premise? tobacco is the only product legally sold in america today used according to manufacturers directions will you. >> i accept that. my father died of cancer, and survivor, not from tobacco, but it is legal and that is an issue for the broader states. of the united not uniquely for the united states. someone's legal i guess could rationalize that we should smoke right here. we decided not to. inhink our men and women uniform if they have healthier and longer lives would be a good should of a policy we follow. senator collins? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i want to associate myself comments about giving a discount for buying tobacco at our commissaries or px's or wherever. just think that that's

something that needs to go. work withbe happy to you on it. many expertsey, have said that had we left a residual force in iraq, a nato which american troops would have been a part, that would not have been able to make the gains that it made, nor it have had attempted to make those gains. agree with that? >> well, as you recall, senator, we actually recommended, our military advice was that we needed to remain partnered with the iraqi security forces longer. and that, so i stand by that recommendation. ago. part of it years the size of it was being negotiated, but i was very much needed toe we continue to partner with them. ourremember that

partnership was on the basis of increasing their tactical logistics, their capability, their ability to be a responsible institution of government. is that thetoday government has not acted responsibly in iraq. and i don't know that the presence of u.s. military personnel uniquely would have outcome.he >> but you stand by your initial recommendation that there should a residual force. and obviously the reason you have beenat must because you felt it was necessary to help continue to train and equip the iraqi stability. to ensure >> i do. and to develop their leaders, to to leadnd what it means democracy. but also recall that i also said that in the absence of a state i of forces agreement that wouldn't personally want to send america's sons and daughters to didn't get a status

of forces agreement. stone ofl, the corner this administration's counterterrorism strategy has been, according to the westdent's speech much point, to rely more heavily on including thes proposal of the $5 billion partnershiprism fund to train, build capacity state partner countries front line counterterrorism efforts mali,ing in libya, somalia, and syria. see in those countries as well as pakistan iraq, the countries that have received u.s. assistance mixed record of u.s.rmance in protecting counterterrorism entrants. what's so deserving about what's happening in iraq is not only does it pose a huge threat to country and the region, but

to ours a huge threat country. we provided $15 billion, i don't need to tell you, i'm well aware of your role in training and aid iraqi forces and then when i saw so many of them cut run, against isis, it's just and very disappointing. confidencees you that this new approach, this new $5 billion counterterrorism partnership fund, will deliver a to extremistsat us?are out to harm >> the issue of violent extremist organizations most of inspired by radical religion, is going to be with us my judgment, 25 to 30 years. problem.neration plus

therefore the new approach to try to rebalance how much do we do ourselves, because the challenges we see as they migrated across from pakistan, arabow extend across the world, mideast north africa into western africa, we've got to find a way to address them regionally. when you start to think could eitherou come to the conclusion that we should do it all ourselves or partners and capable allies, as we have with the example, andi, for work collaboratively to do that. that's when this fun is all about. the companion piece for the european initiative as well to as aer what we see changing security environment in europe. i don't think we have any frankly, but to find, well, in some cases find more partners and in other cases build more capable partners, because the thought of ourselves is a

grasp.lt one to >> secretary hagel, you recently said that you were opposed to the creation of a commission to bedy what the balance should between the national guard and duty troops. i know it's a very difficult task to, in this time of excessive budget constraints, to out what the right mix should be, but the fact is that the national guard is far less you look at the airman, soldier, or than is someone who is in the duty troops. a commission why wouldn't be a good idea, and i to you that convey

it's not just my governor, but talked to,nor i've every age i tabt general that to, who are very unhappy about the decisions that the been made to cut national guard. guard isthe national slated to be reduced to the itsst number ever in history. concern is of great because, as you're fully aware, the national guard plays two roles. it can be activated and but it also plays an essential role domestically in to national disasters, orural terrorist attack that may occur soil. so could you talk a little bit to help me understand why you don't think a commission would a good idea to review this

controversial issue. i said in, first, as my opening statement and as i statement,written the national guard and reserves are, have been, and will remain an integral part of our national security strategy. that's not an issue. a couple of the specific points i'll get the last point to your question about the commission. as i've also said, we've talked here today about the realities abrupt and steep unprecedented, quite frankly, cuts. that's the reality that we have. know, as you've spoken just a few minutes ago about sequestration becomes the the land in 2016 unless that's changed, so that's the reality of the financial and what we've got to deal with. when you look at the national guard reserve cuts, what we're first is active duty.

and i again remind you we're talking about a 13% cut in and a 5% cut in reserve in national guard. to balance our budget, as we try to balance the equality of what we're going to need to carry out the national thisity interest of country, it is, was i believe is, and i'll let chairman dempsey address this, the strong all of our of chiefs, who i rely on an awful and the commanders and people on the ground who know it best who have to day-to-day impolicemen these strategies through tactics, they agree with got to take some percentage of reduction here. unlimitednot an budget, but if i had a different kind of budget i probably those't make recommendations based on what the chiefs have come back. issue, the lower cost

active versus national guard, i am going to ask the chairman to respond to that, because it depends. it isn't an easy metric that the reserve and national guard are cheaper, it depend if they have to get trained up and go into a so on.e and but before i go into that i'm going to ask the chairman to get into that. quite as simple as they're cheaper so it's an easy issue. feeling after i had consulted with the chiefs and forpeople that i rely on advice and then they came to me with recommendations. believe we know what we need to do right now. a commission prolongs decisions because i'mink, not secretary of defense, but i do within thee leadership responsibilities of your military. civilian's why we have control of the military, i've got all that. but if we start micro managing military, the people whose

lives are dedicated to national before thehey come congress as they must, they're responsible to me and the civilians as our constitution requires. but when we start second far down the too line, i think that's not smart, and i think it's dangerous. i don't think we need a commission, for those reasons and others. do.now what we need to the mission would prolong this another, well, you know about commissions. need one.t think we we know what we knee to do. there are some hard choices, and them.s one of if it's okay, let me ask the chairman to respond to maybe the difference in the cost. >> thanks, secretary. senator, i'll let this right at point. the i agree by the way, i think remarkables done a job. and i used to be the chief staff of the army and if you would have told me when i was the that i would be able to

take these budget cuts and and come up with a plan to provide the army that we i'd, ihe nation needs, maybe would have said i don't think we can get there. but they got there. cost.sue of otherody, and the committees that give us our budget, buy readiness, that's what you buy. active dutyuying an soldier, you're not buying a particular platform or national guards man. buying readiness. and it depends how quickly you want it ready. that's what distinguishes between the active, the guard and the reserve. you migrateities and how quickly you need to access them. i'ms i say that complimentary of the armies plan, it's based on what the needs to have ready to go on a very short notice, and i think you would agree, we just had this conversation about nigeria, you'd agree that in the which we live, with so

many, so much uncertainty, complexity and threats, i think we need more of the force ready right now, than at any time in previous history where you would stay on state issues, you could take a long time to build up readiness and deploy it. for ayou're going to pay national guards man to be as rae as an active duty soldier, exactly the to pay same thing. it comes down to how quickly you the capability. when you need it tonight, you pay the same whether it's an active duty zone for a guardsman. you.ank the only comment i would make is guardsmen, the guard member and back to the community to a civilian life in most circumstances. the active duty member remains moretive duty, and thus is

expensive. to me it's obvious that they're a national guard troop is being deployed, it is going to in the same way and it is going to be as costly. but it's what happens at the end the deployment that creates the cost difference. >> i agree with that, senator. but if they go back home and i them,hem and i can't get then i'm not doing my job. don't forget, and there is to be for governors interested in this because they have state responsibilities as well. but what the secretary has to that national security interest of our title 10 responsibilities, as the priority, and i think we've done that, with thingszing the other that guard men and reservists do in their communities, i think ande done it responsibly i'm not sure that a commission us identify that.

>> thank you. a brief ask or offer comment. if you take your lodge take a look the extreme we wouldn't have anybody on active duty. cheaper -- >> no, because obviously that's going to, i was commend you for all your service. you just have totally blown it. >> i'll accept the lack of commendation if you accept the mix.that we need a >> no one is suggesting that we don't need a mix. and i willious, commend you for your service nonetheless. and for the work that we did together on dcaa when i was the on homelandg member security. thank you. >> that has been a success turned thatve agency around. >> you have indeed. >> i appreciate your support. on a positive note. >> just barely. >> krom troller hale, thank you, for many years of great service, your country proud

and we're honored to have you come to this table so often and dauntingne of the most tasks in the history of the world, the education of the united states senators, so thank much for that. secretary hagel, thank you very much. general dempsey, you and the men are then in uniform best, and i thank you for your service and all that have joined thch meeting stand adjourned.

