[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 99 (Wednesday, July 6, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4640-H4669]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Chair, on July 6, 2011, I missed 3 recorded 
votes because my return flight from Tennessee to Washington was 
significantly delayed.
  I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no'' on recorded vote numbers 495, 496, and 497.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 253, 
noes 167, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 498]

                               AYES--253

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Amash
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Roe (TN)
     Rokita
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--167

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Hall
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     Whitfield

[[Page H4641]]


     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Culberson
     Giffords
     Guinta
     Keating
     Mack
     McIntyre
     Towns
     Watt
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in this vote.

                              {time}  1914

  Mr. CHABOT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


        Amendments No. 21 and 22 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my request for a recorded vote on amendment Nos. 21 and 22, to 
the end that they stand disposed of by the voice votes thereon.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will redesignate each amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendments.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the requests for a recorded vote are withdrawn and 
amendment Nos. 21 and 22 stand as not adopted.
  There was no objection.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Welch

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Welch) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 98, 
noes 322, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 499]

                                AYES--98

     Amash
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Boswell
     Braley (IA)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Clarke (NY)
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Deutch
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gibson
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harris
     Higgins
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Mulvaney
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--322

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wu
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Culberson
     Giffords
     Guinta
     Keating
     Mack
     McIntyre
     Towns
     Watt
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. PASCRELL changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. SPEIER changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. Amash

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Amash) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212, 
noes 208, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 500]

                               AYES--212

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper

[[Page H4642]]


     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--208

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Culberson
     Giffords
     Guinta
     Keating
     Mack
     McIntyre
     Towns
     Watt
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in the vote.

                              {time}  1925

  Mr. CONYERS and Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. TURNER and NUGENT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Sessions

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217, 
noes 204, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 501]

                               AYES--217

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--204

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel

[[Page H4643]]


     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rogers (AL)
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Culberson
     Giffords
     Guinta
     Keating
     Mack
     Towns
     Watt
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). One minute remains in the vote.

                              {time}  1930

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 8128.  Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to the congressional defense committees a report on the 
     approximately $100,000,000,000 in efficiency savings 
     identified by the military departments in the defense budget 
     covering fiscal years 2012 through 2016 that are to be 
     reinvested in the priorities of the military departments. 
     Such report shall include an analysis of--
       (1) each savings identified by the military departments, 
     including--
       (A) the budget account from which such savings will be 
     derived;
       (B) the number of military personnel and full-time civilian 
     employees of the Federal Government affected by such savings;
       (C) the estimated reductions in the number and funding of 
     contractor personnel caused by such savings; and
       (D) a specific description of activities or services that 
     will be affected by such savings, including the locations of 
     such activities or services; and
       (2) each reinvestment planned to be funded with such 
     savings, including--
       (A) with respect to such reinvestment in procurement and 
     research, development, test and evaluation accounts, the 
     budget account to which such savings will be reinvested, 
     including, by line item, the number of items to be procured, 
     as shown in annual P-1 and R-1 documents;
       (B) with respect to such reinvestment in military personnel 
     and operation and maintenance accounts, the budget account 
     and the subactivity (as shown in annual--1 and O-1 budget 
     documents) to which such savings will be reinvested;
       (C) the number of military personnel and full-time civilian 
     employees of the Federal Government affected by such 
     reinvestment;
       (D) the estimated number and funding of contractor 
     personnel affected by such reinvestment; and
       (E) a specific description of activities or services that 
     will be affected by such reinvestment, including the 
     locations of such activities or services.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of amendments to this 
title that cut funds, reduce our military footprint, and move to bring 
our troops home from Afghanistan. And I rise in opposition to the 
underlying bill.
  I want to commend the ranking member of the committee, Congressman 
Norm Dicks from Washington, for his leadership in calling for a fresh 
look at how we carry out military operations in Afghanistan and the 
need for a strategy that brings our troops home sooner rather than 
later.
  Mr. Chairman, I just returned from a trip to Afghanistan. I cannot 
describe how impressed I am with the commitment, the dedication, and 
the work carried out every single day by our men and women in uniform, 
and those in the civilian services. I met and spoke with them in Kabul, 
Marja, at large bases like Bagram Air Force Base, and in small 
villages. Quite simply, Mr. Chairman, they are incredible.
  But over and over and over again I heard the same message: This is 
not sustainable. The strategy that we are pursuing in Afghanistan is 
not sustainable. And it is costing us too much in human lives and 
financial resources to continue. It can't continue for another 18 
months, as called for by the President, let alone even longer.
  I stand here tonight more convinced than ever that it is time to 
forge a new path, a new strategy, built upon past and present 
accomplishments, but more aggressively focused on more rapidly reducing 
the U.S. military footprint in Afghanistan than the plan described last 
month by the President, accelerating the transition of combat 
operations to Afghanistan authorities, and an intense international and 
regional effort to secure a political solution to the Afghan conflict 
and define a genuine regional coordinated effort that safeguards the 
region and the world from terrorist threats.
  While I was in Afghanistan, General Petraeus invited me and two 
Members I was traveling with, Congressman Allen West and Duncan Hunter, 
Jr., to attend a ramp ceremony. We may not always agree on policy, but 
we were united in how respectful, emotional, and moving we found the 
ceremony honoring the fallen soldiers who were being transported by the 
C-130 on their final journey home.
  Mr. Chairman, 1,650 American service men and women have sacrificed 
their lives in the Afghanistan war. While I was in Afghanistan, six 
more were killed. It was a reminder of the enormous sacrifice that our 
soldiers are paying. 2010 was the deadliest year of conflict to date in 
the Afghanistan war for U.S. and coalition forces, and for Afghan 
civilians. This year, 2011, is on pace to be the deadliest year of the 
war. We need to end the war, not sustain it, Mr. Chairman.
  We are borrowing $8 billion to $10 billion each month for military 
operations alone. Borrowing, Mr. Chairman, borrowing. We know we can't 
sustain that. And we know that the Afghan Government and security 
forces don't have the resources or the political will to sustain that 
level of resources once we leave. We need to find a new strategy and 
purpose to help bring this conflict to an end.
  The President and congressional leaders are in negotiations, 
grappling with how to deal with the national debt. It can't be done if 
we don't find the means and the political will to end this war sooner 
rather than later. According to CBO, we could save $1.3 trillion by 
ending these wars. That's trillion with a ``t,'' Mr. Chairman. We have 
spent approximately $3.7 trillion since 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
We cannot afford another decade like the last one. It is simply not 
sustainable.
  We need to also understand that jobs and economic security and 
economic strength are central parts of our national security. While we 
serve as an ATM machine for a corrupt government in Kabul, we tell our 
own people that we have no money for roads, and bridges, and schools, 
and teachers, and police, and firefighters, and jobs here at home. 
Enough. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
amendments that reduce our spending and military footprint in 
Afghanistan, help bring our troops home sooner rather than later, and 
call for a new strategy and a new direction in Afghanistan.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be submitting for the Record two articles, one 
from the Washington Post entitled ``CBO: Ending the Wars Could Save 
$1.4 Trillion,'' and an article that appeared in Scientific American 
entitled ``Legacy of Mental Health Problems From Iraq and Afghanistan 
Wars Will Be Long-lived.''
  Mr. Chairman, the time has come for us to come together and find a 
different strategy in Afghanistan, one that will bring our troops home 
sooner rather than later. It is time to end this war.

               [From The Washington Post, June 23, 2011]

             CBO: Ending the Wars Could Save $1.4 Trillion

                            (By Ezra Klein)

       It's increasingly clear that a deal on the budget deficit 
     will have to include a lot of spending cuts that Democrats 
     can deny are spending cuts and at least some tax increases 
     that Republicans can deny are tax increases. I'll get to the 
     tax increases in a future post. But if you're looking for the 
     spending cuts, look no further than the wars.
       Last night, President Obama announced that ``the tide of 
     war is receding,'' and that he will soon bring the Iraq and 
     Afghanistan wars ``to a responsible end.'' Left unsaid is the 
     effect that could have on our projected deficits. According 
     to the Congressional Budget Office, we're talking big money: 
     $1.4 trillion, to be exact.
       That has less to do with the likely cost of the wars than 
     the way CBO officials estimate future spending. In the case 
     of discretionary spending--which is the pot of money that

[[Page H4644]]

     goes to the wars--they simply take current spending and 
     assume it grows at the rate of inflation. So though it's 
     clear our wars are winding down, they won't count the savings 
     from them in their projections until there's explicit 
     government policy that winds them down.
       But if they can be convinced, they've made clear that 
     they're willing to count big savings. ``In 2010, the number 
     of U.S. troops (active-duty, reserves, and National Guard 
     personnel) deployed for war-related activities averaged about 
     215,000,'' CBO said its January budget outlook (pdf). ``In 
     the alternative scenario presented here, the number of 
     military personnel deployed for war-related purposes would 
     decline over a five-year period to an average of 180,000 in 
     2011, 130,000 in 2012, 100,000 in 2013, 65,000 in 2014, and 
     45,000 in 2015 and thereafter. Under this scenario, total 
     discretionary outlays over the 2012-2021 period would be $1.1 
     trillion less than the amount in the baseline. Debt-service 
     costs would bring the cumulative savings relative to the 
     baseline to about $1.4 trillion over the coming decade.''
       I'm told that a big chunk of these savings were included in 
     the debt-ceiling deal that, until today, Eric Cantor and Jon 
     Kyl were negotiating with the Democrats. But eventually, 
     we're going to have some kind of deal on the debt ceiling, 
     and I'd bet quite a bit f this money will be in there. The 
     best type of deficit reduction, after all, is the kind you 
     were going to do anyway.
                                  ____


             [From the Scientific American, June 27, 2011]

Legacy of Mental Health Problems from Iraq and Afghanistan Wars Will Be 
                               Long-Lived

                            (By John Matson)

