Republican colleagues. Mr. Speaker, we need to hear more from people like Ms. Gaines-Turner, and we need to work even harder to end hunger in America. I will close by saying to my colleagues that the poor in America are more than statistics; they are real people. It is long past time this Congress made their plight a priority.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I joined today with Representatives Walter Jones and Barbara Lee to introduce a privileged resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 105, to direct the President to remove U.S. troops from Iraq within 30 days, or no later than the end of this year, except for those troops needed to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel. We did this for a simple reason. Congress has the responsibility to authorize the introduction of American troops where hostilities are imminent. In less than 3 weeks, in three separate deployments, the U.S. has sent at least 775 additional troops to Iraq. Now is the time for Congress to debate the merits of our military involvement in this latest Iraq conflict openly and transparently. Do we approve of these deployments and any future escalation? If so, we should vote to authorize it. If we do not support it, then we should bring our troops back home. It is that simple, Mr. Speaker. Congress has the responsibility to act on Iraq now. Mr. Speaker, we did not introduce this privileged resolution lightly. By doing so, we have started a process to hold a debate on our engagement in Iraq later this month. We are using the special procedures outlined under the War Powers Resolution. While this is an imperfect tool, it requires the House to take up this bill after 15 calendar days. Like most of my colleagues, I would prefer for this House to bring up a bill authorizing our engagement in Iraq. And nothing in this resolution inhibits such important legislation from being drafted and brought before this House for debate and a clean up-or-down vote. Frankly, I wish that were happening, but I have not heard that such authorization is even under discussion, let alone being prepared for debate. So my colleagues and I are introducing this concurrent resolution because we strongly believe Congress has to step up to the plate and carry out its responsibilities when our servicemen and -women are, once again, being sent into harm's way. The time for that debate is now, not when the first body bag comes home from Iraq, not when the first U.S. airstrikes or bombs fall on Iraq, not when we are embedded with Iraqi troops trying to take back an ISIS-held town, and--worst-case scenario--not when our troops are shooting their way out of an overtaken Baghdad. Now, Mr. Speaker, is the time to debate our new engagement in Iraq, before the heat of the moment, when we can weigh the pros and cons of supporting the al-Maliki government--or whatever government is cobbled together should al-Maliki be forced to step down--now, before we are forced to take sides in a religious and sectarian war; now, before the next addition of more troops takes place. Make no mistake--I firmly believe we will continue to send more troops and more military assets into this crisis. Now is the time, Mr. Speaker, before we are forced to fire our first shots or drop our first bombs. Now, Mr. Speaker, is when the House should debate and vote on this very serious matter. For those who say it is too early, too premature for this debate, I respectfully disagree. The longer we put off carrying out our constitutional responsibilities, the easier it becomes to just drift along. This is what Congress has done over and over and over and over, and it has to end, Mr. Speaker. Congress must speak, and Congress must act. This resolution, should it pass the House, would direct the President to bring our troops home from Iraq within 30 days--or should that pose security questions, no later than by the end of this year, nearly 6 months from now. It would not require those troops that have been deployed to safeguard the security of our diplomatic facilities and personnel from withdrawing. They could remain and carry out their crucial roles of protecting our civilian personnel on the ground in Iraq. This is why we need to take up this resolution later this month, debate our military engagement in this latest war in Iraq, and have a clean vote on this resolution, up or down, about whether we stay in Iraq or whether we bring our troops home. We owe this much to our troops and their families, we owe this much to the American people, and we owe at least this much to our own democracy and democratic institutions that require Congress to be the final arbiter on whether our troops are sent into hostilities abroad. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join Representative Jones, Representative Lee, and me as cosponsors of this resolution. I look forward to debating the merits of the Iraq war later this month and voting on whether our troops should stay or leave Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am here this morning to talk about good government. I am also here to talk about a program that everybody in this Chamber should be proud of; indeed, every American should be proud of. It is the USDA Summer Food Service Program. This is a program, to put it very simply, that attempts to make sure that no child in this country goes hungry during the summer months. For a lot of kids, Mr. Speaker, who receive free or reduced breakfasts or lunches, hunger doesn't magically go away during the summer months. This program is important on a number of levels, but it is important for my colleagues to understand that hunger and food insecurity in this country is also a health issue. Kids who don't have enough to eat, who miss meals on a regular basis, who don't have access to nutritious food, are more likely to get sick. Kids who don't have access to good, nutritious foods are not able to learn in school. Too often, kids who are struggling and in poverty end up filling their stomachs by relying on junk food because that is the cheapest food that is available in so many communities across this country. The summer feeding program that USDA champions tries to change that. It tries to make sure that kids not only have good access to nutritious food during the school year, but also during the summer months. I had the great privilege on Monday to tour through my congressional district in Massachusetts and visit a number of these summer feeding sites. I was joined by local leaders, leaders in USDA, and representatives from a number of NGOs. We also had the Secretary of Health and Human Services of Massachusetts, John Polanowicz, join us as we went through various sites throughout Massachusetts. We began at a YMCA in Greenfield. We had an event at the Pavilion at Silver Lake in Athol. We then went to the Spanish American Center in Leominster. We ended up at the Worcester Public Library in Worcester, Massachusetts. What we have learned is that it is important to make sure that these feeding programs are where kids are at. We have a program at the library in Worcester because kids