>> on the next "washington journal," we'll discuss the options and diplomat ib for responding to violence in iraq. with republican congressman and with democrat elliott engel. also, "new york times" senior economics correspondent neil irwin on this week's federal reserve meeting. is live at journal" 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. the idea behind 250 and 250 is that instead of trying to of st.e entire history louis as a timeline or sort of we wouldby era absolutely miss violently important things. so instead of trying to do that we decided what if we just gave snapshots of st. would givery that people a glimpse of all the diverse things that have

happened here and they could use imagine nations to fill in the rest. so we chose 50 people, 50 images,50 moments, 50 and 50 objects and tried to choose the most diverse could.on we possibly we're standing in the 50 objects section of the exhibit right now. this is what most people would call the real history. is where the object is right in front of you. brewing is such a huge part of louis' history, it's an amazing story with lots of different breweries, and of the most famous became anheuser-busch with the largest world. in the era of anheuser-busch talking about millions of produced each year, we think they're producing so much beer. era when things were a little simpler, and it fun to show people this object game their response. in the days before they had cans they put corks in the top of bottles, and somebody

and dosit on this thing it by manned. it got food pedals on the bottom, that's where the would push down with his feet to give the cork enough into the bottle. and it got three holes for three different size bottles. weekend, the history and literary life of st. louis, the on c-span the west, 2's book tv and c-span 3's tv.ican history >> the house began debate on the spending bill yesterday. the 570 billion-dollar bill spending for military deployments, weapons systems and programs. this part of the house debate is an hour, it begins with the chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, as we begin consideration of this important legislation, all of us in this chamber want to pay tribute to the men and women of our armed forces, all

volunteers. they deserve our heartfelt thanks for their incredible service and sacrifices and that of their families. in everything we do over the next few days should be dedicated to them. my colleagues, fiscal year 2015 department of defense appropriations bill reported out unanimously by the full committee on june 10. this recommendation is the product of countless staff hours, 10 official briefings, and 13 hearings. reducing risk for our war fighters. these hearings was exclusively dedicated to taking testimony from members of the house on their views, opinions and priorities for this year's defense appropriations bill. i want to thank those members who took time to inform and educate the committee as well as other members who made specific requests. at the onset, i'd like to thank

chairman hahl rogers and ranking member -- hal rogers and ranking member lowey for their support of our committee's work. as they know, this bill is a bipartisan and cooperative effort for which i thank my visclosky. mr. thanks to the members and our incredible staff. the base funding is $491 billion which is $2 million above the president's request and $4.1 billion above last year's enacted level. as many members are aware, the committee has not yet received the president's recommendation for the overseas contingency operation. the o.c.o. budget, as it's known. so we're forced to include a $79.4 billion placeholder in our legislation. our committee operates in a completely transparent and

accountable manner, so clearly this is not the way we wanted to proceed to the floor, with no details, no context, no facts for those accounts. we press the administration at every opportunity to get us the o.c.o. plan. the administration has told us for months it is finalizing its plans, the enduring u.s. presence in afghanistan, which will have a serious impact on the size of that funding request. well, three weeks ago, the president announced his plans for a u.s. troop level in afghanistan beyond this year. the army and marine have already closed down bases and removed tons of equipment. still, we have no request and are forced to debate a placeholder of nearly $80 billion. while the afghan presidential elections are still unsettled, the leading candidate supports the bilateral security agreement, supposedly the anchor for this funding

request. so what's the holdup? we need to get on with it. and i have to say that many people find it just a bit bizarre that the administration has proclaimed its opposition to the bill yesterday when they have failed to do their job and lay out their game plan for overseas operations. but whatever the recommendations, we will closely examine the request because we still have troops and civilians on the ground, and no matter the number, they need to be protected. of course, we'll also consider the war and conflict in iraq, the continuing disintegration of syria, the aggressiveness of russia and eastern europe and china and the pacific, the growing influence of iran, increased terrorist attacks around the globe, especially in africa. so while the administration feels the pending o.c.o. request will have a great deal to deal with our presence in

afghanistan, in reality the request will have a great deal with our enduring role to protect our americans, our homeland for the growing risk of threats. the committee faced many challenges in crafting this year's defense bill, but we've held firm to two guiding principles. ensuring that our men and women in uniform have the resources they need to defend our nation and support their families and secondly, ensuring that the department of defense and our intelligence community have the resources they need to carry out their mission in the most efficient and effective manner. our goal throughout this bill is to support our war fighters now and in the future whenever the next crisis arises. at the same time, our committee clearly recognizes the nation's debt crisis, and we found areas in programs where reductions were possible without adverse impact. finally, it's important to note

that we make every dollar count without harming readiness or increasing risk incurred by our war fighters. the bill before us attempts to meet these responsibilities with current fiscal restraints. while leaving no question for our allies and adversaries about our will and our ability to defend ourselves and our interests around the world. america must continue to lead, and this bipartisan bill enables that. let me highlight just a few items briefly, included in this fiscal year defense appropriation request. an additional $1.2 billion to fill readiness shortfalls. $530 until to fully authorize the 1.8% -- $530 million to fully authorize the 1.8% pay raise. and to refuel the u.s.s. george washington, a vital platform. $5.8 billion for a total of 38

jount strike fighters. buy 12 additional attack growlers. $120 million to upgrade the m-1 abrams tanks. $350 million for the very important israeli cooperative program. an additional $39 million for suicide prevention activities. $19 million of it targeted specifically at our special forces. these are but a few examples of our commitment to the u.s. -- to u.s. military dominance across the air, land and sea. our commitment to our allies and partners, our commitment to our service members, all volunteers, and their families. , as airman, i understand all of us do, are weary about 13 years of war. the speculation that al qaeda and others have -- the american people must understand the reality that terrorism is actually spreading worldwide.

yes, our enemies have sustained serious damage, inflicted by the most skillful and powerful military and intelligence organization on the globe, but in many cases these enemies have adopted and grown to become even more dangerous. we are witnessing an alarming collapse in iraq. the central government now controls less than half of its sovereign territory as it reels before a full-blown insurgencey. the concept of an autonomous jihadist state or caliphate determined to attack the west is an unacceptable development that demands a response. we pivot elsewhere at our own peril. national defense is the priority job of the federal government. our constitution grants this congress a full range of authorities for establishing the defense of our nation. our task in this house is to ensure that our military is ready to respond when the

commander in chief calls. this legislation moves us towards a state of current and future military readiness that will protect america, and i urge its passage. thank you, mr. chairman, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the recognition, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: i would like to begin by expressing my appreciation as well to the -- to chairman frelinghuysen on the collegial and transparent manner in which he crafted h.r. 4870, the fiscal year 2015 defense appropriations act. i also want to express my sincere appreciation for the efforts of chairman hal rogers and ranking member nita lowey and all of the members of the defense subcommittee. also, as i think all of my colleagues know, this bill could not have been written without the dedication, long hours, discerning and

thoughtful input for our committee staff and our associate and personal staffs. i want to thank each one of them. i would like to begin by saying a few words about the overseas contingency operations title that the chairman referred to. the committee has been placed in a very difficult position of having to provide $79.4 billion as a placeholder. recent decisions on the post-2014 troop levels in afghanistan clear up a major policy issue that held back a detailed budget request. unfortunately, the clarity gained was quickly muddled by the proposed $5 billion counterterrorism partnership act, and the $1 billion a european reassurance initiative. at a time when many in congress are rightfully looking to limit what is an eligible expense in o.c.o. and shift activities to the base budget, these new proposals further complicate the issue. clarity must be brought to the

opaque nature of o.c.o., and i look forward to the debate on this during the consideration of amendments. i support the bill we are marking up today and believe it provides for our national security and the protection of u.s. interests at home and abroad. simply, the bill provides stability for our military personnel, maintains readiness and preserves the industrial base. i am pleased by the subcommittee's continued efforts on sexual assault prevention and response. specifically, the bill fully funds the budget request for the special victims, continuing last year's initiative. the bill increases funding relative to the president's budget request for traumatic brain injury and psychological health research, suicide prevention and outreach programs and several other invaluable medical programs. further, the bill and report carries strong language aimed at increasing cooperation between the departments of defense and veterans administration and their ongoing efforts to develop interoperable electronic health