       As Operation Enduring Freedom, the war on terror in 
     Afghanistan, winds down and some 33,000 U.S. servicemen and 
     servicewomen return from overseas in the next year, a plan 
     announced by President Obama on June 22, the psychological 
     issues that veterans face back home are likely to increase.
       Some of the key psychological issues affecting the 
     approximately two million American troops deployed to Iraq 
     and Afghanistan since 2001 have been traumatic brain injury 
     (TBI), depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (FTSD)--
     and the diagnoses often overlap. A 2008 report by the RAND 
     Corp. think tank estimated that more than 26 percent of 
     troops may return from the wars on terror with mental health 
     issues.
       It is reasonable to expect a continuation of these brain 
     and mental health trends, only multiplied by the anticipated 
     dramatic uptick in returning troops. On top of that, such 
     issues also tend to crop up several months or even years 
     after service members settle in, rather than directly after 
     homecoming, as researchers learned following America's wars 
     in the late 20th century. A false honeymoon can deceive 
     health care workers and family into a perception that all is 
     well among members of the military reentering society 
     stateside.
       After the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Vietnam in 1973 
     ``the only thing that happened is that rates of problems went 
     up,'' says George Mason University assistant professor of 
     clinical psychology Keith Renshaw. ``The longer people are 
     back, the more people come forward as potentially 
     struggling.'' A study in the April issue of the Journal of 
     Affective Disorders showed that among service members injured 
     in Iraq or Afghanistan, health care usage--and psychiatric 
     problems--increased over time.
       The influx of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan into the 
     military mental health system has yet to peak, but it is 
     already well underway. There is some concern, however, that 
     the health care system is unprepared to handle the care of 
     returning troops. A 2010 report from the Institute of 
     Medicine identified a ``critical shortage of health care 
     professionals--especially those specializing in mental 
     health--to meet the demands of those returning from theater 
     in Iraq and Afghanistan and their family members.''
       TBI is especially common: roughly 30,000 servicemembers 
     were diagnosed annually in 2008, 2009 and 2010, according to 
     U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) figures. Most of those 
     diagnoses were for concussions or other relatively mild forms 
     of brain injury. PTSD is also worryingly prevalent--in a RAND 
     survey, 13.8 percent of veterans and returning soldiers from 
     Iraq and Afghanistan met the criteria for PTSD, meaning that 
     some 275,000 U.S. service members may be affected in total.
       The RAND report predicted that the mental health needs of 
     returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans will increase over 
     time. ``There are a lot of concerns that what we see now are 
     underestimates, if anything,'' Renshaw says.
       Many of the afflicted veterans will not seek help, and 
     others will not do so for some time. ``There's a lag time 
     between when people serve and when they actually come in,'' 
     says Shira Maguen, an assistant professor at the University 
     of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine and a 
     psychologist at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs (VA) 
     Medical Center. ``For many of those people there are a lot of 
     barriers at this point, the biggest of which is probably 
     stigma.'' Renshaw notes that some soldiers who remain active 
     in the armed forces resist seeking help because they do not 
     want to endanger their military careers by acknowledging 
     psychological issues. Others seek help in civilian practice 
     rather than in the military health system.
       The DoD and the VA have taken steps to prepare for the 
     forecast rise in PTSD cases, highlighting two approaches to 
     treatment--cognitive processing therapy and prolonged 
     exposure therapy--that studies have shown to be effective. 
     And June 27 has been designated National PTSD Awareness Day. 
     ``They're rolling out a massive dissemination effort,'' 
     Renshaw says. ``But I don't think we're at the point that 
     we're ready yet.''
       New veterans suffering from PTSD may well fare better than 
     their predecessors who served in Vietnam, as the disorder was 
     only recognized by the American Psychiatric Association in 
     1980. ``I think we've learned a tremendous amount from 
     Vietnam and from prior conflicts,'' Maguen says. ``I think 
     we're in a unique position now to deal with it.''
       Even with lessons learned from Vietnam and the Persian Gulf 
     wars, however, veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom and 
     Operation Iraqi Freedom present a special treatment 
     challenge. In some ways the new crop of veterans have had 
     similar combat experiences to Vietnam veterans. Both groups 
     fought in wars without clearly delineated front lines, where 
     ambush and insurgency are a constant threat. But the types of 
     combat exposure have changed, as have the potential triggers 
     for negative psychological reactions later in life. For 
     instance, Renshaw says, the urban component of the wars on 
     terror and the threat of improvised explosive devices have 
     made driving and traffic jams problematic triggers for some 
     veterans. ``Our methodology is still evolving to catch up 
     with the nature of these conflicts,'' he says. ``I think this 
     is something we're going to be working on and dealing with 
     for a long time.''

  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I join in this effort.
  I tell you, without any pride but with humility, that this past 
weekend I signed 31 letters to families and extended families who have 
lost loved ones in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
  At this time I have signed over 10,374 letters because of my mistake 
in voting to send our kids to Iraq, which was an unnecessary war with 
misinformation led by the previous administration. So I join my 
colleagues today on both sides of the aisle, and I thank those who 
offered this amendment.
  This past weekend I decided to email my adviser, who is a former 
commandant of the Marine Corps, and said, What do you think about 
President Obama's plans?
  I will read just two short points to you: ``I think the time is too 
long. I think he needs to increase the number of troops coming out of 
the country more and quicker.''
  And his last point: ``Get real with training and army and police 
force. All we are doing is training eventual new members of the 
Taliban. Trainers are doing a wonderful job, but we don't have the time 
to make an army. Every day someone dies. Every day an American dies or 
gets his or her legs blown off.''
  Mr. Chairman, to the left of me is a poster that was in the Raleigh, 
North Carolina, paper. Too many times, as we debate and there are 
eloquent speakers on the floor of the House, but we don't see any 
faces. We don't see any broken arms or legs.
  Here is a young lady holding a little baby in her arms, and the 
little baby is looking at the officer who is presenting her with a 
draped flag. How often does this happen throughout America? We never 
see it.
  It is time to bring our troops home. They have done everything they 
were asked to do by President Bush, to get al Qaeda, who was 
responsible for 9/11, to get bin Laden. We have done all of that. We 
have done everything we can do.
  And as my friend from Massachusetts said, $10 billion a month and we 
can't fix the schools, we can't fix the roads here in North Carolina 
and throughout America.
  I'm from North Carolina. I know what's happening to my State. I know 
what's happening to the other States.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to bring them home. We don't need any more 
babies coming to their moms and dads and saying, when is daddy coming 
home? When is mother coming home? And they are being told they are not 
coming home. They are gone.
  They have given their lives for America. We have done enough for 
Afghanistan. It has a corrupt leader and a corrupt government, and we 
need to come home.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H4645]]

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, there will be a number of amendments 
offered in the next little while by Mr. Garamendi, by Ms. Lee, myself 
and Mr. Jones and by others all in various ways seeking to speed our 
exit from Afghanistan. I support them all.
  Two weeks ago, the President proposed that we continue fighting in 
Afghanistan for at least 3\1/2\ more years. In those 3\1/2\ years, more 
of our soldiers will die, more of our Treasury will be spent and, in 
the end, we will not be any closer to creating a stable Afghanistan or 
to enhancing our safety.
  The whole premise of this war is wrong. Fighting in Afghanistan does 
not enhance the security of the United States. Ten years ago we were 
attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had bases in Afghanistan, and at 
that time it made sense to go in and destroy those bases, and we did.
  But the CIA tells us that there are now fewer than 100 al Qaeda 
personnel in all of Afghanistan. So why are we still fighting there? 
Why will we still have 70,000 troops in Afghanistan at the end of 2012, 
troops who will continue to risk their lives every day in a war that 
has already claimed too many American lives?
  And we will continue pouring billions of dollars into an intractable 
mess when we should be devoting taxpayer funds to our own economy, to 
our own jobs, our own housing, our own social programs and our own 
education.
  Afghanistan is in the middle of what is so far a 35-year civil war. 
If we continue on this course, in 3 years there will be several 
thousand more American soldiers dead, several hundred billion more 
dollars wasted, and two or three more provinces labeled pacified.
  But as soon as we leave, now, or in 2014, or 2016 or whenever, those 
provinces will become unpacified. The Taliban and the warlords will 
step up the fighting, and the Afghan civil war will resume its natural 
course.
  Our troops are fighting valiantly, Mr. Chairman, but they are in the 
wrong mission. We should recognize that rebuilding Afghanistan is both 
beyond our ability and beyond our mandate to prevent terrorists from 
attacking the United States.
  To delay withdrawal of our forces and continue this terrible policy 
at so high a cost is quite simply unconscionable. It is unjustifiable 
to sacrifice more lives and more money on this futile endeavor.
  Mr. Chairman, we should withdraw our troops now, all of them, as 
rapidly as physically possible.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, on March 16, 2011, I joined my cochairs of 
the Congressional Progressive Caucus Task Force on Peace and Security 
and 76 other Members of Congress in sending a letter to the President 
asking him to move swiftly to end America's longest war, the war in 
Afghanistan.
  Since then, the cochairs have continued to call on the administration 
to move towards a significant, swift and sizeable reduction in our 
troops in Afghanistan, meeting or exceeding the number of troops on the 
ground before the escalation.
  Similarly, the Democratic National Committee, of which I am vice 
chair, called for a ``sizeable and significant'' drawdown beginning in 
July. Even the U.S. Conference of Mayors called for an end to the 
Afghanistan war. In poll after poll, the majority of Americans are 
consistently calling for an end to this war.
  A significant redeployment of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, beginning 
of this month, would have sent a clear message that the United States 
does not seek a permanent presence in Afghanistan.
  This move would recognize that we cannot afford the war in 
Afghanistan, costing nearly $10 billion per month, while American 
families struggle to stay afloat amid the slow recovery of our Nation's 
economy.
  The cochairs of the CPC Task Force on Peace and Security believe that 
a significant, swift, and sizeable troop reduction in Afghanistan is 
necessary, especially given the fact that the CBO reported recently 
that ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will save this country 
$1.7 trillion, and especially given the fact that a recent Brown 
University study shows that the United States has spent $3.7 trillion 
in these wars since 2001.
  Anything less hurts our Nation's future and is unacceptable. It is 
time to focus on securing a future of economic opportunity and 
prosperity for the American people, and the President must move swiftly 
and boldly to end the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops home now.
  The President's announcement last month does not reflect a 
significant policy change in Afghanistan. This strategy does not 
represent a drawdown in Afghanistan, but rather aims at maintaining the 
status quo through the end of 2012.
  Simply removing the 30,000 surge troops from Afghanistan means that 
by the end of the summer of 2012 we will be exactly where we were in 
late 2009. Tens of thousands of American soldiers will continue to 
fight a battle that their commanders insist will only end with a 
political solution.
  Peace in Afghanistan will depend ultimately on an Afghan solution, 
not on American soldiers. Everyone seems tired of this war, from 
Republicans and Democrats in Washington, to Afghans in Kabul, to 
Americans in Kansas. Administration officials acknowledged that due to 
America's mounting debt and deficits, war costs at nearly $120 billion 
annually for Afghanistan alone are no longer sustainable.