come to the library during the summer months to read and partake of a lot of the activities in the library. We were in Greenfield at the YMCA because a lot of kids go to the YMCA. This program only works if the eligible kids can take advantage of it. While this has been very successful for those kids who have been able to take advantage of this program, nationwide, on average, only about 18 percent of the kids who are eligible for free or reduced breakfasts and lunches during the school year actually take advantage of this program. Part of the challenge in the past has been that it has been difficult for families to be able to get their kids to the sites where food is given out. In Massachusetts, community leaders are working with USDA to make sure that they give out food at sites where kids are. In Massachusetts, we have seen the enrollment rate for the summer feeding programs actually increase. We are told, Mr. Speaker, that nationwide enrollment in this program has increased. But the fact of the matter is that still one child in seven who needs food in the summer isn't getting it. That means a whole bunch of kids aren't getting it. I would urge my colleagues to do what I did on Monday and go throughout your district to remind people that this program exists and to make sure that people understand how they can take advantage of this. I would urge those who are listening to go to USDA's Web site and learn more about this program. The Web site is usda.gov. Then look under the Summer Food Service Program. Learn about this program. Learn about how you can get your kids access to this program. Learn about how you can encourage other kids to get access to this program. Mr. Speaker, let me close by making this observation. We live in the richest country in the history of the world, yet we have close to 50 million people who are hungry or food insecure, and 17 million of them are kids. We all should be ashamed of that fact. In this country, we should make sure that everybody has access not just to food, but to good, nutritious food. That is what this Summer Food Program is about. That is what the school feeding programs are about. That is what SNAP is about. That is what WIC is about. That is what these nutrition programs are all about. We should make sure that these programs are properly funded and that every eligible person takes advantage of them. Next year, this Congress will be reauthorizing the Child Nutrition Act. I would hope that we would learn from the best practices all across the country and implement them so that we have maximum participation. I want 100 percent of those eligible for these feeding programs to be enrolled.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I find it somewhat interesting here that my colleague from Texas is all upset about the slowness of the permitting process when it comes to these pipelines. I think that there is bipartisan concern about the way the VA is currently being managed. I think there is bipartisan concern that we ought to make sure that the system is more responsive to our veterans. Mrs. Kirkpatrick came to the floor and offered a statement, which will be the subject of the previous question, that I think makes a lot of sense. I mean, what she is talking about is a bill that is the companion to the one that Senator McCain introduced in the United States Senate. I am a little kind of bothered by the fact that there is not more impatience on the other side of the aisle to fix this VA system, to get it right. Again, you could point all the fingers you want at the administration, and they are trying to get it right. There are things that we can do right now to more aggressively and quickly address some of these issues, and that is what Mrs. Kirkpatrick was talking about. That is what Ms. Sinema was talking about. That is what Senator McCain is talking about in the United States Senate, Senator Sanders as well. That, to me, seems urgent. We ought to do this right now, and to kind of use the excuse that, well, we passed a couple of these things and maybe there will be a conference committee that will resolve all this stuff--let's just do it. Let's just get this done. Again, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, so that we can bring up the very legislation that Mrs. Kirkpatrick and Ms. Sinema talked about. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment that I am going to offer if we defeat the previous question in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. Again, I just want to remind my colleagues what we would like to bring up. If we defeat the previous question, we will bring up an amendment to the rule that brings legislation forward that mirrors the bipartisan measure that overwhelmingly passed in the Senate this month dealing with some of the VA's most pressing problems. So that is why defeating the previous question would be important. Let me just close by saying, again, on the environmental issues here, listening to my friend from Texas talk about the issue of climate change, all you hear is excuses why we can't do something, and why we need to do the same old-same old. I have to tell you that if we don't deal with this issue sooner, rather than later, then history will not look kindly upon us. We may not have a history in the future if we don't address this issue sooner, rather than later. This is a big deal. This is a big deal. This is something that we ought to be talking about on the House floor at this very moment. If you want to talk about an energy policy, we ought to also talk about climate change. But yet there is nothing. There is nothing. It really is appalling. And the legislation that is being brought before us today is going nowhere. So we are wasting our time talking about bills that are going nowhere. They are going nowhere in the Senate. The White House has already issued a veto threat. So we are just kind of spinning our wheels here. Instead, maybe we could use this week to do something productive. If you defeat the previous question, we could actually bring up the Senate-passed VA bill and get that done and help our veterans. And get it done quickly. Maybe that would be a good thing to do. Maybe that would make this week worth it, rather than a week spent talking about things that are going nowhere. So with that, Madam Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues again to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. And I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just--I mean, there is just so much that I want to say here, given the fact that there is so much that we need to do to help the American people, and we are not doing it in this Congress. We are bringing up kind of the same old-same old energy bills that are going nowhere, that don't respond to the needs of our country, and certainly don't address the issue of climate change. My colleague talks about how the process is broken. He says the Keystone XL has taken 5 years and counting and that shows that the process is broken. Let me just say that that project is a highly controversial project, with significant environmental