records. specific to readiness, the bill includes an increase of $1 billion to fill gaps in key programs to prepare our troops, including $135 million for the army reserve and army national guard. the bill makes investments in programs that are vital to the rebuilding and resetting of the force after 13 years of conflict. in particular, it increases funding by $720 million for facilities sustainment and modernization and provides each military service for funding for maintenance. i especially appreciate the chairman's focus on encouraging d.o.d. to meet the f.y. 2017 adline for achieving fully audible financial statements. and it provides $8 million above the request for the comptroller's office to improve business and financial systems throughout the department. continuing problems at d.o.d.'s strategic forces are also addressed in the bill and funding is provided to address issues directly impacting

intercontinental ballistic missile crews. with regards to the industrial base, i was dismayed that in the fiscal year 2015 budget request, the administration proposed the elimination of long-standing provisions that contracts buy america requirements and support domestic manufacturing. i am pleased to note that the committee chose to reject the administration's inexplicable proposals to jettison these buy america proposals. the bill can name several other provisions and initiatives aimed at securing our industrial base, including $220 million to establish a program for the domestic development of the next generation liquid fueled rocket engine. hopefully this program will fill a troubling void in the u.s. space launch industry. one other area of the bill i'd like to highlight is the funding increase for the humanitarian mind action program. albeit a small program, i believe its mission of immense

value. all too often, innocent civilians are the victims of explosive remnants of war. it is only right to share our military's expertise with host nations under the disposal, demilitarization of explosive ordnance. i thank the chairman in particular for his special efforts in this area. however, i would point out that there are certain aspects of the bill that give me pause. fundamentally, these concerns have little to do with the detailed work of the subcommittee which i believe did its very best under the constraints under which it operated. rather, the concerns stem from congress' continued failure to confront our long-term fiscal challenges. in the fiscal year 2015 budget request, the department of defense proposed some significant initiatives, including military pay adjustments, restructuring tricare and the retirement of several weapon systems, such as the a-10 and the kiowa warrior, in order to stay under the

fiscal year 2015 budget cap, provide for future flexibility and to meet national security strategy. having said this, one could easily point out that the administration then undercut its own efforts by planning for higher spending in fiscal years 2016 through 2019, and by submitting the disingenuously named opportunity, growth and security initiative. and subsequently, also submitting under funded priority lists. regardless, a number of the proposals the department put forth for fiscal year 2015 do possess merit. with few exceptions these proposals have gained no traction in congress. most were excluded or had language prohibiting or postponing their start in the recently passed national defense authorization act. i do not suggest that the administration is uniformerly correct, nor do i dismiss the result in impacts of many of these initiatives. but the alternative of staying the course and hoping for some

relief in fiscal year 2016 is very wishful thinking. the sooner congress wishes a consensus required to make the difficult decisiones that are essential to deal with the reality of finite resources the better we can provide for our nation's defense. in closing, i again want to reiterate my thanks to the chairman. he and his staff have ensured that the defense subcommittee ave continued the tradition of dealing clab are atively and effectively -- collaboratively and effectively. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the chairman of the appropriations, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: mr. chairman, i urge our colleagues to support this defense spending bill for 2015. this bipartisan legislation

provides $491 billion in discretionary funding for our nation's highest duty, and that is the security of the country. and the sustainment of our military operations. and the well-being of the brave men and women of our armed forces. the bill before you today, mr. chairman, will help meet the most pressing needs of our military as we address current and arising threats to the safety of our nation in an ever-changing global landscape. it also takes into account the ongoing challenges of our current fiscal situation. finding ways to trim excess spending and reduce lower-priority programs without negatively affecting our troops or the success of our military missions. providing our military with the

highest standard of readiness is a top priority in this bill. this includes procuring important equipment and resources, supporting troop training and flight time and maintaining our bases and facilities. the bill marks investments in important defense technology r&d, to help advance the safety and success of our military operations now and into the future. investments like these will help to preserve our military's status as the most effective and capable in the world. the backbone of our military of course is the brave men and women who lay their lives on the line in defense of this nation. with that in mind, the bill fully funds the authorized 1.8% pay raise for our military personnel instead of the 1% as requested by the president. troop housing costs are also

fully funded as authorized. this ensures that our more than 1.3 million active duty troops and 820,000 guard and reserve troops have the quality of life they deserve during their service. money is included for the defense health program to ensure a consistent and strong quality of care for our troops, their families and retirees. within this total, the bill includes increases above the president's request for cancer research, traumatic brain injury research, psychological health research and suicide prevention outreach programs. the bill also provides an increase of $50 million above last year for sexual assault prevention and response programs, helping to address this growing challenge within our forces.

lastly, the bill provides $79.4 billion in overseas contingency operations funding to support our troops in afghanistan. as we have yet to receive an official budget request that reflects the most current and anticipated status of our troops in the field, the so -- this funding will undoubtedly require further evaluation, particularly with the developing situations in iraq and the middle east. by prioritizing these vital programs, closely scrutinizing the budget request, and assessing the most current needs, fiscal 2015 defense appropriations ensures the best use of our limited federal dollars. we made careful, targeted reductions wherever possible without adversely affecting the safety of our troops or the ongoing success of our military missions. mr. chairman, as of today we've completed 10 appropriations

bills -- 10 of the 12 through subcommittee. eight have gone through full committee and we've begun or we've completed consideration of six bills on the floor. so when we finish this bill and the ag bill, we will be half through the 12 bills. that's not happened in many years. we are moving at a remarkable pace and if our colleagues in the other body continue their good work as well, we stand a great chance of completing this important work on time. this is an even greater achievement because we've done so under regular order, with open rules that have allowed every member to have his or her voice heard. over the five bills we've considered on this floor so far, we've had more than 200 amendments and i'm sure we will add to that tally today. week of taken great care to weed out waste and excess and

terminate duplicative programs. this year alone -- i ask for an additional one minute. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. rogers: we've done all of this while abiding by the ryan-murray budget agreement. before i finish, mr. chairman, i can't help but compliment the chairman, the new chairman of this subcommittee, this is his maiden voyage after becoming chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee, and i think he's steered the ship properly so far and we look forward to the complete work that he's doing. so congratulations to chairman frelinghuysen and to ranking member visclosky. they've done a great job. it's a bipartisan bill and i urge members to support it. i yield. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, i would like to yield four minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, the ranking member of the appropriations committee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for four minutes.

mrs. lowey: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank the chairman, ranking member, the defense subcommittee has a long tradition of working closely together and i sincerely appreciate these bipartisan efforts. this is an extremely important and timely bill. as the department is tasked withdrawing down forces in afghanistan, appropriately responding to the upheevenal in iraq, and face -- upheaval in iraq and facing other challenges across the globe. totaling $490.7 billion, the base portion of the bill is approximately $200 million above the president's request. however, after accounting for appropriate increases in active duty pay and housing costs, the remainder of the bill is actually below the president's proposed level. budget caps and sequestration

force difficult decisions. many of which will be debated this week. before we begin that discussion, i want to again thank the chairman and ranking member and recognize the constraints under which they assembled the bill. the bill includes a number of provisions i strongly support. additional investments to address the epidemic of sexual assault plaguing our military, substantial funds for health services and suicide prevention , my colleague just informed me that in march there were zero mbat fatalities, but 700 suicides. a 1.8% increase for active duty pay, support for the national guard and reserves, as well as families -- family support programs, significant funding

for cybersecurity to protect our critical infrastructure from cyberattacks, and continued support for the israeli cooperative missile defense program. i applaud the inclusion of language that sends 75% of funds for the defense health care management system modernization, requiring a report from the secretary of defense on acquisition and the cost of the program. plus the status of efforts to achieve interoperability with the department of veterans affairs. this system is critical to the health of our service members and expeditious interoperability between d.o.d. and the v.a. is essential to ensuring quality of care as they become veterans. through continued oversight, this committee will make sure that d.o.d. stays on course,

delivers the promised objectives. i remain concerned about the lack of a formal budget, for the overseas contingency operations funds, with continues uncertainty about future u.s. actions in afghanistan, work remains on this account. again, i appreciate the professionalism and collegiality of the process and i look forward to further cooperation as we work toward passing this bill. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to a member of our defense subcommittee, the gentleman from florida, mr. crenshaw. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. very nshaw: thank you much, mr. chairman. thank you for the work that you've done, along with mr. visclosky, to present what i consider to be a very strong bill. when you look at the world today, it certainly hasn't gotten any smaller, certainly hasn't gotten any safer.