                              {time}  1950

  Republicans gave similar ground with Appropriations Chair Harold 
Rogers and Defense Subcommittee Member Jack Kingston expressing concern 
about the costs, the mission, and the lack of progress--bolstering 
Republican Senator Dick Lugar's call for troop withdrawal from 
Afghanistan. Nearly half the House weighed in during the recent Defense 
authorization debate with a call for an accelerated plan to draw down 
troops and transition to Afghan control.
  Moving beyond what Washington wants, consider the Afghans, who are at 
the receiving end of all of this. After a series of serious civilian 
casualties resulting from multiple indiscriminate NATO bombings, Afghan 
President Hamid Karzai had declared opposition to any and all air 
strikes on Afghan homes. This adds to Karzai's insistence that foreign 
forces must end night raids, stop unilateral operations, and stay off 
roads and out of Afghan villages.
  The Afghan people are no more pleased than Karzai with America's 
continued presence, hardly a surprise given that General Petraeus has 
increased bombing throughout the country by 80 percent in the last year 
alone. According to a recent poll, nearly six out of 10 Afghans said 
Western troops must leave on or before the original July 2011 
withdrawal date. Only 17 percent say that the deployment should be 
maintained longer.
  After spending hundreds of billions of American tax dollars, the 
security and day-to-day life in many regions of Afghanistan aren't 
improving. Crime, economic opportunity, and freedom of movement are 
getting worse, not better. Availability of electricity, food, medical 
care, and schools has shown little or no improvement in recent years.
  So, for all these reasons and more, the case is clear: We need to end 
this war in Afghanistan, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I rise in opposition to the underlying bill and will 
seek an amendment shortly.
  Memorial Day was a time when four of my colleagues and I traveled 
throughout Afghanistan. We learned a great deal, and what we did learn 
we brought home.
  1,650 American men and women have died in Afghanistan, and yet the 
incredible dedication of American soldiers was easy to see. They risk 
their lives every day. And it is with the utmost respect that we honor 
them on Memorial Day and beyond. I have great respect for the President 
and recognize

[[Page H4646]]

the difficult situation, the decisions that he must make; but, frankly, 
I think he made the wrong decision.
  The killing of bin Laden gave us the opportunity to pivot, to go in 
the direction that we must ultimately go, which is to focus like a 
laser on al Qaeda, wherever it is in this world, including our own 
country. We must do that. And yet the decision to maintain in 
Afghanistan a troop level that really reflects what existed in 2009 is 
not sustainable. It's costing us a fortune, a fortune that we can ill 
afford.
  This entire town is caught up in a debate over the deficit and the 
pending default crisis, and yet we seem to want to continue to pour 
money into Afghanistan, into a five-way civil war for which there is no 
military solution. Negotiations are essential. Yet is this country 
pushing forward the negotiations? If so, it's in secret, and I 
certainly hope it is there, because therein lies the solution.
  I think we don't need 100,000, 50,000, 60,000, troops in Afghanistan. 
We really only need a handful to focus on al Qaeda, wherever they may 
be in that region. And so if we were to draw down our troops in the 
next 18 months to 25,000 in Afghanistan and then 10,000 in 2013, we 
would begin to get to a level over an appropriate course of time. And 
it is this House's responsibility to put forth an appropriation bill 
that provides money for only that, and no more, to limit the funding.
  It's pretty clear the President has the power to initiate a war. It's 
equally clear that we have the only power, the only power to fund the 
war. And if we say no, then this war will cease. If we say only this 
amount of money for only this purpose, then this war will rapidly 
diminish. There will be amendments on the floor shortly to achieve that 
goal. And we ought to proceed in that way.
  We need to rebuild America. We need to bring the money and the troops 
home and rebuild this Nation. We can do so when this war is over. Until 
then, this is a sump in which we are pouring the lives of American men 
and women and even more Afghan men and women and our treasure to the 
detriment of this Nation's economic strength.
  I oppose this war, along with my colleagues, and I would ask this 
House, Democrat and Republican alike, to use the power of the purse to 
bring this war to a rapid and appropriate close and fund the 
negotiations, fund the war on al Qaeda, not the war in Afghanistan.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman for raising the issue of 
cost, but I want my colleagues to understand what we are actually 
paying for military operations in Afghanistan.
  We are borrowing $10 billion per month, $2.3 billion per week, $328.3 
million per day, $13.7 million per hour, $228,000 per minute. And we 
are having a debate right now over how we get the debt under control. 
And these borrowed moneys are not even a subject of discussion. If you 
want to get the debt down, you've got to deal with these war costs. And 
I can't believe that for those who are advocating the status quo that 
they don't want to pay for it, it's going on our credit card, and I 
think that is unacceptable. This is an enormous cost to us here in our 
own country.
  I thank the gentleman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. CHU. I am opposed to the underlying bill because it does not do 
enough to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan.
  Earlier this month, the President made an important announcement. He 
plans to withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan in the next 6 months 
and another 20,000 by next summer. This is a step in the right 
direction, and I commend the President for following through with the 
drawdown plan.
  But the American people are crying for a significant and sizable 
drawdown, and we are still too far from that. Even after these troops 
come home, which won't be for another year and a half, we will still be 
exactly where we were in 2009. Seventy thousand American soldiers will 
still be serving in Afghanistan, and I can't help but wonder why.
  The ongoing financial and human costs of this war are now 
indefensible. We spend $2 billion a week on the war effort in 
Afghanistan. And what's worse is that our own money is working against 
us.
  Last year, I was outraged to learn that taxpayers are spending $2.16 
billion on private contractors in Afghanistan. These contractors use 
part of the money to pay off local warlords, which then ends up in the 
Taliban's hand. So, in effect, we are funding both sides of the same 
war.
  This corruption and waste of hard-earned American dollars is the 
direct result of unreliable counsel and a lack of perspective, and it's 
costing us a whopping $100 billion a year. That's five times more than 
we spend on Pell grants every year, financial aid to put American kids 
through college. That's double what we spend on Medicaid that keeps all 
Americans healthy regardless of income. And $100 billion would 
completely pay for the Homeland Security Department, Commerce 
Department, Department of Science and the entire judicial branch 
combined. When money is tight and Congress is trying to slash Medicare 
and Social Security to keep this Nation afloat, it is irresponsible to 
keep writing blank checks for this war.
  But, sadly, that's not the largest toll of this war. Since 9/11, 
we've lost over 1,600 American lives. Over 11,000 troops have been 
wounded, and an untold number of Afghan civilians have lost their lives 
after a decade of war.

                              {time}  2000

  And it is not getting any better. In fact, last year was the most 
deadly year on record for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
  Al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan but scattered around the world. 
It did not take 100,000 troops to find Osama bin Laden, and it does not 
take a military occupation of Afghanistan to protect us from terrorist 
threats. By failing to significantly draw down the number of troops in 
Afghanistan, we continue to focus efforts away from the terrorists and 
needlessly put American soldiers in the line of fire.
  But this story is about more than just numbers and figures; it is 
about real people who sacrifice everything to keep us safe. On Sunday, 
April 3, of this year, a 21-year-old young marine named Harry Lew died 
while serving the country in Afghanistan. He was the son of Sandy and 
Allen Lew, the brother of Carmen Lew, and he was my nephew.
  Harry died while serving on watch duty in Helmand Province. His 
unit's goal was to provide security to locals and to promote 
development in the region. But 3 short months before he was set to 
return home, he was gone.
  Ending this war will save American lives. Ending it will let us focus 
on fighting terrorism around the globe. Ending the war will save money 
at a time when we need it the most. It is time to end the war in 
Afghanistan, bring our troops home, and begin seriously addressing our 
real security needs.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I very much appreciate the time, Mr. 
Chairman, and I rise only because I can't help but be moved by the 
Progressive Caucus' interest in getting us out of Afghanistan as 
quickly as possible.
  I know of those who are very concerned about America being involved 
in wars anywhere. It was not my intention to speak about this subject 
until I heard my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) 
who has an amendment later that would strike the funding for 
approximately 2\1/2\ months of the proposed cost of this effort in 
Afghanistan.
  And as I thought about that, I would want to caution my friend, Mr. 
Garamendi, and others, about the role in Afghanistan. Indeed, it is 
important for us to note, those of us who may have read ``Charlie 
Wilson's War,'' and I am sure my colleague has read it thoroughly, but 
Charlie Wilson was a colleague of mine on the Subcommittee on Defense 
who first raised the prospect of challenges in Afghanistan.
  At that point in time, the Soviet Union was attempting to move into 
Afghanistan to take over that entire country, giving them access to the 
entire region, a warm water port, and