impacts. Because the Obama administration took the time to do the environmental review, we have more information on the project's impacts on climate change. The State Department's final environmental review found that tar sands produce significantly more carbon pollution than conventional oil, that building the Keystone XL pipeline could allow more rapid expansion of the tar sands, and that this expansion would exacerbate climate change. That is something that we can't afford to do. Last month, our Nation's leading climate scientists released the country's third national climate assessment. The report confirms that climate change is real, is being caused by humans, and is already harming communities across America. The report tells us the scientific evidence is unequivocal. The impacts are being felt in every region. They are growing more urgent, and they are going to get worse if we don't act. A record drought is continuing to destroy crops in California. Torrential rains have flooded Florida. Wildfires are getting more intense. Coastal areas are being inundated as sea levels rise. No sector of our economy, from oyster hatcheries on the West Coast to maple syrup producers in New England, are untouched. Business as usual is no longer an option. The same old-same old doesn't work. If we are serious about taking action on climate change, saying no to the Keystone XL pipeline, to me, is an obvious place to start; and the pipeline would produce more carbon pollution than any other project pending in the United States. The additional carbon pollution from this single project is equivalent to building seven new coal-fired power plants. Now, if we can't say ``no'' to this project on climate grounds, where are we going to draw the line? So I commend the Obama administration for taking the time to get this decision right. The environment matters. For years, my friends on the other side of the aisle ignored the environment. I mean, it was always that the environmentalists were the enemy. You know, being good stewards of the environment was somehow a bad thing to do. Well, look at what is happening around us. So I think it is time that there be a change of attitude, and it is time that we actually bring serious legislation to the floor that deals with, how do we meet our energy needs but how do we also deal with this issue of climate change? With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying bills. First of all, this rule is not open, and it denies some important and germane amendments. This is consistent with the increasingly closed mindset of this Republican leadership. I want to remind my colleagues that this is now the most closed Congress in history. There have been 62 closed rules in this Congress alone. That is a title I don't think either party would enjoy having, but this is the most closed Congress in history. Speaker Boehner, in his opening speech, said that openness would be the new standard. I guess he misspoke because that is not what is happening on these bills, and it hasn't been happening on most other important pieces of legislation. The approval rating of Congress from a poll, I think, Gallup did last week is at 7 percent. My friends can't blame that on President Obama, and they can't blame that on someone else. They are running the show here in the House. This is a reflection on the work or on the lack of work that is being done here. I think the American people want a full and open debate on important issues. I think the American people want us to focus on things that will actually make their lives better and that have a chance of actually becoming law. We have millions of our fellow citizens who are unemployed, and we can't even get the Republican leadership to bring an extension of unemployment insurance to the House floor for a vote. We can't even get it on the floor for a vote. We are trying to raise the minimum wage so that we are not subsidizing McDonald's or Wendy's, which pay their workers minimum wage. We are trying to give people a raise so that work actually pays in this country. We can't even get a minimum wage bill to this House floor for a vote. We can't even debate it, and we can't have a vote on it. They are blocking it. We need to fix our immigration system. It is broken. An immigration reform bill passed in the United States Senate in a bipartisan way, and it solves many of the problems that some of my friends on the other side are complaining about, but the leadership of this House won't even let us bring a bipartisan immigration reform bill to the House floor so that we can vote on it. It is no wonder why, under this Republican leadership, the approval rating of this body is 7 percent. I think that is history in and of itself. I don't know whether there was ever a Congress in the history of this country that had such a low rating. Now here we are with this legislation, H.R. 6, the amazingly named Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, which would improve neither our domestic prosperity nor global freedom. Instead, it would undermine the Department of Energy's approval process for the export of liquefied natural gas. The current process allows the DOE to evaluate the impacts of LNG exports on domestic natural gas prices for consumers and manufacturers as well as environmental impacts. This bill is a solution in search of a problem, Mr. Speaker. The Department of Energy is already aggressively approving LNG exports. The amounts already approved for exports would transform the United States into the world's second largest exporter of LNG. Further, under the bill, LNG would not be exported any faster. I urge my colleagues not to be fooled by the rhetoric that you may hear on the floor today. Passing this bill will not magically solve the natural gas problem in Ukraine or in other parts of the world. The other bill, H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act, would dramatically weaken the environmental review process for transborder pipeline and electrical transmission line projects. This bill, which is a blatantly transparent effort to ``rig the game'' in favor of the Keystone pipeline project, would preclude the Federal Government from reviewing a project's full impacts, including oil spills and the consequences for landowners, public safety, drinking water, wildlife, and, yes, Mr. Speaker, climate change. Let me say those two words again because I know that many of our Republican colleagues tend to stick their heads in the sand when they hear them-- climate change. I think it is important to say a few things. Here is what we know. We know that burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We know that carbon dioxide traps heat. We know that the levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are higher than they have been in 800,000 years. We know that 9 of the 10 warmest years since 1880 have been in the last decade. We know that last month was the warmest month of May ever recorded. Yet, to hear some of my Republican friends, we should just move along--nothing to see here, nothing to worry about. There is no need to worry that the Arctic ice