but i think this bill balances the priorities that we need to balance and focuses on being able to meet the many, many challenges that we face in terms of our national security. i consider it an honor to serve on this subcommittee because when i read the constitution, it teaches me that the number one responsibility of the federal government is to protect american lives. and the best way to keep america safe is to keep america strong and i think this bill does that. we make sure that we're not making any short-term budget-driven decisions that would be easy to make in these difficult economic times. the navy decided that they would like to deactivate 11 ships. that's 1/2 of our cruiser fleet. we don't need less ships, we need more ships. and i'm proud that the subcommittee's worked out a compromise where these ships

will be modernized, their life will be extended and they'll continue to do the work that they need to do around the globe. the people that i represent back in jacksonville, florida, care greatly about national security. they care about the men and women in uniform and they care about the men and women that work so hard to make sure the ships are repaired and the planes are flying in the sky. and the other thing that i wanted to point out in terms of shortsighted, budget-driven decisions is, there was an effort to say there's not enough money to refuel the u.s.s. george washington. that's one of our nuclear carriers. it has 25 years left of useful life if we spend the money to refuel that. and we're going to do that. that also will help us comply with the law that i helped write eight years ago that says you have to have 11 aircraft carriers unless congress says

otherwise. and, finally, when i look at the airplanes, the new hawkeye, advanced hawkeye, these planes are relatively new, but they're incredibly important to our national security. the p-8 surveillance planes, again, relatively new, but critical to our national defense. so i want to thank the chairman, the ranking member, for putting together such a strong bill and i want to urge all my colleagues to support this. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i would like to recognize mismccollum, a member from minnesota, as well as a member of the defense appropriations subcommittee, for two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this appropriations bill will ensure that all the men and women of our armed forces have the resources they need to keep our country safe and secure. and i want to commend chairman frelinghuysen and ranking member visclosky for their work together to craft a good bill

under difficult budgetary conditions and the uncertainty surrounding the account. thank you to all the members of the subcommittee for working together in a bipartisan and collaborative manner to put this bill together. this legislation supports our troops and our military families, it strengthens health care services available to our service members, and it provides the essential support that our industrial base needs. one issue i'm very concerned about is the academic of sexual assault -- epidemic of sexual assault in our military. sexual assault will not be tolerated and must be both prevented and prosecuted. and there are resources in this bill to do that. must hold military leaders accountable to make sure that this progress is made. i'm also very concerned about the complete lack of oversight by this congress in the armed drone program which is funded under this bill. the lack of transparency surrounding drone strikes hinders our ability to evaluate their impact on innocent civilians. there are other challenges and other tough choices made in

this bill and our hearings highlighted the fact that there are tougher choices to make in the coming years. with sequestration on the horizon for f.y. 2016 and beyond, congress needs to act responsibly to balance the need for military readiness with the many nondefense challenges domestically that the american people face. congress needs to stop spending billions of dollars on excess bases and objects loot weapons systems that the department of defense does not want and this bill starts this process by retiring the a-10 aircraft. i believe this bill is responsible and an important step forward and again i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership and what we need to do together as a country to maintain our military superiority in the 21st century and i urge passage of the bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from new jersey has 13 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased

to yield to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack, a member of the defense appropriations committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. womack: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, mr. frelinghuysen, and mr. visk key, for their -- visclosky, for their leadership and the great work that's taken place in crafting this defense appropriations bill. i also would like to thank the overall chairman and the ranking member, mr. rogers and mrs. lowey, for their leadership as well. mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation on which our men and women in uniform, our intelligence community and our future depend. america's at war and we face continued uncertainty and new threats daily. now is not the time to weaken our military, and this bill equips the department of defense with the funding necessary to keep our nation

safe while making the tough decisions necessary to ensure we stay within our spending limits. with $491 billion provided in discretionary spending and another $80 billion as a placeholder in overseas contingency, the d.o.d. will be able to maintain readiness at levels that protect our military's standing, support our ongoing war efforts abroad and most importantly ensure that the health and well-being of our men and women in uniform and their ability to support their families is protected. our subcommittee and our committee as a whole is keenly aware of our nation's deficits and debt. we are committed to thoroughly evaluating our spending to ensure our defense officials, both military and civilian, are accountable for smart policy objectives that responsibly steward taxpayer dollars. we've had months of hearings, classified briefings and bipartisan cooperation, and i believe we have successfully accomplished a bill, a good bipartisan bill that is worthy

of support. mr. chairman, as i was thinking about my remarks today, i thought about that famous verse in america the beautiful that says o, beautiful, for heroes proved, in liberating strife, who more than self their country loved and mercy more than life. mr. chairman, we have an enormous obligation, a constitutional obligation to protect the homeland, but we have an obligation to ensure that we protect those heroes referenced in that great patriotic song. so the least we can do today is put our partisan differences aside and join collectively to send our collective appreciation to those who serve us in uniform by passing this very important piece of legislation.

with that, mr. chairman, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from indiana has 17 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield to ms. lee from california, a member of the appropriations committee, for one minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you very much. let me thank my ranking member for yielding, for your very hard work on this department of defense appropriations bill. as a daughter of a veteran, i know how important it is to fully fund and support our troops. i strongly support these provisions of this legislation. with that said, though, there are many provisions in this bill that -- which i cannot support. these include nearly $500 billion in discretionary funding with an increase of $4 billion above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level which we have not seen for any other appropriations bill this year. this inflated level of spending fails to account, mind you, for the waste, fraud and abuse that continues at the pentagon. we must audit the pentagon and reduce unnecessary pentagon

spending. this bill also includes nearly $80 billion for the overseas contingency operations slush fund, which is what it is, at a time when the president has not made a specific request what is needed, this is outrageous and this slush fund should be eliminated. i will submit an amendment, one to eliminate funding in afghanistan after 2015 as well as the farm bill, transportation bills, other bills have -- other authorizations have end dates. we need to come back to congress, debate what we need to do in iraq, if anything, in terms of military strikes and repeal the authorization in afghanistan passed in 2001. thank you and i yield. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from new jersey, mr. lobiondo, for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lobiondo: i thank you, chairman frelinghuysen, and also want to thank ranking

member peter visclosky for setting an example how to take care of our nation's dramatic needs and do it in an inclusive bipartisan fashion. chairman frelinghuysen has shown great leadership on providing the resources or war fighters need to successfully defend our nation, both here and abroad. he and i have worked together on shared interests and i thank you for engaging with me on this important issue. the aircraft that are meant to protect our nation's sovereign airspace from both domestic and foreign threats and also our routine -- are routinely deployed with a big air force into war theaters overseas have gone without much-needed upgrades. the f-16 block 30 aircraft are tasked with a mission that absolutely cannot fail. the 177 fighter wing out of atlantic city, new jersey, as

well as the other national guard wings throughout the country are assigned this critically important task of ensuring our home defense and, again, being able to integrate fully with a big air force into conflicts overseas, as they have done multiple times and in fact they are doing right now as we speak. due to the reduction of modernization programs, these f-16 block 30 aircraft are without key combat avionic upgrades, such as the agile beam radar. threats to our nation continue to grow all over the world, from sovereign countries and terrorist organizations alike. the diversity of threats means that these aircraft must have the latest capability to make split-second decisions to protect our nation here and abroad. i ask the chairman, work with me to ensure that our nation's airspace is properly defended and that these f-16 aircraft are properly fitted for the threats of the 21st century.