[[Page H4647]]

otherwise. If it had not been for, in my judgment, the effort as a 
result of Charlie Wilson's war and the efforts of Pope John Paul, who 
was then the bishop from Poland, perhaps it is very possible that the 
Soviet Union never would have fallen. But, indeed, Charlie Wilson's war 
created a circumstance where the Soviets did withdraw from Afghanistan. 
And so we were right on the edge of opportunity and peace and freedom 
in Afghanistan.
  And what I would caution my colleague from California about is, 
following that, what did America do? America did what we often do in 
the world where there is strife and struggle, where we are asked to 
play a role in leadership, providing for opportunity and change for 
peace. The vacuum that was left in Afghanistan as a result of our 
walking away after the war, after the Soviets left, was that vacuum. 
And within the vacuum, there came terrorists who would have America and 
freedom in mind. Indeed, as a result of that vacuum, al Qaeda, Taliban, 
and others got strength and found a terrorist center. And now we are 
involved in a war that involves the future of the world, not just peace 
for the world but American peace as well.
  Indeed, I would be very cautious as we go about suggesting that we 
ought to automatically walk away from the commander in chief's plan. 
Indeed, if we are not careful, the vacuum will catch up with us, and 
America will find itself in a much broader and a much more intense 
struggle.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Grimm). The gentleman from Tennessee is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Before I yield to my colleague from California to respond, 
I would like to mention, and I appreciate Mr. Lewis' history, but I 
would suggest to you that al Qaeda could have found a base in Yemen, 
they could have found a base in the Sudan, they could have found a base 
in other places. There was nothing particularly unique about 
Afghanistan that allowed them to have that base there. The fact is that 
we went into a country to fight al Qaeda, which was all in the 
mountains in Pakistan, and even in the cities in Pakistan, probably 
with the knowledge of the Pakistani government, and we have wasted a 
lot of money and lives in an area where we didn't need to be because 
that war will continue.
  There are only 100 al Qaeda, give or take, left in Afghanistan, but 
there are al Qaeda in other spots in the Middle East, and al Qaeda's 
people have plotted terrorist activities from Germany and from other 
places in Europe. They don't need Osama bin Laden's base to have 
activity. There is nothing unique with Afghanistan.
  As far as the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union went down for goodly 
reasons, because of all of the money they spent in Afghanistan. True, 
we were there fighting them; but their attempt at gaining empire, which 
has been the cause of the loss of many empires, stretching too far and 
going beyond their supply lines, killed them. They spent money there. 
And they'd like us to stay there. They are being real nice to us. 
They're helping us with bases to bring in armaments and troops and 
supplies.
  Come on, America, spend your money. Break your government. Come like 
we are, broken.
  It was a mistake.
  I believe that we need to get out of Afghanistan because we are 
losing lives and money, and doing it for a reason that is not going to 
make our country any better.
  Mr. Lewis talked about strife in places in Afghanistan. I will tell 
you about strife--in the United States of America, in my city, in 
Detroit, in Philadelphia, in Boston, in Chicago. You go to the inner 
cities of America, and you will see people without hope and without 
opportunity. That is where infrastructure needs to be built. That is 
where education needs to be affirmed, not in projects in Afghanistan, 
but in the United States of America. And that is what the Conference of 
Mayors said, that we cannot afford this; while our cities go to decay 
and our people lose their opportunity and our middle class is 
destroyed, we fight a war in Afghanistan which was the war of another 
generation, which we should have learned from history and the Soviets' 
experience and what happened to them. If you don't learn from history, 
you are doomed to make the same mistakes. I see that happening.
  Admiral Mike Mullen said national debt is our biggest security 
threat. Admiral Mullen: National debt is our biggest security threat.
  He said at a breakfast just last month in a tribute to our troops 
that that is the biggest problem we have. And when you have a problem 
like that that is a security interest, you go to your biggest spot 
where you can save money, which is the defense budget, and this war 
that is draining and has cost us so much--Afghanistan and Iraq.
  I have some amendments coming which I am going to offer that would 
reduce the amount of money that we spend with the forces, and also the 
amount of money that we spend with the infrastructure and the 
development there in Afghanistan.
  The fact is, just like in Iraq, we put in equipment and buildings and 
then we leave, and they don't have the ability to maintain those 
buildings or maintain that equipment, and it goes to waste. We don't 
need to be wasting our resources, leaving them there where they will 
just go to waste. We need to spend those resources in America and 
create jobs in America, and hope and opportunity for America.
  I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  I just want to respond to something that Mr. Lewis said, who is a 
good friend of mine and whom I respect very much. He talked about the 
need for us to be cautious. Well, I wish we were more cautious where we 
committed our young men and women in the field of battle.
  It is politicians that put our service men and women in harm's way, 
and it is politicians that keep this war going. The fact of the matter 
is that we have an unreliable partner in Afghanistan. President Karzai 
is corrupt. He fixed the last election. I mean, he is denigrating our 
service men and women. When I was over there, one of our soldiers from 
Massachusetts said to me, What bothers me most is we are risking our 
lives to try to help improve the quality of life of people in this 
country, and the President of this country, Mr. Karzai, denigrates us, 
diminishes what we do, calls us names, accused the United States of 
using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan.
  The Massachusetts soldier said to me, Do you know what that feels 
like?

                              {time}  2010

  Look, we need to rethink our policy in Afghanistan. Nobody is talking 
about walking away. What we're saying is that the current policy of 
counterinsurgency is going broke.
  Mr. COHEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentlelady from California.
  Previously, my good friend with whom I've worked for more than 35 
years in various levels of government challenged me on the position I 
take with regard to winding down quickly the war in Afghanistan. His 
recitation of history, while accurate, is woefully incomplete.
  Much of what we are now fighting was actually begun by Charlie 
Wilson, morphed over this period of time perhaps by Pakistan. But we're 
caught in the middle of a civil war, not just a civil war, but a five-
way civil war, one that has gone on for at least the last 35 years. We 
are, as my friend Mr. McGovern just stated, backing a government that 
is, on the face of it, corrupt by any standard.
  So what are we doing here? What is this all about?
  In fact, we went into Afghanistan to get al Qaeda, and we did. There 
is only a handful there. There are probably far more al Qaeda 
sympathizers--and maybe active members--in the United States than in 
Afghanistan.
  So why do we have over 100,000 American troops and another 40,000 
NATO troops in Afghanistan?
  I did not suggest that we leave in a vacuum. Instead, I said we leave 
a

[[Page H4648]]

small force behind that goes after al Qaeda. Take them out wherever 
they happen to be. Bring our troops back home. Go back to the original 
mission in Afghanistan. Go after al Qaeda.
  You're quite correct, my colleagues. They're in Somalia; they're in 
Yemen; and they're in other parts of this world. The more troops we 
have in Iraq and Afghanistan, the more reason we give to those who want 
to recruit yet more al Qaeda members. This makes no sense going 
forward. Yes, we will have a continuing obligation, but if you take a 
look at the strategy that is now in place, one that calls upon America 
to maintain its troops, then you can count on a larger deficit. That 
makes no sense to me. Let's bring our troops home rapidly. The 
amendments that will be on the floor will cause that to happen.
  We have the power of the purse here. This Nation can no longer 
sustain $120 billion a year in Afghanistan when our bridges are 
crumbling, when our children are not educated, when we cannot afford in 
the budget you're putting forth to feed our children or to care for our 
elderly. This war must end, and it must end soon.
  I have great respect for the President, but he has got the wrong 
strategy. He is continuing on the strategy that by the proof on the 
ground does not work. Pivot. Go back to what we once said was our goal. 
Get al Qaeda. Take them out wherever they happen to be. We know we can 
do it. We have done it.
  Anybody who wants to play the al Qaeda game on their side, know that 
this Nation has the capability to take you out.
  My good friend, Mr. Lewis, the next time you want to recite the 
history of Afghanistan, recite the full history of Afghanistan, 
including this Nation's 10-year effort and all of the mistakes that we 
have made. Let us not compound those mistakes by continuing on the same 
course for another 3, 4, 5 years and beyond. It's time to end this war. 
It's time to focus on the true enemy here--al Qaeda.
  Ms. LEE. I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Boswell

  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 122, line 10, strike ``Not'' and insert ``(a) Not''.
       Page 124, after line 7, insert the following:
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that suicide prevention 
     programs should be a priority of the military departments 
     with respect to reinvesting the efficiency savings described 
     in subsection (a).

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BOSWELL. This is a very simple amendment. It clarifies that the 
Defense suicide prevention programs are a priority and should always 
remain a priority.
  I am not alone in my concern for the rates of suicide among our 
servicemembers in the active duty, Guard, and Reserve components. I, 
like some of the rest of you, have had that experience with my own 
constituency back in the Iowa Reserve.
  The Department of Defense has identified large potential savings from 
improved efficiencies, totaling as much as $100 billion over the next 5 
years. Section 8128 directs the Secretary to report to Congress on how 
it will redirect those savings into priorities of the military 
departments. However, there is no direction that ensures that the 
Secretary include existing suicide programs as ``priorities'' for 
reinvestment from these savings.
  This amendment simply clarifies that suicide prevention programs--
which already exist and have already been authorized--are a priority 
and will remain a priority. We must do everything in our power to 
reduce the suicide rates of our men and women in uniform, and this 
amendment fulfills that obligation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation on an appropriation bill; therefore it violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  This amendment proposes to state a legislative position, and I ask 
for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
  The gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, as you might expect, respectfully I rise 
in opposition to the point of order.
  In accordance with clause 2 of rule XXI, this amendment does not make 
a new appropriation; it does not re-appropriate unused funds; it does 
not restrict the availability of funds; and it does not change existing 
law.
  In fact, Defense suicide prevention programs have already been 
authorized by law, for example, the Yellow Ribbon Program, which helps 
support National Guard and Reserve servicemembers and families. This 
amendment simply clarifies that suicide prevention programs--which 
already exist and have already been authorized--are a priority and will 
always remain a priority. So I humbly suggest that no one in good 
conscience could suggest otherwise.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard? If not, the 
Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language expressing the 
sense of Congress.
  The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.