sheets are melting, leading to rapidly rising sea levels. There is no need to worry about more severe and deadly weather events. There is no need to worry about profound impacts to agricultural production. At best, you will hear them say that the science is still unsettled. It isn't. Climate change is real--it is happening--and we need to figure out what we should do about it. Sometimes they will say: Well, I am not a scientist, so I can't really comment about it. Mr. Speaker, I am not a scientist either, but I know that, if I drop my pen, it will fall to the floor because of gravity. No, most of us here in Congress are not scientists, but the overwhelming majority of the best and brightest scientific minds in the world have concluded that climate change is real, that it is happening, and humankind is currently making the problem worse. It would be nice, given the enormity of this problem, if my Republican friends would work with Democrats and would work with the White House to try to fashion a response. Instead, they deny that it is a problem, and we get more of the same old-same old. I regret that very, very much, but I can't quite understand, Mr. Speaker, why my Republican friends continue to ignore this critically important issue. I hope it isn't because of their borderline pathological hatred of President Obama. I hope that it isn't because of the Big Oil special interests and the millions and millions of dollars they pour into Republican campaigns. Whatever the reason, I hope that future generations will forgive them, because this is something that we should have been addressing years and years and years ago, and the continued blocking of any serious attempts to deal with climate change by the majority in this House, I think, is unconscionable. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, vote against the rule because it is not an open rule, and a lot of germane amendments--they were germane-- were not made in order. I am glad one of the authors of the bill got his amendment made in order, but he authored the bill, so I guess he gets special preference. There is no reason why all of the amendments couldn't have been made in order, and there is no reason why this couldn't have been an open process, because we are not really doing much this week. As for this legislation we are dealing with here today, my guess is it ain't going anywhere. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want my colleagues to understand why I think we should reject this rule. Let me just mention two amendments that were germane and that were brought to the Rules Committee by our colleague from California (Mr. Garamendi). One amendment clarifies that a viable merchant marine is in the public interest and should be taken into consideration when processing applications under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. The other grants priority to the processing of approvals for LNG facilities that will be supplied with or will export LNG by U.S. flag vessels. These are, basically, two amendments that are germane to this bill that would strengthen our shipping industry, and they were ruled out of order. For no reason, they were just randomly ruled out of order. Those are the kinds of things that Members of Congress do not have an opportunity to vote on when you close the process. Again, this is the most closed Congress in the history of our country--with more closed rules than any other Congress in history. So the tendency of this leadership, notwithstanding what the Speaker promised, which was to have a more open and transparent process, has been to become the most closed Congress in history. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that mirrors the bipartisan measure that overwhelmingly passed the Senate this month. It takes aim at some of the VA's most pressing problems, including the expansion of veterans' access to care, holding VA officials accountable, and increasing medical personnel and needed facilities. This issue of the VA is something that we need to address. It is important, and it is something on which, I think, there is bipartisan agreement that we ought to focus on, and our use on this floor would be better spent dealing with that. To discuss this proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the Congresswoman from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will insert into the Record the Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 3301--North American Energy Infrastructure Act (Rep. Upton, R-Michigan, and 20 cosponsors, June 24, 2014) The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3301, which would require the specified Secretary to issue a ``certificate of crossing'' for any cross-border segment of an oil pipeline (Secretary of State) or electric transmission facility (Secretary of Energy) within 120 days after the completion of the environmental review, unless the Secretary finds that the cross-border pipeline or electric transmission facility ``is not in the public interest of the United States.'' The bill's 120-day approval requirement would circumvent the current authority for issuing Presidential Permits for cross-border pipelines and transmission facilities provided by Executive Orders 13337 and 10485, as amended, which allow for the full consideration of the complex issues raised by the building of such infrastructure. That process dates back through many Administrations and has effectively addressed cross-border permitting decisions in a manner that serves the national interest. H.R. 3301 would impose an unreasonable deadline that would curtail the thorough consideration of the issues involved, which could result in serious security, safety, foreign policy, environmental, economic, and other ramifications. By preventing the opportunity for the necessary assessment of all factors relevant to the national interest, the bill would create significant policy risks and create legal uncertainty for permitting applicants. Additionally, the bill would prevent assessment of whether modifications to border- crossing pipelines or electric transmission facilities are in the national interest, which is provided for through the current process. H.R. 3301 would also raise serious trade implications by eliminating the current statutory requirement that the Department of Energy authorize orders for exports and imports of natural gas to and from Canada and Mexico. Because H.R. 3301 would circumvent longstanding and proven processes for determining whether cross-border pipelines and electric transmission facilities are in the national interest by removing the Presidential permitting requirement, if presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Let me just read one line here. It says: Because H.R. 3301 would circumvent longstanding and proven processes for determining whether cross-border pipelines and electric transmission facilities are in the natural interest by removing the Presidential permitting requirement, if presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill. So we are discussing--we are spending time here discussing a bill that will probably not be brought up at all in the Senate and will be vetoed by the White House. So this is just kind of an exercise in futility, when we should be here trying to figure out how to deal with some of the bigger issues like climate change. If you don't want to talk about climate change, let's talk about increasing the minimum wage. If you don't want to talk about that, let's talk about extending unemployment insurance for people who have lost their jobs. If you don't want to talk about that, let's talk about immigration reform. Let's talk about something that actually matters, something that--quite frankly, some of the things that are urgent for us to focus on. Instead, we get these bills that are being brought before us, under a restrictive process, again, which is in keeping with the mindset of this Congress, which is closed. Notwithstanding what the Speaker said, that there would be this new commitment to openness, this is now the most closed Congress in history. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, ending hunger shouldn't be controversial. It shouldn't be something that we ignore but, rather, a goal that we embrace. Ending hunger is an achievable goal; it is something that we can do if we muster the political will to do so. Government--Federal, State, and local--will play a large role in ending hunger. The problem is too big and too much a part of our basic values for government institutions not to get involved. We already created the programs that will help us end hunger: SNAP, WIC, and school meals, just to name a few. Many of these programs are underfunded and need to be responsibly updated for the 21st century. The truth is that these programs do real good in our cities, towns, and communities, and they are working effectively and efficiently. But government can't do it alone, and that is why I am proud to stand with my friends in the antihunger community in support of their many efforts to end hunger. One such group doing fantastic work to end hunger now is the Food Research and Action Center, known as FRAC. FRAC is a tremendous organization, but it is not the typical group that first comes to mind when people think about antihunger organizations. FRAC is not a food bank or a food pantry. Run by my good friend Jim Weill, FRAC works with hundreds of national, State, and local nonprofit organizations, public agencies, corporations, and labor organizations to address hunger, food insecurity, and their root cause--poverty. FRAC conducts research to document the extent of hunger in America, its impact, and effective solutions. It seeks improved Federal, State, and local public policies that will reduce hunger and undernutrition, monitors the implementation of laws, and serves as a watchdog of programs. FRAC provides coordination, training, technical assistance, and support on nutrition and antipoverty issues to a nationwide network of advocates, service providers, food banks, program administrators and participants, and policymakers. Lastly, FRAC conducts public information campaigns to help promote changes in attitudes and policies. FRAC helps frame the debate in Congress and State legislatures, educating elected officials and their staff, and they help implement antihunger programs at the local levels. FRAC does everything but literally hand food to hungry Americans. The work they do has resulted in stronger programs and more eligible people receiving food assistance. Mr. Speaker, the Federal antihunger safety net is excellent, but it is not perfect. It is vast, but it is not comprehensive. FRAC works with policymakers and government officials to make these programs better, to ensure that no hungry person is left without food. FRAC was a leader in our fight to save the Heat and Eat program in the recently enacted farm bill. It has stood strong in the fight to ensure that everyone gets breakfast at school and food during the summer, and FRAC has also fought back on antinutrition riders that House Republicans have attached to the Agriculture Appropriations bill. FRAC has stood with me from day one of my End Hunger Now campaign. Like me, they believe that hunger is a political condition, that it is solvable. FRAC has been invaluable in this fight. They have organized countless numbers of food stamp challenges, including the two food stamp challenges that I participated in; and they work with important local antihunger groups like Project Bread and the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, along with the Northeast Regional Anti-Hunger Network. FRAC is one of the leaders in the fight to end hunger now. Every single person who works at FRAC is committed to a shared vision of a hunger-free America. Whether it is working to expand the number of kids getting food during the summer or fighting against cuts to SNAP, the people who work for FRAC are doing everything they can to end hunger. I want to commend Jim Weill and his team at FRAC for everything they do. Not only are they true professionals, they care about their work. I want to thank everyone at FRAC for fighting to end hunger now. I hope, Mr. Speaker, as they continue their important work, we in Congress will be inspired to do more. It is shameful that this Congress has been so clueless when it comes it ending hunger. We and the White House need to develop a comprehensive plan with benchmarks and timetables to end hunger now and then enact it. Indifference and making believe that the problem will go away on its own is not a policy; it is an excuse to do nothing. Let's instead follow the example of FRAC and End Hunger Now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, each week I come to this floor to talk about ways that we can End Hunger Now. I have a simple premise that hunger is a political condition. We can end hunger now if we simply muster the political will to do so. Over the past year, I have defended the SNAP program, formerly known as food stamps. I have discussed the importance of nutritious school meals and have sung the praises of the WIC program. The Federal antihunger programs are amazing. They are effective, and they are efficient and are preventing hunger from becoming worse than it already is. The Federal antihunger programs can't do it alone, at least not the way they are currently structured. Despite what many critics claim, the Federal antihunger programs are too meager, and they still don't reach every hungry person in America. They fall under multiple agencies and departments and are not always connected, and they don't target the root cause of hunger, which is poverty. As a result, we have seen the rise of many nonprofit antihunger organizations. The majority of these nonprofit organizations are food pantries that distribute food to needy people. But there are other innovative organizations that are doing amazing work. One such organization is Share our Strength, founded by my friends Billy Shore and his sister Debbie Shore. Share our Strength is an amazing organization that is fighting hunger both through Federal and State policy and through programs that directly touch the hungry living in our country. Their