with that i'd like to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman, my colleague, for yielding on this important issue. i agree that upgrading these legacy aircraft is vital to our nation's defense. it's our job as elected officials to protect our citizens and the mission of the aerospace controller does just that. i'll work to ensure that we include report language in conference or take other appropriate steps regarding this issue as we work through the appropriations process. i thank my colleague and friend from new jersey for bringing this vital concern to my attention, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, i'd yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia. the chair: the gentleman is ecognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to discuss h.r. 4870, the department of defense

appropriations act. i want to thank the committee for fully funding the historically black colleges and universities and minority student initiative. the 34.4 million dollar allocation supports the educational development of a growing number of minority scholars in science, technology, engineering and math, also known as stem. i was proud when the house armed services committee and then the full house approved my amendment to increase funding for this initiative by $10 million in the national defense authorization act. by providing the full $34.4 million today, the appropriations committee and the full house will once again demonstrate our commitment to hese outstanding scholars. hbcu's produces 1/5 of the nation's undergraduate science

graduates and 20% of black undergraduate engineers. this funding, through the ndaa, emphasizes our support for these students and encourages more minorities to take the stem path. in the long run, producing more qualified minority stem graduates ensures a strong and diversified work force, which is essential to our nation's long-term well-being. i have serious concerns about this bill. i wanted to use this opportunity to express my heart felt appreciation for the work of the house appropriations committee in support of this initiative. thank you and i yield back the balance. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: mr. speaker, i'd yield as such time as he may consume to the gentleman, mr.

israel, for purpose of a colloquy. mr. israel: i want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on this bill. i am here today to discuss -- to address the importance of delivering the utmost care to our brave service men and women who suffer from mental health disorders, and the benefits that public-private partnerships between the department of defense and teaching hospitals can provide, specifically to members of the national guard and reserve components who return from wars of duty and transition into civilian life far from a military base and without easy access to the care that they need. i'm breezed that the department recognizes the -- i'm pleased that the department recognizes the benefits and created a pilot program to improve efforts to treat members of the national guard and reserve components and their families who suffer from mental health disorders, but we must not stop there. it is heartbreaking that preliminary readouts of suicide data for threen show that the active -- 2013 show that the

active component rate has gone down 13% but the reserve has rows slightly. this -- has rose slightly. this problem is not going away. that mr. king and me encourages the secretary of defense to expand this initial pilot to include additional community partners through a competitive and merit-based process. there are a number of teaching and clinical hospitals around the country that specialize in mental health treatment and can make a real difference in addressing the soaring demand for mental health treatment. i'd like to work with the chairman and the ranking member to to ensure that the -- member to ensure that the department has the funding necessary to extend this vital program to our nation's brave service members receive the best care possible. at this time i'd be honored to yield to chairman frelinghuysen. mr. frelinghuysen: i appreciate the gentleman from new york's kind works. the committee recognizes that suicide remains a very serious problem in the military,

particularly among national guard and reserve troops. i'm proud to say our bill strongly supports the efforts of the services to address this crisis. the report includes language which speaks directly to the gentleman's interests. in the pilot program that was created to treat service members suffering from mental health disorders in the national guard and reserve components through community partnerships. in addition, the bill provides $158 million in requested funding for suicide prevention, mental health, risk resiliencey programs for the services. this includes an extra $39 million for suicide prevention programs, including the $19 million specifically for our special operators. all the military services have taken significant steps to make suicide prevention a top priority and to improve the resiliencey and health of our service members. we support those efforts, and i'll continue to work with the gentleman from new york and his colleague, mr. king, to address

these important issues. vist vis i'd echo the -- r. visclosky: i'd echo the finding ways of the best care possible for service members. and we must use all the resources at our disposal to address the demand for treatment, and i thank the gentleman for his interests and for the colloquy and i'd reclaim my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve my time, mr. chairman. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, i'd recognize the gentleman from california, mr. becerra, for purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. becerra: i thank the ranking member for yielding and i rise today to engage the hairman in a colloquy, please. first, mr. chairman, i'd like to thank you and the ranking member for your efforts of putting together this legislation. in particular, i appreciate that this bill provides funding for the support for

international supporting competition fund. this account is crucial for ensuring the safety and security of countless americans who participate in different olympic initiatives, including the preparations for the olympics, paraolympics and special olympics. the united states has a rich tradition of supporting the special olympics, both in the united states and abroad. these unique events empower people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, while promoting acceptance for all and fostering communities of understanding on a global scale. approximately 1,000 athletes participated in the first special olympics world games in 1968. there's been a seven-fold increase, 7,000 athletes are expected to participate in the next olympic games which will be held in los angeles, california. with this substantial growth has come an increased need for security. it is important for this legislation to match as best possible our country's previous funding commitments. this critical funding need

could be addressed either through additional funding for the support for international sporting competition fund, or unobligated funds at the department of defense. i ask for and look forward to the opportunity to work with the chairman and the ranking member and all of our colleagues who wish to continue our country's support for the special olympics through any available funds in this legislation. and at this point i yield to the chairman for his response. mr. frelinghuysen: we will work very -- with you, with the gentleman from california, to ensure that the remaining prior year balances appropriated for this purpose are spent for heir intended purpose. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: reserve as well. the chair: the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i would want to yield at this point to mr. heck, the gentleman from washington, for the purposes of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. heck: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to engage the ranking member of the defense subcommittee in a colloquy. mr. chairman, as the rank -- ranking member may be aware, junior reserve officer training center programs are conducted at schools throughout our great nation. they're traditionally led by retired military officers and enlisted personnel, and the program prepares high school opportunities -- students for leadership roles. jrotc teaches young people the discipline and consequence -- confidence required to succeed outside the classroom. in my congressional district at shelton high school, they successfully operated a program for 35 years. one year they dropped three students below the minimum threshold, were placed on probation , and yet despite the subsequent year exceeding the enrollment threshold, were required to get to the end of the line. notwithstanding the 35 years of successful operation. i don't think shelton high school ought to have to do that. i don't think any high school in the united states ought to

have to do that. the shelton high school jrotc program provided unmatched leadership opportunities for students. and it instilled exactly the kind of values we want to instill in young people. patriotism. national service. and a sense of accomplishment and responsibility. this jrotc program additionally in its community served as the color guard at community events and helped provide volunteers for community organizations. its absence is now being acutely felt throughout all of the county. so, i respectfully request that we somehow find a way to work together, to ensure the navy has the necessary funds to support these programs at shelton high school and throughout the nation. mr. visclosky: i understand the gentleman's concerns and i appreciate him making the committee aware of this issue. i know the junior rotc program has made a difference in the lives of many students as well as our country. i would be happy to work with

the gentleman on providing funding for this important program. mr. heck: thank you, sir. i thank you for agreeing to work with us and i thank you and the chairman for your excellent work on this legislation which i look forward to supporting and i also want you to know that when you tell me you will work with me, i know it to be the case because both of you are men of your word. thank you. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, i would -- the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, chairman. i appreciate you yielding for the purpose of a colloquy. i want to thank you for your tireless efforts for our nation's brave service men and women. and just as importantly for those who served and never made it home. this legislation fully funds the prisoner of war, missing in action personnel office account. the hardworking staff over at the joint p.o.w.-m.i.a.

accounting command work tirelessly to track, locate and recover those -- these fallen heroes. and i thank them for their continued efforts. i would like to have a moment to discuss a hero of the vietnam war, major lewis p. smith iii. he majored in music at penn state and graduated in 1964. he planned to teach music after his obligation to the air force was over. after graduation from penn state, smith was trained on the t-38 and the c-130 aircraft for the next three years. and sent to vietnam and was assigned to the 20th tactical air support squadron in south vietnam. on may 30, 1968, smith piloted a sesna 028 sky master aircraft into the air in laos. during the mission, he encountered enemy fire, resulting in the crash of his

plane. electronic signals were heard at the scene, indicating he had survived the crash. but he was not rescued. major smith was listed as missing in action and was honored on the vietnam veterans memorial panel. major smith's family has been working with the joint p.o.w.-m.i.a. accounting command to recover his remains. the excavation site in laos has been on the list for over two years. and the trip to excavate the crash site has been postponed twice due to budget pressures and sequestration. major smith's family has reached out to me to help with their efforts and to bring lewis home. while i understand the budget constraint and times, this will bring closure to the families after such a loss. mr. chairman, i ask for your support, urge the joint p.o.w.-m.i.a. accounting command to schedule the recovery trip to laos and to bring home major lewis smith's remains to his family, his country, and i thank you and i yield back. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the