                              {time}  2020

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 8129.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation 
     that any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, 
     for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been 
     exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a 
     timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority 
     responsible for collecting the tax liability.
       Sec. 8130.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation 
     that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any 
     Federal law within the preceding 24 months.

                                TITLE IX

                    OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'', 
     $6,822,635,000: Provided, That each amount in this paragraph 
     is designated as being for the global war on terrorism 
     pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress).


                      Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 125, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $3,438,789,000)''.
       Page 125, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $445,117,000)''.
       Page 125, line 18, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $337,774,000)''.
       Page 125, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $665,978,000)''.
       Page 126, line 5, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $103,610,000)''.
       Page 126, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $20,878,000)''.
       Page 126, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $12,714,000)''.
       Page 126, line 23, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $13,411,000)''.
       Page 127, line 5, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $315,703,000)''.
       Page 127, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $4,719,000)''.
       Page 127, line 18, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $11,012,116,000)''.
       Page 127, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,021,929,000)''.
       Page 128, line 5, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,160,729,000)''.

[[Page H4649]]

       Page 128, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $3,010,749,000)''.
       Page 128, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,948,995,000)''.
       Page 130, line 10, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $70,707,000)''.
       Page 130, line 16, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 130, line 23, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $11,731,000)''.
       Page 131, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $119,794,000)''.
       Page 131, line 18, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,159,000)''.
       Page 131, line 25, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,625,451,000)''.
       Page 133, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $154,418,000)''.
       Page 135, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $4,161,156,000)''.
       Page 138, line 22, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $21,099,000)''.
       Page 139, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,546,000)''.
       Page 139, line 13, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $34,740,000)''.
       Page 139, line 20, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $223,174,000)''.
       Page 140, line 9, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $6,847,000)''.
       Page 140, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $52,352,000)''.
       Page 140, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $40,179,000)''.
       Page 141, line 5, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $210,224,000)''.
       Page 141, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $4,738,000)''.
       Page 142, line 3, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $15,423,000)''.
       Page 142, line 10, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $483,835,000)''.
       Page 142, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $61,480,000)''.
       Page 143, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $941,192,000)''.
       Page 144, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,419,000)''.
       Page 144, line 25, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $8,253,000)''.
       Page 145, line 8, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $22,523,000)''.
       Page 145, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $30,609,000)''.
       Page 145, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $133,194,000)''.
       Page 161, line 12, relating to the spending reduction 
     account, insert after the dollar amount the following: 
     ``(increased by $33,000,124,000)''.

  Ms. LEE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LEE. Let me just first thank Chairman Rogers, our ranking member, 
Mr. Dicks, and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their 
hard work in putting together this bill.
  I rise today to offer the Lee-Jones amendment, joined by 
Representatives Nadler; Woolsey; Olver; Stark; Jesse Jackson, Jr.; 
Honda; Conyers; Grijalva; Paul; and Amash. And I want to thank each of 
my colleagues for joining Representative Jones and me on this important 
amendment.
  This amendment would end the war in Afghanistan by ending the funding 
for combat operations but would provide funds to bring our troops home 
in a safe and orderly manner. And while I would have preferred to offer 
the Lee amendment, which I have offered in the past--to fence off and 
to limit funding to the safe, orderly withdrawal of all U.S. Armed 
Forces in Afghanistan--I was unable to do so today given that we are 
debating on an appropriations bill. So I want to emphasize again this 
important point: that while this amendment cuts war funding, it cuts 
combat operations funding, but it does leave enough funding to provide 
for the safe and orderly return of all U.S. forces from Afghanistan.
  I speak today as the daughter of a lieutenant colonel who fought in 
several wars, one who knows the trauma and devastation of wars on 
families. I want to be clear that our servicemen and -women have 
performed with incredible courage and commitment in Afghanistan. They 
are doing everything we asked them to do. But the truth is that they 
have been put in an impossible position. They are fighting in a way 
with no military solution and no end in sight. Only a political and 
diplomatic solution and a regional stabilization strategy will end this 
war.
  In fact, this concern of ``war without end'' is why I opposed the 
resolution authorizing military force on September 14, 2001. It began a 
series of blank checks that we have been writing for nearly a decade 
now.
  There are few things that we know with certainty regarding the 
situation in Afghanistan:
  We know that corruption persists unabated, and in many cases has been 
fueled by the U.S. occupation and influx of foreign cash. President 
Karzai has proven himself time and time again unwilling--or, at the 
very least, unable--to meaningfully root out corruption within his own 
administration;
  We know that the United States troop presence has increased from 
4,000 troops in 2002 to almost 100,000 in 2011. At the same time, 
military and civilian casualties have increased at record rates, and 
violence is on the rise;
  We also know that al Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan has been all but 
eliminated, and Osama bin Laden is dead. It's not feasible or in our 
national security interest to address this threat through a military-
first, boots-on-the-ground strategy in Afghanistan;
  And we know, as military and foreign policy experts from across the 
political spectrum have told us repeatedly, that the situation in 
Afghanistan will not be resolved by a military solution.
  We need to bring our troops home safely and swiftly, and that is why 
I am offering this amendment.
  This war is costing us too much. With over 1,600 troops killed and 
tens of thousands more seriously wounded in Afghanistan, the human toll 
continues to mount every day. And we have already spent over $400 
billion fighting in Afghanistan. It is past time to admit that we can 
no longer afford to send more blank checks for a war without end.
  The United States has squandered more than $1.1 trillion on the wars 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Economists estimate that the total direct and 
indirect costs of these two wars by their end may total as much as $6 
trillion.
  With no military solution, we need to redirect these funds to job 
creation and supporting those efforts for the most vulnerable, 
including those who have been unemployed for over 2 years and have no 
more unemployment benefits. While we spend $2 billion a week--mind you, 
$2 billion a week--on this decade-long war, critical programs like 
Medicare are on the chopping block as we seek to get our Nation's 
finances in order.
  The American people are sick and tired of this war and the massive 
unending spending that it requires.
  Just last month, the United States Conference of Mayors passed a 
resolution to end the wars and to use the savings to build bridges and 
schools and infrastructure here at home where it is needed. The 
resolution specifically calls on the President and the United States 
Congress to end the wars as soon as strategically possible and bring 
these war dollars home to meet vital human needs, promote job creation, 
rebuild our infrastructure, aid municipal and State governments, and 
develop a new economy based on renewable, sustainable energy and reduce 
the Federal debt.
  We need to bring our troops back and use the savings to address our 
Nation's fiscal challenges. The American people recognize this. It's 
time to say that enough is enough. It's time to begin with safe and 
orderly withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan. This 
amendment does just that by ending the funding of combat operations in

[[Page H4650]]

Afghanistan while maintaining funds for a safe and orderly withdrawal.
  This is not a cut-and-run amendment. This is a responsible amendment 
to bring our troops home now. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
this amendment, helping to bring our servicemen and -women home safely 
and ending the war in Afghanistan.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of the 
point of order, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The reservation is withdrawn.
  The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman has an amendment to 
reduce the overseas contingency operation--aka the war on terror--by 
$33 billion. She intends for this amendment to support, as she says, an 
orderly withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. However, such a 
reduction would, in fact, severely disrupt and suspend a redeployment 
from Afghanistan. The magnitude of her funding reduction would also 
threaten the ability to support troop pay and safety.
  The committee has provided funds to begin the redeployment of troops 
in Afghanistan. If the redeployment from Afghanistan were to be 
accelerated, there would be significant increases in personnel, 
equipment, and transportation costs in fiscal year 2012.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment and urge others to do likewise.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my dear friend Congresswoman Lee and the rest of the authors.
  Congresswoman Lee is a courageous voice for peace in Afghanistan and 
around the world, and what she says--this is the bottom line of this 
amendment--is clear: We should not spend one more dime waging war in 
Afghanistan. The only money we appropriate must be used to wind down 
the war with the safe, orderly, complete, and long overdue military 
redeployment out of Afghanistan.