flagship program is the No Kid Hungry campaign. They are working in States across this country to develop statewide plans to end childhood hunger in those participating States. They tailor these programs to fit each State and are focusing through this program on the scourge that is child hunger. Two more of their locally based programs are Shopping Matters and Cooking Matters. The Shopping Matters program teaches low-income families how to spend their food dollars. Whether it is cash or from an antihunger program, they are taught how to spend it wisely and how to purchase nutritious food with the limited money that they have. The Cooking Matters program teaches these families how to cook food in a healthy way. These three programs show both how important it is to creatively attack the problem of hunger in America and highlight the ways the Federal Government is failing these low-income families by not doing more. Just look at the No Kid Hungry campaign. Share our Strength is targeting States because the Federal Government hasn't created a national antihunger strategy. Share Our Strength turned to Governors because they are willing to do what Congress and the White House aren't--develop a plan. That is why I continue to call on this White House to do a White House conference on food and nutrition, to bring everyone together to develop a plan to end hunger now. Governors are doing this for kids. It is time that we do this for everyone. Look at the Shopping Matters program and the Cooking Matters program. These programs exist because Congress has cut the SNAP nutrition education program, necessitating a private, nonprofit sector program to teach people how to shop for and cook nutritious food. Share Our Strength is also conducting outreach and education in different ways. They promote and host events at the national, State, and local levels to combat hunger. These range from bake sales, to dining out events, to barbecues. These are not just feel-good events, Mr. Speaker. These are events that come with teaching programs, programs that allow hosts to promote ways to fight hunger in ways that don't seem so daunting. Mr. Speaker, there are many fantastic antihunger organizations both in Washington, D.C., and around this country. Share our Strength is one of these organizations that does fantastic work. I am proud of all of these groups that have stepped up to do what the Federal Government should be doing. I am proud of everyone who is banding together to fight hunger. However, my goal, my ultimate goal, is to put Share our Strength and these other groups out of business, not because they aren't a great organization, but because they are no longer needed. But the only way to put these groups out of business is by ending hunger, and the best way to do so is to increase wages as well as expand SNAP and other nutrition programs. Until then, we need to ensure that no person in this country goes hungry. Until the Federal antihunger programs reach everyone they need to in the best possible way, we are going to need organizations like Share our Strength to help vulnerable populations. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the failure of our government to make ending hunger more of a priority is appalling. To be indifferent, to blame poor people for being poor, as some in this House have done, is something that should make all of us ashamed. Republican leaders have attacked our antihunger programs and the White House, sadly, has been too timid. What we need is a war on poverty in this country, Mr. Speaker, not another war in Iraq. We can all do better. We can End Hunger Now.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, at the end of my remarks I will insert in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy on this bill, but first I would just highlight a couple of points. The administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 4870, as it now stands--and so do I--for a number of reasons. I want to highlight one. There are provisions in this bill that make it difficult, if not impossible, for the President to close down Guantanamo. Let me read from the administration's statement in reference to some of these restrictive provisions that prevent them from shutting down something that I think does nothing to enhance our security: Operating the detention facility at Guantanamo weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and partners, and emboldening violent extremists. These provisions are unwarranted and threaten to interfere with the executive branch's ability to determine the appropriate disposition of detainees and its flexibility to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees based on the facts and circumstances of each case and our national security interests. There are other issues as well, but that is something that Members ought to know. This bill does contain these extraneous provisions. Let me close by saying to my colleagues that it is no secret to people in this House that I believe that the war in Afghanistan--the longest war in U.S. history--should be brought to a close. It is also no secret that I have expressed my frustration loudly on this House floor over the fact that we have not been given the opportunity to discuss that war in an open debate. When the defense authorization bill came up before us, a germane bipartisan amendment was offered that would give Members of Congress the ability to vote on whether we should continue to maintain troops there or not. That is an important question. That is an important issue, certainly, as we discuss the defense authorization and the Defense Appropriations bills. We were denied that opportunity in this House of Representatives, which my friend is saying is a festival of democracy, on the most important issue that is confronting this country right now, the fact that we are at war. We were denied the opportunity to be able to deliberate on that issue. As I said in my opening statement, we have Members of Congress and pundits that are rattling sabers and trying to get us recommitted to a war in Iraq. I think that would be a horrible mistake. I want to close by making a plea to the leadership of this House to let us discuss these issues openly on the House floor. Let us deliberate on those issues. Let us live up to our responsibilities, as Members of Congress, to have a role in some of these discussions. Let's not abdicate that responsibility. In fact, it has become a habit with this leadership to just kind of brush aside those issues, to allow no debate, to allow no deliberation. I find that appalling. When you go to Walter Reed and talk to those veterans who have been wounded and who suffered enormously as a result of their service, when you talk to their parents and their loved ones, we owe those men and women a hell of a lot better than they have received on this House floor. The least we can do is deliberate on those issues. I make a plea to this leadership to let us talk about these things. This is important. If this isn't important, I don't know what is. I oppose the final passage of the bill for a number of reasons, but I do want to commend the chairman and the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for their hard work, as well as their staff, and I yield back the balance of my time. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 4870--Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015 (Rep. Rogers, R-KY, June 17, 2014) The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 4870, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes. The Administration appreciates the bill's continued support for providing funding that assists the warfighter in operating in unconventional and irregular warfare and countering unconventional threats, supports capacity-building efforts with foreign military forces, and supports on-going operations, as well as the support for programs that would improve the health and well-being of the force, including sexual assault prevention. While there are a number of areas of agreement with the bill, the Administration has serious concerns with provisions that would constrain the ability of the Department of Defense (DOD) to align military capabilities and force structure with the President's defense strategy and to reduce unneeded costs. The Administration will soon submit a budget amendment to request funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). This request will reflect the President's decision on troop levels in Afghanistan and include funding for the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan, DOD's supporting presence in the broader region, as well as the recently proposed Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund and European Reassurance Initiative. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress on this request. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress on an orderly appropriations process that supports economic growth, opportunity, and our national security while avoiding unnecessary fiscal crises that hold the Nation's economy back. This process should include reconciling funding levels for individual appropriations bills to promote economic growth and national security, and passing bills without ideological provisions that could undermine an orderly appropriations process. The President's fiscal year (FY) 2015 Budget provides a roadmap for making investments to accelerate economic growth, expand opportunity for all hard-working Americans, and ensure our national security, while continuing to improve the Nation's long-term fiscal outlook. At the same time, the Budget takes key steps to both continue and enhance the Administration's efforts to deliver a Government that is more effective, efficient, and supportive of economic growth. The President's Budget adheres to the FY 2015 spending levels agreed to in the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) and shows the choices the President would make at those levels. However, the levels agreed to in the BBA are already below FY 2007 funding levels adjusted for inflation and are not sufficient--either in FY 2015 or beyond--to ensure the Nation is achieving its full potential. For that reason, the Budget also includes a fully paid for Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative--evenly split between defense and non- defense priorities--that presents additional investments to grow the economy, expand opportunity, and enhance security. The Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative would provide $26.4 billion for DOD to make progress on restoring readiness lost under sequestration, accelerate modernization of key weapons systems, and improve DOD facilities across the United States. In the Administration's view, the risk to the Nation will grow significantly should the Congress not accept reforms proposed in the FY 2015 Budget. Without congressional support for meaningful compensation reforms and other cost saving measures, force structure changes, and flexibility to manage weapon systems and infrastructure, there is an increased risk to the Department's ability to implement the President's defense strategy, which will contribute to a military that will be less capable of responding effectively to future challenges. The Administration would like to take this opportunity to share additional views regarding the Committee's version of the bill and urges the Congress to resolve these issues during the FY 2015 appropriations process. Department of Defense Prohibition on Retirement, Divesture, Realignment, or Transfer of Aircraft. The Administration appreciates the Committee's support of the Air Force's A-10 fleet divesture plans. Divesting the A-10 fleet will help the Air Force meet near-term readiness and achieve long-term modernization objectives. However, the Administration strongly objects to provisions that restrict the Department's ability to retire other weapon systems and aircraft platforms in accordance with current strategic and operational plans. These divestitures are critical and would provide funding for higher priority programs. Specifically, the Administration strongly objects to sections 8122, 8133, and 8136 of the bill, consistent with previously stated objections to provisions in the FY 2015 National Defense Authorization Act. Section 8122 of the bill would prohibit the cancellation or modification of the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP). DOD plans to replace the C-130 AMP with a less expensive, fully capable alternative that has been validated by independent study to ensure that the fleet continues to meet future requirements. Section 8133 would prevent the Air Force from using funds to divest or to disestablish any units of the active or reserve component associated with E-3 airborne warning and control system aircraft. This provision would force the Air Force to take funding from higher priority defense needs in order to operate, sustain, and maintain aircraft that are not needed and are unaffordable in today's constrained fiscal environment. Section 8136, which limits the transfer of Apaches from the Army National Guard to the active Army, would result in gaps in the Army's armed reconnaissance units that would require approximately $4 billion to fill. As DOD transitions out of a decade of war, aircraft force structure changes are necessary to shape a force that is more agile and ready to respond to the requirements of the defense strategy. Compensation Reform. To achieve a proper balance between DOD's obligation to provide competitive pay and benefits to servicemembers and its responsibility to provide troops with the training and equipment they need to do their jobs, it is imperative to slow the growth of basic pay and housing allowances, modernize military healthcare, and reform how commissaries operate. The Administration strongly urges the Congress to support these reforms, which would save $2 billion in FY 2015 and $31 billion through FY 2019. While the Committee restored funding to offset the FY 2015 savings associated with proposals that were not supported, the rejection of these proposals will likely require DOD to find over $27 billion in additional reductions to readiness, modernization, and