gentleman for yielding to me. i understand the defense prisoner of war missing personnel office mission is to provide families with service members lost in battle or taken as prisoners of war information and applicablecations, recovery of personnel from world war ii, the korean war, the cold war and vietnam war. and the iraqi theater of operations. i fully support the office and the work they do, in searching and reuniting lost solders with their families. returning the fallen service members to their families is a priority and i support your strong efforts and advocacy on behalf of major smith and his family. it's commendable. we honor it and i thank you for bringing this to our attention. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i would recognize at this point the gentleman from new york for a purpose of a colloquy.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, very much, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to engage in a colloquy. mr. bishop: as many of our colleagues know, thousands of men and women of our armed forces have returned home from iraq and afghanistan with a variety of service-connected illnesses and complications caused by exposure to the noxious fumes of open-air burn pits and other airborne hazards. there is a growing botboddy of research about the disabling effects of burn pit exposure that confirms that such exposure is the cause of serious illnesses. including various cancers. that have killed veterans and left countless others seriously ill. leading researchers in this area, including dr. anthony zema in my district, are discovering clear evidence that fumes from burn pits have sickened the personnel deployed in their vicinity. while their precise numbers reremain unknown, it is estimated that up to 30,000 active duty service members and

veterans might be suffering as a result of their exposure to burn pits. we must learn from past mistakes to stop open-air burn pit exposure before such exposure becomes the agent orange for this generation of veterans. mr. visclosky: i certainly understand the gentleman's concerns and appreciate him making the committee aware of this issue. i would be happy to work with him to provide attention and resources to this issue. i am very pleased he brought it to our attention today on the floor. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman for his response and his leadership. i also thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his leadership and i look forward to working with them on this issue and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey has five minutes remaining. mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana has six minutes remaining. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, i'd be delighted to yield to the gentleman from wisconsin for the purposes of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. i rise to enter into a colloquy with ranking member visclosky. i thank the ranking member and

the chairman for including language supporting continued work on lithium eye on battery research. however in reviewing the underlying bill, i am concerned about the possible interpretation by the office of naval research with respect to this effort. i believe it is important that the office of naval research emphasize battery safety as a part of this work. mr. pocan: i would also request the opportunity to continue to work with the chairman and the ranking member to allocate research and development funding to promote battery safety and to retain such funding through conference on the underlying bill. i hope to make it clear that this chamber encourages investment in battery safety research. mr. visclosky: i would want to make it clear to all of my colleagues, first of all, that my good friend from wisconsin has been working on this issue for a number of years. i remember a meeting we had about a year ago on this issue and he continues to press ahead, which i appreciate. i certainly will continue to work with him on development of lithium eyeon battery technology and promote battery

safety as an important part of this research and i appreciate the gentleman's concern as well as his good work. and, mr. chairman, i have no further requests for time and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time or yields back? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i'm prepared to yield back the balance of my time. as well. the chair: >> what are some of the key program areas it covers? >> the bill totals $570 billion. that includes almost $80 billion

as a placeholder for the war in afghanistan and other costs for operations overseas. >> you're right that the white house is likely to submit the headline, likely to submit war-funding requests this month. why wasn't there their war funding including in the original bill? >> when the white house sent up its entire federal budget request in march they did not know the path forward in afghanistan. since then president obama has come out with a plan to keep about something shy of 10,000 troops in afghanistan after the end of this year. so that then prompted them to go back and detail the request. those details have not come to the hill so the bill itself has essentially a blank check for the wars but they'll have to essentially hammer out during congress' negotiation with the senate later this year. >> is that something they'll likely ask for more funding for

afghan snn >> they do tend to use the so-called oco funds to fund nonwar related priorities especially now that there is a cap on the defense budget. and so there is precedence certainly for congress adding billions even each year to whatever the administration requests on for the wars. >> with violence opt increase in iraq you tweeted last week about the chairman of the armed d services committee saying he opposes u.s. military involvement in iraq and said the united states should pull out all remaining personnel in the country. does this bill in any way address any sort of spending in iraq? >> it does not. but there is an amendment expected during floor debate from democrats that would restrict any funds being used in this bill in the 2015 bill for operations in iraq. the administration's most --

will likely need if they do decide to proceed with with any military action in iraq would need funds in this fiscal year in 2014 which would likely involve just tapping this year's accounts to pay for that and then they could refill whatever they had to sacrifice this year to pay for the operations in the 15 oc omp. >> they said on tuesday they oppose the bill. >> they're concerned that appropriators are ignoring what they consider to be reforms in spending. e bill includes a 1.8% military pay raise while the administration requested only 1%. there's also many adds that appropriators use even with the caps they have some tricks at their disposal such as using unused prior years dollars to fund priorities and to reject cuts that the administration has proposed. >> you mentioned the possible

amendment on blocking spending for iraq. what other key amendments should we look for? >> there's likely going to be at least one amendment that would overturn the air force's request to retire its fleet of a-10 wart hogs which are close air support aircraft. appropriators actually defeated an amendment in committee during the committee's markup last week that would have kept those venerable aircraft flying. both the house and senate armed services committee in their defense policy bills denied the air force's request and instead approved provisions that would keep the aircraft flying. and there is some support, there's a lot of support actually for the agent so it will be interesting to hee how that plays out and if the house votes against appropriators ishes on that program. >> where is the senate in the process of the spending bill?

>> they are likely to mark up this summer. so they will have the advantage of having the oco request when they mark up their bill. and then it will go to the floor at some point after that. appropriators are trying to move more quickly this year than they have in the last several years on these bills. we could see that move this summer as well. >> megan scully, defense and national security reporter. you can read more and follow her on twitter. thank you for the update. >> thank you.

a house hearing with the administration decision to release five taliban prisoners in exchange for army sergeant bowe bergdahl. he was the last american service member held captive in afghanistan. members her from a soldier who served alongside surgeon bergdahl -- sergeant bergdahl. the hearing begins with the texas congressman ted poe. the subcommittee will come to

order. without objection, all members will have five days to submit statements, questions, and materials for the record subject to the length am a limitation, in the rules. the purpose of the hearing is to hear more about sojourn -- sergeant bowe bergdahl and his exchange for five terrorist prisoners from guantanamo bay. let's hope the negotiators are not the same ones currently negotiating with iran over nuclear weapons. releasing five senior taliban commanders may put the lives of our senior servicemembers in americans around the world at risk. one of the five detainees was a deputy chief of the taliban intelligence service. one detainee fought alongside al qaeda as a taliban military general. another was a senior commander wanted by the united nations for war crimes and works closely

with al qaeda and their affiliates. he led an attack with al qaeda the day before 9/11. anqaeda called it important piece of the 9/11 strategy. release are the quite disturbing. they may help out the taliban while they are in cutter -- qatar. that will be about the time the united states forces will be leaving, and the afghans will be on their own. it appears recent law signed by the president was violated in the secret deal. this law among other things requires 2 things. the ministration must notify congress 30 days before releasing guantanamo bay detainees. second, the a ministration has congressically tell how releasing each terrorist is in the national security interest of the united states.

the administration did neither. it is in the policy of the united states not to negotiate with terrorist. this seems to be violated. it is a designated foreign terrorist organization according to the noted state state department and killed alice americans and afghan soldiers. it maintains close ties with al qaeda as the most dangerous terrorist group fighting in afghanistan. qatar -- matter that this raises another concern close to home in texas. of my constituents was in january 2000 13. an event that many americans have forgotten. hit hisaptured after he coworkers in a space in the refinery. the terrorist never found the

coworkers and they eventually escaped. it has been reported the hostage takers wanted to trade those american hostages at the facility, including victor, for terrorist in united states custody. they wrote me recently to say they were told by our government during the attack that the united states does not negotiate with terrorist. victor was later killed. i asked for consent that the letters be made part of the record. so order. the bergdahl released troubled them, rightly so. victor's daughter wrote to me in the letter. the question that comes to mind is what makes one american life more important than another. if we're going to go and negotiate with one, why would we not negotiate for everybody. i cannot answer that question. i do not know what the united states current policy is on terrorist. with maybe we will find out. negotiating with a terrorist organization like we did is unprecedented.