                              {time}  2030

  The White House announced about 2 weeks ago that we would have a 
troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. I believe that announcement was 
tragically inadequate. Actually, I was hoping to hear that at least 
50,000 troops would be coming home by the end of 2011. Instead, the 
President announced his intention to wait another year, the summer of 
2012, before removing the 33,000 troops that were added with the surge. 
Too slow, too cautious, too modest.
  I don't know how much clearer the writing on the wall has to be, Mr. 
Chairman. Afghanistan remains in terrible disarray, with a terribly 
corrupt central government and a security force actually incapable of 
enforcing security. Our military footprint isn't doing enough in 
Afghanistan. It is actually causing more harm than good. Meanwhile, the 
human cost here at home is nothing short of devastating. Casualties 
have spiked. Americans are dying in Afghanistan at an unacceptable 
rate, more than 200 troops so far this year and over 1,600 troops since 
the war began nearly a decade ago.
  And, Mr. Chairman, making it home alive doesn't mean making it home 
whole. Thousands upon thousands of servicemembers will spend the rest 
of their lives coping with the wounds and the scars they acquired in 
this unnecessary war. Many have left limbs behind in Afghanistan. 
Others will never regain their mental health or their peace of mind, 
suffering the devastating effects of PTSD.
  Why would we continue to throw another dollar at a war that has done 
so much to hurt our people and Afghan civilians and done so little to 
help Afghanistan in general? This week, as a matter of fact, all of 
Washington is abuzz about the debt ceiling negotiations. Commentators 
are asking us, where will we find consensus that preserves the full 
faith and credit of the United States of America? Well, Mr. Chairman, 
there is a consensus in the United States, a consensus among the 
American people, and that is that the $10 billion a month that we're 
spending in Afghanistan is roughly $10 billion too much. But war 
spending is not on the table in these talks. Instead, Medicare cuts are 
on the table, while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
clinging tight to loopholes and subsidies for oil companies, corporate 
jets, and the horse racing industry. Their spending priorities are just 
totally warped.
  Mr. Chairman, it's time to bring all this in line with the priorities 
of the American people. It's time to end this war. It's time to stop 
investing money that we need right here at home, and it is time to 
invest only in bringing our troops home safely.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to 
support the Lee amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I won't take 5 minutes.
  I rise to speak in support of the Lee amendment, which I have the 
honor of cosponsoring. My views on Afghanistan, I expressed a little 
while ago, but I just want to make a couple of comments.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) said we have to be careful, 
that we have to be wary of a vacuum should we pull out. He analogized 
it to what happened with the Soviets when the Soviets lost and there 
was a vacuum because we turned our backs on it. And he was right. We 
should not have turned our backs on helping, on helping with schooling 
and other things in Afghanistan at that time. But the fact of the 
matter is the world's history is full of empires that threw away their 
substance on silly military adventures. This is a silly military 
adventure. It's a total waste, because it is a classic, where we are 
fighting when we have forgotten why we are fighting.
  We went into Afghanistan to get rid of the al Qaeda bases. That took 
a week. For good measure we spent another week and got rid of the 
Taliban government. And now what are we fighting for for the last 8 
years? To put a government in our image? It's not going to happen. To 
install and see that there is a government that can rule from Kabul? 
There hasn't been a government in Kabul who has run the entire country 
since Alexander the Great. That's not going to happen.
  We can't settle their civil war, which has now gone on for 35 years, 
nor will settling their civil war aid our security, which we can't do 
anyway, and we don't have to. Our security is fighting the terrorists, 
but the terrorists are all over the place. And maybe we have to, if 
they develop a base in Pakistan, maybe we have to bomb it or send in 
special forces. Ditto for Somalia, Yemen, or God knows where.
  Every sovereign country as a condition of its sovereignty must make 
sure that its territory is not used to attack someone else, and if 
territory of some country is being used to attack us, or to plot mayhem 
against us, we have the right and the duty, if necessary, to deal with 
that. But that's not the question in Afghanistan. The CIA, as I said 
before, tells us there are fewer than 100 people there. Why do we need 
70,000 troops? Those troops could be better occupied back home in the 
United States training, helping fight disasters. Our money could be 
better occupied dealing with our serious fiscal problems, building up 
our infrastructure, building up our schools, building up our social 
services, and even building up our military for real threats.
  There are real threats in the world. Pakistan is dangerous because 
they have nuclear weapons. We have to pay attention to it. But I fail 
to see any purpose whatsoever for having tens of thousands of troops, 
tens of billions of dollars in Afghanistan where we vanquished the 
enemy 10 years ago. We ought to declare victory, we should have pulled 
out, and we should do so right now.
  I thank the gentlelady for her amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page H4651]]

  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  Mr. GARAMENDI. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 125, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,695,031,000)''.
       Page 125, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $348,845,000)''.
       Page 125, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $264,718,000)''.
       Page 125, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $521,937,000)''.
       Page 126, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $81,201,000)''.
       Page 126, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $16,362,000)''.
       Page 126, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $9,964,000)''.
       Page 126, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,511,000)''.
       Page 127, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $247,421,000)''.
       Page 127, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,698,000)''.
       Page 127, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $8,662,596,000)''.
       Page 127, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,584,616,000)''.
       Page 128, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $909,681,000)''.
       Page 128, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,359,569,000)''.
       Page 128, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,527,457,000)''.
       Page 130, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $55,414,000)''.
       Page 130, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $15,674,000)''.
       Page 130, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $9,193,000)''.
       Page 131, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $93,884,000)''.
       Page 131, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $7,962,000)''.
       Page 138, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,748,000)''.
       Page 139, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $17,697,000)''.
       Page 139, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $113,688,000)''.
       Page 140, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,488,000)''.
       Page 140, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $26,669,000)''.
       Page 140, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,468,000)''.
       Page 141, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $107,091,000)''.
       Page 141, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,414,000)''.
       Page 142, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $7,857,000)''.
       Page 142, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $246,473,000)''.
       Page 142, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $31,319,000)''.
       Page 143, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $737,626,000)''.
       Page 144, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $723,000)''.
       Page 144, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,204,000)''.
       Page 145, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $11,474,000)''.
       Page 145, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $15,593,000)''.
       Page 145, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $104,386,000)''.
       Page 161, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,887,651,000)''.

  Mr. GARAMENDI (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with reading the rest of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  2040

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank my colleagues for bringing that recitation to 
an end, but I also urge my colleagues to pay careful attention to what 
we're trying to accomplish here. I'll try to explain it without reading 
each and every one of those lines.
  The Afghan Study Group, Richard Haas and many others who are very 
familiar with the Afghanistan war and the way in which it is being 
conducted have suggested that by the end of 2012, America should have 
no more than 25,000 troops in Afghanistan and then further, wind down 
the war in 2013 to 10,000 troops focused on terrorists, focused on al 
Qaeda.
  As I spoke a few moments ago on this issue, this amendment is to 
accomplish that goal, to wind down the war in a responsible way over 
the next 18 months so that at the end of the 18 months--that would be 
December 31, 2012--that there'd be no more than 25,000 troops in 
Afghanistan.
  Now, unfortunately, I can't add the rest of it, but I will at least 
give the reason for this. And that is to pivot on the success of 
getting bin Laden. We went to Afghanistan to get al Qaeda. We 
succeeded. And now we are involved in a civil war, a great civil war, a 
five-sided civil war, maybe a six- or seven-sided civil war; and we are 
supporting a government in that war that is at best corrupt and quite 
possibly even more inept. So what are we doing there besides spending 
$120 billion a year?
  Well, we are kind of fighting it out. We're losing a lot of 
Americans, and even more Afghans are dying. We're not going to be able 
to solve this with troops on the ground. This war needs to be 
negotiated. As much effort as we are spending on the troops, we should 
spend on negotiations. Unfortunately, little or no negotiations are 
going on that are at least talked about publicly; and I would hope 
they're going on privately, secretly, but I don't think that to be the 
case.
  So we need a negotiated settlement; we need to pivot on the success 
of bin Laden. We need to focus like a laser on al Qaeda wherever they 
happen to be in the world. And we know that they are in Pakistan, 
Yemen, Somalia, other places in the world--including the United States. 
So our focus must be on that, not on this civil war. We cannot solve it 
with our troops in Afghanistan.
  This amendment would cause us, as Members of Congress, to exert the 
authority given to us by the Constitution, that is, the power of the 
purse, and by denying funding for more than 25,000 troops at the end of 
2012, we will accomplish the goal of rapidly, appropriately winding 
down the war. Not my words, but the words of the Afghan Study Group and 
Richard Haas--people who know these issues.
  We must do this for our own good, for the good of this Nation. We're 
sitting here in the midst of a great debate upon a default crisis, a 
back-and-forth about how do we deal with the deficit. Well, one way we 
can deal with the deficit is to end this war; $120 billion a year adds 
up to a third of a trillion dollars in just 3 years. We're not 
suggesting we can get that. We know we're going to have to maintain 
some sort of a presence there.
  But surely we don't need to spend $120 billion in Afghanistan when in 
our own country we are denying our children an education for lack of 
money. We are denying our elderly the health care that they need, for 
example, terminating Medicare for lack of money. We are not feeding our 
children; ``60 Minutes'' recently did a heart-wrenching story on 
homeless children living in cars and hotels in America because their 
parents have lost their jobs.
  We have an unemployment rate that demands our attention, demands our 
investment in America, rebuilding America's bridges, roads, rebuilding 
our manufacturing sector, making it in America once again, rebuilding 
the real strength of this Nation, its economy, and the middle class so 
that they can have jobs that will allow them to stay in their homes, 
provide for their children, live the good American life.
  We must end this war. We must first wind it down. Were this more than 
an appropriation bill, I would have gone to step two, which is 10,000 
at the end of 2013 with a mission that is the original mission, that 
is, going after the terrorists, not nation-building. We must, as the 
President said, rebuild our Nation. And unlike the President, this 
amendment offers us the opportunity to use our money to rebuild this 
Nation.
  By the way, for you deficit hawks, it's all borrowed money. You're 
borrowing money for Afghanistan, or you're borrowing money to rebuild 
this Nation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We oppose this amendment for the same reason we 
opposed the gentlewoman's amendment from California on the last. It 
would be highly disruptive to our troops and, I think, put them at 
great risk for their personal safety. So we oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

[[Page H4652]]

  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'', 
     $919,034,000: Provided, That each amount in this paragraph is 
     designated as being for the global war on terrorism pursuant 
     to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress).

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine 
     Corps'', $675,360,000: Provided, That each amount in this 
     paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $1,436,353,000: Provided, That each amount in this 
     paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', 
     $207,162,000: Provided, That each amount in this paragraph is 
     designated as being for the global war on terrorism pursuant 
     to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress).

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'', 
     $44,530,000: Provided, That each amount in this paragraph is 
     designated as being for the global war on terrorism pursuant 
     to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress).

                    Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Marine 
     Corps'', $25,421,000: Provided, That each amount in this 
     paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).

                      Reserve Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $26,815,000: Provided, That each amount in this 
     paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Army'', $646,879,000: Provided, That each amount in this 
     paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).

                  National Guard Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Air Force'', $9,435,000: Provided, That each amount in this 
     paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'', $39,175,755,000: Provided, That each amount in this 
     paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Welch

  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 127, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $200,000,000)''.
       Page 149, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $200,000,000)''.
       Page 161, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $200,000,000)''.

  Mr. WELCH (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Vermont?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, one of the central questions that Congress must 
address is whether to continue the policy and nation-building in 
Afghanistan. As previous speakers have indicated, it's expensive. It's 
also very questionable as to whether it's anything but a failure.