force structure for FY 2016 through FY 2019. The Administration looks forward to the recommendations of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission on long-term compensation and retirement issues, but delaying DOD's holistic package of proposed initial changes will only result in increased costs, degradation in training and modernization efforts, and risks to the force. Guantaanamo Detainee Restrictions. The Administration strongly objects to sections 8107, 8108, 8139, and 9015 of the bill, each of which would restrict the Executive Branch's ability to manage the Guantaanamo detainee population. The President has repeatedly objected to the inclusion of these or similar provisions in prior legislation and this year has reiterated his call to the Congress to lift such restrictions. As the President said in his State of the Union Address, ``this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prison at Guantaanamo Bay.'' Operating the detention facility at Guantaanamo weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and partners, and emboldening violent extremists. These provisions are unwarranted and threaten to interfere with the Executive Branch's ability to determine the appropriate disposition of detainees and its flexibility to determine when and where to prosecute Guantaanamo detainees based on the facts and circumstances of each case and our national security interests. Sections 8107, 8139, and 9015 would, moreover, violate constitutional separation-of-powers principles under certain circumstances. Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). The Administration strongly objects to the proposed $4.8 million reduction in funds that would support a BRAC 2017 round. This impairs the ability of the Executive Branch to plan for contingencies or make other needed adjustments that would improve military effectiveness and efficiency. The Administration strongly urges the Congress to provide the BRAC authorization and funding as requested, which would allow DOD to rightsize its infrastructure while providing important assistance to affected communities. Without authorization for a new round of BRAC, DOD will not be able to properly align the military's infrastructure with the needs of our evolving force structure, which is critical to ensuring that limited resources are available for the highest priorities of the warfighter and national security. Limitation on Funds Available to Procure Equipment. The Administration objects to section 8116 of the bill which would continue and expand prohibitions on using funds to procure certain equipment, including maintenance for the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). This section would severely limit DOD's ability to sustain military-use helicopters and other equipment that is already in ANSF's inventory and is critical to their ability to continue the fight against extremists who threaten the security of Afghanistan, the United States, and our allies. If enacted, this section could force DOD to seek more costly alternatives than contracting with the Russian helicopter industry to sustain ANSF aircraft, increasing costs to the U.S. taxpayer. Liquid Rocket Engine Development. The Administration objects to the unrequested $220 million for a new rocket engine. An independent study recently concluded that such a program would take eight years to field and could cost $1.5 billion with another $3 billion needed to develop a suitable launch vehicle. This approach prematurely commits significant resources and would not reduce our reliance on Russian engines for at least a decade. With a goal of promptly reducing our reliance on Russian technology, the Administration is evaluating several cost-effective options including public-private partnerships with multiple awards that will drive innovation, stimulate the industrial base, and reduce costs through competition. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress on this issue once the analysis is complete. Limitations on Phased Modernization of Weapon Systems. While appreciative of the bill's overall support for cruiser modernization, the Administration objects to the unnecessary limitations on the current plan, which would preclude modernization in the most cost effective and timely manner and may hinder the Navy's ability to retain 11 modernized cruisers into the 2040s. Reducing the Force Structure at Lajes Air Force Base. The Administration objects to section 8123 of the bill, which would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from reducing the force structure at Lajes Air Force Base and is duplicative of section 341 of the FY 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. Because DOD is nearing completion of the section 341 requirements for Lajes, duplicating and amplifying these requirements is unnecessarily onerous. Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The Administration objects to finding reductions for the LCS program. The reductions leave the program with insufficient funds to procure three LCS in FY 2015, delaying the delivery of much needed capability to the Fleet. Deferring additional ships into FY 2016 would compound the already significant challenges the Navy faces in funding the shipbuilding account in a fiscally constrained environment while increasing overall costs to the Navy and increasing risk to the industrial base, including sub-tier suppliers. Reallocation of Missile Defense Agency Funding. The Administration objects to the reallocation of $370 million from the FY 2015 Budget request. These changes would reduce capability and capacity, and may possibly hinder the Department's ability to effectively manage the Agency. Specifically, this reallocation of funds would delay critical engineering, testing, command and control, and weapons system development, and would affect homeland and regional commitments, including a likely delay of one year for the European Phased Adaptive Approach Phase 3--a national commitment to our allies. Also, the reduction in advanced procurement funding for the Standard Missile-3 IB could increase its planned procurement cost by about $140 million. Opposition to Unrequested Funding. The Administration objects to the billions of dollars provided for items DOD did not request and does not need, such as additional EA-18G aircraft, High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, M-1 Abrams upgrades, and a significantly larger amount of funding for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account than provided in recent years. The Administration is also concerned that section 8006 of the bill makes spending on these and other unnecessary items statutorily required, diverting scarce resources from more important defense programs and limiting the Secretary's flexibility to manage the Department efficiently. Classified Programs. The Administration looks forward to providing its views on the adjustments contained in the Classified Annex to the bill once it becomes available. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress as the FY 2015 appropriations process moves forward.