the department of defense says it will hold sergeant bob doll for hisahl accountable action. susan rice has said that sergeant bergdahl has served with honor and distinction. this hearing will shed more light on that issue. one of our witnesses is a served with bergdahl and he will discuss bergdahl's disappearance. has said chuck hagel he was not aware of any united states soldier who lost their life in search for sergeant bergdahl. the family of one of the brave americans who gave his life, lieutenant darren andrews, is here to set the record straight. he left behind a pregnant wife, a young son at the time of his death. we have witnesses who can tell is what else happened in eastern afghanistan in 2009.

those who have suffered as a result, and what this so-called deal may mean for afghanistan going forward. i will not recognize the ranking member from california, mr. sherman. >> thank you. andrews, we know that you are the father of darren andrews, second lieutenant, who gave his life for his country. we cannot thank you enough for your family's sacrifice. we salute darren's courage. i would like to thank you specialist full for your service to our country. national, a senior security fellow at the new america foundation, who demanded special forces in eastern afghanistan. thank you for your service. you forjacobson, thank

your 20 years of service in the military, including your deployment to afghanistan. first, as to a preliminary issue on iraq. let me point out that we do not have forces in iraq. we do not have a stead of -- status of forces agreement with iraq. president bush established in 2006, and in this governance is responsible for the violence taking place in the country today. it should not be surprising that malik he refused to enter a status agreement under president obama. as to releases for guantanamo, while we are focusing today on five guantanamo prisoners being released, resident bush released

prisoners from guantanamo. most of them were dangerous. over 100 of them we know they are fighting us on the battlefield and we know where. most of the others are fighting against us as well. we just can't pinpoint where they're located. what did we get for the 500 that president bush released? absolutely nothing. except thank you notes from their native countries. as to section 1035d, the president has filed a report. members of the committee can go read it. it is in-depth. , as manyuably late reports to congress are. mind, we have to to avoidsection 1035d constitutional questions. therefore, it has been and

should be interpreted not to apply in this circumstance, particularly in a circumstance involving a prisoner exchange. constitutional to the extent it acts to prevent a prisoner exchange. i would have preferred if president obama had indeed conferred with leaders of congress. i'm glad to see his inferring with congressional leaders about what to do if i write. america is strongest when members of congress are a source of counsel and input, and not persons to be notified when the notification is compelled by a constitutional statute. point other members of congress and leaders of congress can keep a secret. some 60 congressional leaders knew we had ascertain the header

place -- the hiding place of osama bin laden and that did not lead. as negotiate with terrorist, it is a nice phrase that we do not do it. the fact is we do it all the time. the bush it ministration negotiated -- the bush administration negotiate with every terrorist regime in the world. we identified five state sponsors of terrorism and the bush administration negotiate with cuba, syria, and north korea. paid ah administration ransom for the release of marsha barham. : pal desiccated it is said that because we paid a price for the release of bergdahl that this put terrorist around the world on notice of a fact they somehow did not know before. about those cares

who are detained. a walk through the halls of this building shows the pow flags from the vietnam war. no one in the world doesn't know that we care about our detainees. resolutionse introduced by republican members of the available to anyone on the internet that shows that we regard the release of sergeant bergdahl as an important national objective. home is our prisoners important to america. the enemy already knows that. we know it as well. i yield back. >> for the information of the committees, we are in a series of votes. the chair plans to hear the opening statements of all the witnesses and then come back for testimony after the vote. the chair recognizes the ranking member of the middle east

subcommittee. although -- >> thank you. thank you. i think the witnesses for being with us, especially mr. andrews, whose son was killed in afghanistan in 2009. for yourull, thank you service. mr. andrews, i cannot imagine what it would be like to lose a child in the service of our nation. as a stepmother of a marine who served in iraq, and a mother-in-law to another marine aviator who served in iraq and afghanistan, i know the sleepless nights and the constant worry that air and space when their child or loved one is in harms way. our country owes the brave men and women who have served and earned her gratitude a debt that can never be repaid. it must start with being

completely forthcoming with them. in 2011 while i was chair of the house foreign affairs committee, the ministration gathered the chairman of the national security committees as well as the congressional leadership to brief us on a potential prisoner swap of taliban and terrorists for sergeant bowe bergdahl. although the meeting was classified, news reports from earlier this month indicate that the administration had a team of present the administration plan to us. at the time of the briefing, using all permission given to me, i was adamantly opposed to the proposed swap. as were many of our colleagues. my opinion has not changed. i oppose the swap not only because -- not because i did not want to bring bowe home. it is important have him home.

i oppose the spot because the proposal would have resulted in a huge coup for the television. it would have benefited them, jeopardize the safety and security of our brave men and women in uniform and compromised our national security interest. with so many of our colleagues expressing disapproval of the swap, the administration seem to have gotten the message and drop its exchange plan, or so we thought. theier this month, i, like rest of my colleagues in the american public read the news that the administration had swapped five taliban commanders for the sergeant. despite its promises to notified congress, not to mention its legal authorities to do so, the administration kept the deal secret and acted unilaterally. the deal is precisely the reason for the legal mandate that congress be given 30 days notice he cut the administration has a proven track record of overstepping and abusing its authority. itstaliban use this to benefits. using video of the exchange as

propaganda, and a recruitment video and it is only embolden them further. despite the agreement with the , there areof cutter no assurances they will not be back in the fight in short order and orchestrating attacks from the lavish new headquarters. the fact we are placing our hopes in them, a country that has been full throated in support for the muslim brotherhood am especially in egypt, where support for the rutherford act -- brotherhood acted against our interests there, will further a strain on already damaged ties for partners in the gulf. this may have serious implications for national security objectives, especially as it relates to our efforts in iran. this brought more than a bowe bergdahl and the taliban. it is about national security, the safety of men and women in uniform, and the administration

disregard for the law and the contempt it holds for its obligations to congress. hasadministration deals far-reaching applications, for to a deal with taliban terrorists is unnecessarily endangering all the servicemen and women who are operating in war zones now that these five senior taliban operatives are likely to rejoin the fight. it also inspires the taliban and other terrorist groups to conduct adduction's of armed forces personnel as we have one commander amid the taliban is encouraged by the results of the trade. discussion of the legality of the unilateral decision and the frustration level and much of trust that congress has with the administration as result of this swap. there are many unanswered questions. the administration needs to answer.

today it is important we have the opportunity to hear from some of the people, and how the decision has impacted them personally. those who have served in afghanistan fighting side-by-side with a fellow soldier, those servicemen and women who of waste further in -- who may have been placed further in harm's way, who lost a loved one in afghanistan, they deserve to be heard and have the truth. thank you for the time. >> the chair recognizes the ranking member of the middle east subcommittee for five minutes. >> thank you. to our witnesses, thank you for appearing today. -- i joinedcog legs my colleagues expressing gratitude for your son and family for making the ultimate sacrifice for this country. i appreciate you being here in will be for a full grateful for his courageous service to our nation. here and for being

your years of service. we all know that there are substantial questions surrounding the disappearance of sergeant bergdahl and the decision to exchange the taliban prisoners. it may take months before we know for sure what transpired me days and weeks leading up to the disappearance of army sergeant bowe bergdahl. was he suffering from psychological trauma? was he awol? was he a deserter? beguny investigation has and the army will take whatever action it deems appropriate. i am perplexed when some members of congress have already decided the facts of the case. we have a solemn obligation to leave no american soldier behind . when the opportunity to get an american soldier back from the enemy presents itself, we take it. the country has a long history hitting american serviceman back in prisoner exchanges because we promise men and women when they sign up to serve their country,

we would do everything that we can to protect them and ensure they return home. some of my colleagues have apparently concluded now how sergeant bergdahl's status should be treated. how the facts should be resolved. that perhaps one concludes he be left with the taliban. i would ask what kind of , the kindourt is it of military court of justice that we have, where members of congress play the role of judge and jury, find someone guilty, and leave it to the taliban to carry out the punishment. to questiony right why congress was a consultant or notified of the deal. i believe that was a mistake. i would caution against prejudging the facts of the case. what message are we sending our troops if we don't do everything that we can do is retrieve an militarysoldier the

has declared missing and captured. it is an appropriate debate to have. we should be reminded of the 532 guantánamo bay detainees who were transferred before this president came into office. where was the outrage then? aree have those -- there those that suggest the administration has politicized this deal. many members of the congress amy oppose the deal supported the very idea of a prisoner exchange am urging the administration to do more to secure the release of sergeant bergdahl. turning back to our witnesses, mr. andrews, there is nothing we can say to take away the pain of losing a child. i would like to offer my sincerest gratitude for darren's service to his country. for your service, and all the witnesses for your commitment to protecting this nation.