                              {time}  2050

  The cornerstone of the nation building program is the Commander's 
Emergency Response Program. That gives the commanders flexibility, at 
their own discretion, to authorize significant infrastructure projects 
in Afghanistan, the goal being to win hearts and minds of the Afghan 
citizens. When you lay it out by its intentions, it's a very reasonable 
tool to provide to our commanders. The problem is the evidence is in, 
and it has been a failure.
  The $400 million Commander's Emergency Response Program, CERP, is a 
central component of what I believe is a failed nation building 
strategy. And the fundamental question here is this: Does the Defense 
appropriations bill double down on the nation building approach which 
has been drawn into such question?
  Now, of the CERP development dollars, according to the Special 
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, SIGAR, about half of 
the CERP projects reviewed were unsustainable and fell into disrepair 
immediately following their transfer into Afghan hands. That failure of 
sustainment is real, and it is not subject to something that we can 
control here.
  So the question that we have to ask on behalf of our military 
strategy is, is the money being used in a way that's effective? From 
the perspective of the Afghans, is it being used on projects that are 
sustainable? And the evidence, on the basis of our SIGAR report, is the 
answer is ``no.'' And it's not surprising. You know, we've got to get a 
bit real about this, whatever your position is on Afghanistan. If you 
have a government that has no infrastructure of civil service, that 
doesn't even have the capacity to do the sustainment, they don't have a 
civil service that can go out and maintain and repair the roads and 
other projects, is it realistic to expect that they will?
  When you have a government that is corrupt, for whatever reason, but 
where the money that gets injected by the U.S. taxpayer into these 
projects, with the best of intentions, gets siphoned off into paying 
off people who have positions of authority, is that a wise use of our 
taxpayer dollar? Is it going to help our military ultimately be 
successful? So the question that we have a responsibility to answer is 
whether this tool of nation building makes sense.
  One of the other questions that I think is fair to ask: Many of us 
have been to Afghanistan, and we've met with some of our USAID people, 
our State Department people who are out there, our military people of 
course, trying to implement these projects, Mr. Speaker. The amount of 
security that is required in order to allow people to do the simplest 
of projects in the middle of a shooting war is an enormous expense. And 
the question that comes to mind for me, and I think many Americans, is 
this: Does it make sense to do these infrastructure projects, these 
hearts and minds projects in the middle of a shooting war, or are those 
things that have to be done before or after? That's really the 
question.
  So the intention of this program makes sense. The flexibility for our 
commanders they see as desirable. It is a tool that they can use. But 
we have had 10 years now of history. We have had a fully blown report 
by SIGAR that has said it just doesn't work. It just doesn't work.
  So is it time for this Congress to call the question about the wisdom 
and the efficacy of this nation building tool, the CERP programs that 
fall into disrepair immediately upon their completion?
  Our amendment calls the question, Mr. Speaker. And it would cut in 
half, which is about the amount that's documented to be wasted, the 
amount that is spent by U.S. taxpayers on these nation building 
activities in Afghanistan.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. 
The amendment may not be considered en bloc under section 3(j) of House 
Resolution 5, 112th Congress, because the amendment does not merely 
propose to transfer appropriations among objects in the bill, but also 
proposes language other than the amounts.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

[[Page H4653]]

  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on this 
point of order? The Chair will rule.
  To be considered en bloc pursuant to section 3(j)(1) of House 
Resolution 5, an amendment must propose only to transfer appropriations 
from an object or objects in the bill to a spending reduction account. 
Because the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont proposes 
other changes to the bill, namely changing the level of a limitation, 
it may not avail itself of section 3(j)(1) of House Resolution 5 to 
address the spending reduction account. The amendment is not in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 127, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $15,000,000) (increased by $15,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment tonight that will save 
both blood and an immense amount of money. The amendment I am 
introducing along with Congressman Blumenauer designates already 
authorized funds in the amount of $15 million to be used to insulate 
the shelters at forward operating bases in Afghanistan. Properly 
insulating military shelters can significantly reduce energy 
consumption, which in turn can decrease the number of vulnerable fuel 
convoys needed to support our troops.
  These fuel convoys cost us dearly. They are an absolutely vital 
supply link to our troops in the field, but they are exposed to 
constant and devastating attack. Despite the Pentagon spending $24 
billion a year to protect fuel convoys in Afghanistan, more than 3,000 
troops and civilian contractors have been killed or wounded while 
riding on convoy. What's more, fully two-thirds of the fuel used in 
Afghanistan goes to provide electricity for air-conditioning and heat 
at military installations. If we can reduce the energy required to heat 
and cool shelters in the field, then we can reduce the number of 
vulnerable fuel trucks needed to support the operations. Simply put, 
insulating the structures in the field will save lives of people who 
will not be on convoys to be attacked.
  We will also save money. Properly insulated shelters use up to 92 
percent less energy for their heating and cooling. With more than 
200,000 gallons of diesel fuel used every day to power our forward 
operating bases in Afghanistan, insulating our field shelters has the 
potential to significantly reduce fuel consumption. A similar 
insulation effort in Iraq has led to almost $1 billion a year in 
savings and has taken more than 11,000 fuel trucks off the road. This 
in turn has helped to prevent an estimated 458 casualties in Iraq.
  A little arithmetic will show you that this $15 million invested in 
insulating the shelters in the forward bases in Afghanistan should save 
several billion dollars in costs, as well as thousands of lives.
  I want to thank Congressmen Blumenauer, Hinchey, and Welch for their 
support of this amendment. Together, the amendment provides a 
commonsense way to reduce fuel consumption across the war zone. This 
would save about two-thirds of the 200,000 gallons used a day. With the 
total cost of fuel sometimes exceeding $400 a gallon in Afghanistan, 
including the transport costs, and thousands of casualties suffered by 
fuel convoys, a small investment of $15 million in energy efficient 
insulation can go a long way in saving thousands of lives and upwards 
of billions of dollars in resources.
  I urge passage of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very, very 
similar to one that the House rejected earlier today.
  The project that would be funded by this amendment, by the shifting 
of this money, is not an authorized program to begin with. But even if 
it were, the Army's O&M account in the OCO portion of the bill is 
funded at over $39.1 billion.
  And should this project remain in the final authorization bill and 
the Department concurs that it is a high enough priority, then there 
simply are ample funds to cover it with the $39.1 billion.
  So I see no reason for this amendment, and I oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Gardner). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy'', $6,749,489,000: Provided, That each amount in this 
     paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps'', $3,571,210,000: Provided, That each amount in 
     this paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force'', $10,739,587,000: Provided, That each amount in 
     this paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', $9,312,876,000: Provided, That each amount in 
     this paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress): Provided further, That of the funds provided under 
     this heading:
       (1) Not to exceed $12,500,000 for the Combatant Commander 
     Initiative Fund, to be used in support of Operation New Dawn 
     and Operation Enduring Freedom.
       (2) Not to exceed $1,750,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, for payments to reimburse key cooperating nations 
     for logistical, military, and other support, including access 
     provided to United States military operations in support of 
     Operation New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law:  Provided, That 
     such reimbursement payments may be made in such amounts as 
     the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the 
     Secretary of State, and in consultation with the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget, may determine, in his 
     discretion, based on documentation determined by the 
     Secretary of Defense to adequately account for the support 
     provided, and such determination is final and conclusive upon 
     the accounting officers of the United States, and 15 days 
     following notification to the appropriate congressional 
     committees:  Provided further, That the requirement to 
     provide notification shall not apply with respect to a 
     reimbursement for access based on an international agreement: 
     Provided further, That these funds may be used for the 
     purpose of providing specialized training and procuring 
     supplies and specialized equipment and providing such 
     supplies and loaning such equipment on a non-reimbursable 
     basis to coalition forces supporting United States military 
     operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 15 days following 
     notification to the appropriate congressional committees:  
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall provide 
     quarterly reports to the congressional defense committees on 
     the use of funds provided in this paragraph.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 128, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000,000)''.
       Page 129, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000,000)''.
       Page 161, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with the money 
that we give Pakistan. It specifically deals with the reimbursement 
account that the United States pays for the war on terror to reimburse 
Pakistan for the spending that they do and the money that they request 
back from the United States, specifically takes $1 billion out of the 
reimbursement account and applies it to the reimbursement or, excuse 
me, the Spending Reduction Act.

[[Page H4654]]