i appreciate the opportunity to hear from all of you today. >> i appreciate the chairman yielded back his time. [inaudible] >> thank you. like many of my colleagues, i am troubled with the insistence the deal made two free five taliban leaders in a change for sergeant bergdahl was the best deal we could get. the washington post reports that among the taliban and five are or more intelligent -- interior minister with ties to osama bin laden, the former taliban army chief of staff, who was thought to have been present when cia andcer was killed in 2001, operatives to work closely with , won his case file is the most endemic and former taliban leaders detained at

guantanamo. i don't know how many of my colleagues have been able of thosento the eyes involved in killing so many. been, i have there three times. as much as i would like to think that they have learned the error of their ways and would like nothing more than to spend a quiet life with their families would like to be put in the very skeptical column. >> the chair will hear the testimony of one more member. we will hear the rest of them after the vote. >> i want to thank the ranking members for holding today's meeting.

words can never adequately provide comfort to you and to can wordsy, nor convey the gratitude of our nation for the service of your son. it is important for us to live gently and thoroughly and passionately examine the details around the facility at guantanamo bay. we should never lose sight of the long-held american tradition that we will do everything possible to secure the release of an american service member. i hope this will highlight ways in which the administration and congress can work together to protect our armed forces and secure our country. we have worked together in assembling greater clarity in relation to the exchange for sergeant bergdahl. stay focused on ending american involvement in

afghanistan and ensure the safe return of all americans. but the gentleman from rhode island yields back. we will continue with opening statements and testimony of our witnesses. >> the subcommittee will come to order. listen to theo strategy session across the aisle. let's blame bush. it seems to have worked the last six years. i want to thank the witnesses for being here. survivalnt through training, i was told that your country would never leave you behind. air was a mutual understanding that your country will never leave you behind if you never leave your country behind. there can be a cost that is too great to pay.

your country promised to always search for you and move heaven and earth to go get you. i was never promised that our country would release some of the five biggest enemies of the united states in exchange. i am interested in hearing what everybody's thoughts are on why this happened. >> the gentleman yield back. recognizes the gentlelady from florida for one minute. >> catch my breath. thank you for being here. to the gentleman, i thank you for your service. i want to give my own personal perspective. in iraq anderved

afghanistan as a united states marine. i am proud that he is home. i, likewent off to war, most parents, i not only feared that he would not come home alive or very maimed, my biggest that he would be taken as a prisoner of war, tortured, put in a cage. it was unimaginable. that is why i believe so strongly in the u.s. military principle that we should leave no man or woman behind. it maintains confidence, it maintains order. one we send our young men and women off to war, they should know we have their backs. and we should do everything possible to bring them home. thank you again for your service. >> the chair thanks the gentlewoman.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas for one minute. in awas a captain province. i will take the prerogative to speak on behalf of the shoulders who served in afghanistan. i find it insulting that this administration would cite the principle of leaving no man behind to justify this action. recite that would we would never leave a fallen comrade. soldiers that went after him in the weeks and months after his disappearance knowing that he had deserted. when we made these promises to each other, we did not promise that we would exchange five stone cold taliban killers. would we exchange collegiate mohammed? the national security advisor said that we would not. finally, i want to say something

to the anonymous sources and the president's administration. show yourself. speak in your own name. have the courage of your convictions. , standdon't, shut up back and think these men for their service. >> the chairman recognizes the gentleman from florida for one minute. other sidering the saying, do not politicize this am a that them blame bush. the president politicized this when he had a white house rose garden ceremony for mr. bergdahl 's parent. ask if any ofo the people who served honorably and were killed in action were given the courtesy of a rose garden ceremony at the white house. the answer to that is probably no. either what the president did

benefited the security of the united states or it did not. i believe it did not. this is something that the american people disagree with. many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are looking to run interference for the administration i blaming previous presidents. that does not cut it on this issue. thehe chair recognizes gentleman from virginia. >> idb sympathy to you and your family and to your wife behind you. there are not any words to express the terrible sense of loss you must experience. i have had friends who have had similar losses. my heart goes out to you. thank you for being here today. we are here to examine the decision to exchange sergeant a soldier held

in captivity for five years, 45 prisoners in guantánamo. it is easy to yield to the quotation to decide that mr. bergdahl did not serve his country. i would caution my colleagues, this is not a partisan affair. this is about somebody's service. we should withhold judgment on the quality and nature of the service until the facts are known. the benefit of the doubt belongs facts bergdahl until the come out. it is not up to congress in advanceto justify in leaving somebody in -- leaving somebody behind. resist theet us temptation of partisanship. >> the chairman recognizes the

gentleman from north carolina. returned from guantánamo. i got to look in the eyes of many of the detainees that are there. make no mistake, the ones that we released our in no comparison to the 500 that have been released prior. these were a danger to the men who guarded them. so dangerous, that we cannot identify those that do guard them. they are not choirboys. i will assure you that they are singing a song. thosea death march for that will come their way in the future. the cost was too high to release the taliban five. >> the gentleman yield back his time. they recognize mr. weber for one minute. >> my colleague is correct. this is not a partisan affair.

it is a committee of foreign affairs. the president is charged with negotiating on our behalf. i hope that we implore this president, mr. president, stop negotiating on our behalf, these. some would say in conventional and military terms, what the president did, we got one conventional weapon, perhaps a dud, and they got five nuclear weapons. a.b. we have to come to the conclusion to send a letter to the president, stop negotiating for us. abraham lincoln said in a letter to mrs. bixby, there are no words that we can express to you but to generally relate our sincere appreciation for your sacrifice. thank you very much. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for one minute. >> president obama has put ameri

military personnel, u.s. diplomatic personnel am a and even businessmen and tourists at risk by releasing five terrorist leaders in exchange for a captured american. he have given terrorists the incentive to capture and hold hostages more and more. what we have to realize is that our president has made a decision that will result in our country and our people being less safe than had he not made that decision. resident bush released 500 taliban that was held in gitmo. he did not make a deal. he did a survey to make sure they were the least threatening of those being held. had he done a deal, we would be

condemning him as well. this was a specific exchange. a quid pro quo that will do nothing but encourage terrorists around the world for other terrorists to make similar deals. our president has done a great disservice to those who protect us here and he has put us at great risk. >> the chairman recognizes the gentleman from south carolina or one minute. >> thank you so much for your family's service. it is very personal to me. oldest sons are in iraq. my other son served in egypt. fromer son returned afghanistan. i have a great appreciation for service members and family members. the president has disrespected all of them i releasing five alabamas -- talibans.

dozens of people were murdered. pogroms were murdered just last week. the response was clear. he found out that one of the talibanleaders -- leaders said he appreciated the release of one of the fighters who is the equivalent of 10,000 fighters. this is serious. chair willone, the go into the statements of the witnesses without objection. all the witness'prepared statements will be made on the record. i would ask you to make it no more than five minutes. when the red light comes on, that means stop. you are welcome to summarize your statements if you need to. as usual, testimony provided to

the subcommittee is provided to acts. any deliberate misrepresentation or concealment of information is punishable by law. i will introduce each of the witnesses and allow them to testify and the order they are seated. andy andrews is a father of the darrensecond lieutenant andrews who was killed on a mission looking for sergeant bergdahl. he is joined by his wife sandra, who is seated directly behind him. she is wearing the dog tags of her son. , i know you're time is limited because you have to catch a plane to go back to houston for chemotherapy. we appreciate you and your wife making the trip to washington. we wish you a quick recovery. he was a specialist in sergeant bergdahl's unit.

they were previously roommates together. mike waltz was a senior fellow at the american security foundation. he commanded a unit at the time was sergeant bergdahl captured. he was the senior defense coordinator in afghanistan and was dick cheney's advisor. he was an adjunct professor at george washington university. he advised stemming the -- stanley mcchrystal and david petraeus. he has served on the armed services committee. you have five minutes. you will need to turn on the microphone. >> mr. chairman, ranking members of the subcommittee's. >> if you would, mr.