  Since May 2, when Osama bin Laden was taken out and we learned more 
about the role that Pakistan is playing--or, shall I say, not playing--
in the war on terror, they have become more and more an unfaithful 
ally. President Bush said, when the war on terror began, to the 
countries throughout the world, either you are with us or you are with 
the terrorists.
  Pakistan has yet to prove which side they are really on, so much so 
that when Osama bin Laden was taken out by the American military, we 
did not trust Pakistan enough to even tell them that we were going to 
come into their country. Our distrust against that country has been 
proven over and over again since that date.
  On May 16, the Wall Street Journal reported that over 40 percent of 
the money that Pakistan requests for reimbursement for military aid is 
denied by the Federal Government because those claims are unfounded by 
the Federal Government. In one case last year, the United States paid 
millions of dollars to refurbish four helicopters to help Pakistan's 
Army transport troops into battle against the Taliban, but it turned 
out that Pakistan diverted three of those aircraft to peacekeeping 
duties in Sudan operations for which Pakistan receives compensation 
from the United Nations.
  Other claims include a $26 million charge for barbed wire and pickets 
and $70 million for radar maintenance, although there is no enemy air 
threat related to the war on terror.
  And on May 22, 15 to 20 militants stormed three hangars at the naval 
aviation base in Karachi. It took the Pakistan military over 15 hours 
to end that siege.
  Two U.S. P-3Cs were destroyed. The P-3C is an anti-submarine and 
marine surveillance aircraft. Some reports now indicate it was an 
inside job, as the terrorists had military uniforms and knew exactly 
where the planes were located.
  Then on June 14, reports confirmed that Pakistan now has arrested CIA 
informants that helped us locate Osama bin Laden, where he had been 
living under the eyes of the Pakistan military for years.
  As reported in The New York Times on June 14, ISI arrested 30 
Pakistani informants who helped the United States capture bin Laden. 
One was a Pakistani Army major who officials said copied the license 
plates of cars visiting bin Laden's compound at Abbottabad.
  Then further, in June, when CIA Director Leon Panetta went to 
Pakistan to inform them that there was a factory that was making bombs 
or IEDs that could be used against Americans, by the time the Pakistani 
troops showed up, the militants had disappeared.
  Not to be outdone, we told them again about a second place where IEDs 
were being made, more bomb-making facilities only days later, and once 
again the terrorists picked up and disappeared. Sounds like they had 
inside information.
  And lastly, on June 29, Pakistan asked the United States to shut down 
a drone base that it had in Islamabad and ended U.S. operations at the 
Shamsi Air Base. Although the United States denies that occurred, 
Pakistan's defense minister said that it has ended those operations. 
And, of course, drones carry out strikes against the Taliban and al 
Qaeda militants on Pakistan's border with Afghanistan.
  And lastly, Transparency International has rated 178 countries on 
corruption, and Pakistan, our so-called ally, is rated the 143rd most 
corrupt, beating out, of course, Bangladesh and Nigeria, who have less 
corruption in their governments.
  So we are dealing with a corrupt government. We don't know where our 
money is going. It may end up in the hands of people who hate us. It's 
being wasted. The Pakistan military, the Pakistan Government is trying 
to play at least two sides: our side, their side. They may be on a 
third side, who knows. But a billion dollars that we send them for so-
called reimbursement of the war on terror, we can stop that. They are 
an unfaithful ally.
  Only 17 percent of the Pakistani citizens say they even like the 
United States. That puts 83 percent that do not like the United States. 
We don't need to pay the Pakistan people to hate us. They will do it on 
their own.
  So we no longer need to fund them. We need to take a billion dollars 
out of this account and put it into the deficit reduction spending 
account.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. The bill includes approximately $2.4 billion to support 
the Pakistani military. Of this amount, 1.1 billion is for the Pakistan 
Counterinsurgency Fund and approximately 1.3 billion is provided 
through Coalition Support Funds.
  The Pakistani Counterinsurgency Fund provides for the training and 
equipping of Pakistani forces specifically to aid U.S. counterterrorism 
objectives. Coalition Support Funds are used to reimburse the Pakistani 
military for operations which generally support U.S. counterterrorism 
objectives.
  In the wake of Osama bin Laden's killing by U.S. Special Forces, 
serious questions have arisen about Pakistan's reliability as a 
strategic partner. And I must say that I agree with much of what the 
gentleman from Texas has just said.
  The relationship with Pakistan has always been difficult, but 
maintaining the relationship is essential. This relationship helped the 
U.S. make progress against terrorism, and the Pakistanis have allocated 
a significant part of their forces within their own borders to this 
mission.
  A complete withdrawal of U.S. assistance would likely polarize 
Pakistan and exacerbate significant pro- and anti-American rifts with 
their military and their government generally. Aggravating this divide 
would be counterproductive to U.S. objectives in the region, and we 
must remember that they are also a nuclear power.
  In addition to the counterterrorism activity, the fact of Pakistan's 
nuclear weapons capabilities provides ample reason for the U.S. to 
continue to try and engage Pakistan.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2110

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The ranking member, Mr. Dicks, has eloquently 
pointed out why we are opposing this amendment. But like Mr. Dicks and 
like Mr. Poe, the author of the amendment, I couldn't agree more. If 
this language included the word Pakistan, I would probably have to have 
a different attitude on this amendment because I share those concerns 
and I share them strongly. However, I understand the importance of our 
coalition and the coalition support fund that we have agreed to and the 
importance of maintaining that agreement.
  But I would say that someone at a higher level who deals 
diplomatically with other countries, including Pakistan, has dropped 
the ball somewhere. I agree with Mr. Poe, but I just don't think that 
we can be in a position where we can renege on our agreements and 
arrangements with our coalition partners, because they are very 
important to us and to the missions that we face.
  So as reluctant as I might be because I share Mr. Poe's thoughts, I 
also will oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army Reserve'', $217,500,000: Provided, That each amount in 
     this paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).

                Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy Reserve'', $74,148,000:

[[Page H4655]]

     Provided, That each amount in this paragraph is designated as 
     being for the global war on terrorism pursuant to section 301 
     of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress).

            Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps Reserve'', $36,084,000: Provided, That each 
     amount in this paragraph is designated as being for the 
     global war on terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. 
     Res. 34 (112th Congress).

              Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force Reserve'', $142,050,000: Provided, That each amount 
     in this paragraph is designated as being for the global war 
     on terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 
     (112th Congress).

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army National Guard'', $387,544,000: Provided, That each 
     amount in this paragraph is designated as being for the 
     global war on terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. 
     Res. 34 (112th Congress).

             Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air National Guard'', $34,050,000: Provided, That each amount 
     in this paragraph is designated as being for the global war 
     on terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 
     (112th Congress).

             Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in this Act, 
     there is appropriated $5,000,000,000 for the ``Overseas 
     Contingency Operations Transfer Fund'' for expenses directly 
     relating to overseas contingency operations by United States 
     military forces, to be available until expended: Provided, 
     That each amount in this paragraph is designated as being for 
     the global war on terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. 
     Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress): Provided further, That of the 
     funds made available in this section, the Secretary of 
     Defense may transfer these funds only to military personnel 
     accounts, operation and maintenance accounts, procurement 
     accounts, and working capital fund accounts: Provided 
     further, That the funds transferred shall be merged with and 
     shall be available for the same purposes and for the same 
     time period, as the appropriation to which transferred: 
     Provided further, that the Secretary shall notify the 
     congressional defense committees 15 days prior to such 
     transfer: Provided further, That the transfer authority 
     provided under this heading is in addition to any other 
     transfer authority available to the Department of Defense: 
     Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part 
     of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not 
     necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may 
     be transferred back to this appropriation and shall be 
     available for the same purposes and for the same time period 
     as originally appropriated.


                      Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 131, line 25, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000,000)''.
       Page 161, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000,000)''.

  Ms. LEE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. LEE. I want to once again thank Mr. Rogers and Ranking Member 
Dicks and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their hard 
work on this bill. Let me also thank my colleagues who are joining 
Representative Jones and me on this bipartisan amendment: 
Representatives Woolsey, Olver, Honda, Grijalva and Paul.
  Mr. Chair, I rise to offer the Lee-Jones amendment to redirect the $5 
billion of the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund into a 
deficit reduction account. This amendment does nothing to undermine the 
efforts that our servicemen and -women have performed with incredible 
courage and with extreme commitment in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the 
world. They have done everything asked of them. And as the daughter of 
a military veteran, I take any matters that affect our troops very, 
very seriously.
  But supporting our troops does not mean giving a blank check to the 
Pentagon. I have consistently said that we cannot afford to give any 
more blank checks to the Defense Department.
  This amendment is about eliminating a giant $5 billion check with a 
blank memo to fight the global war on terror anywhere, at any time, 
without any accountability. The Department of Defense just has to 
notify Congress that these funds are being transferred.
  This $5 billion giveaway, which is what it is, it's like a slush 
fund, it's like a war slush fund, another giveaway to the Pentagon. 
It's a $5 billion check to use as it pleases with little or no 
congressional oversight. There's no accountability in how these funds 
are spent. While we understand that the Pentagon needs flexibility to 
address terrorist threats to this Nation and around the world, we need 
not create a separate slush fund, mind you, to do it. The flexibility 
has been given elsewhere in this bill, including $119 billion in 
flexibility in this appropriations bill, a tremendous amount, at a time 
when we are cutting aid to American families who need assistance with 
buying food or receiving health care and also during a time when there 
are many calling for cuts in Medicare.
  We already have a process in place for the Pentagon to get additional 
funds, as needed, outside of this appropriations bill; and the Congress 
has consistently responded well to the needs of the military. But 
Congress does not need to create a $5 billion war slush fund. The 
Pentagon can incorporate its work to fight terrorism globally into its 
budget while taking steps to rein in waste, fraud, and abuse in an 
already bloated budget.
  Sixty cents of every dollar of discretionary funds is already handed 
over to the Pentagon. There's no doubt that this war slush fund would 
give rise to opportunities for waste, fraud and abuse at the Pentagon, 
such as the more than $300 billion in major weapons system cost 
overruns identified by GAO.
  It's time to address the culture of unlimited spending and no 
accountability at the Pentagon. Being strong on defense does not mean 
we have to give a free pass for irresponsible spending.
  During such austere times, does the Pentagon really need another 
slush fund? Why can't the Pentagon budget for its wars, budget for 
preventing terrorist attacks? It's time to hold the Defense Department 
accountable for its bloated budget and rein in waste, fraud and abuse 
at the Pentagon by ending this war slush fund before it ever gets 
started.
  I think the American people would be shocked to know what's taking 
place in this budget, especially this $5 billion in war funding that's 
just put aside for the Pentagon to use as it pleases.
  And so I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' to end this slush fund, 
and let's begin to start reining in these blank checks for the 
Pentagon. We're asking people who are vulnerable, we're asking our 
senior citizens, we're asking low-income individuals, we're asking 
everyone in this country to pay for this deficit and this debt. And we 
know how we got there.
  But we need to really start beginning to look at deficit reduction in 
a real way, and in a way that is balanced, as the President said. And I 
don't think allowing a $5 billion slush fund really moves us in the 
correct direction. It really is, I think, a sad day to think that we 
would allow for the Pentagon to have a $5 billion slush fund when we 
cut funding for women and children and people who are hungry, when we 
won't extend unemployment for people who have exhausted their 99 weeks 
of unemployment compensation.
  I can remember asking the Speaker to allow us to vote for 
unemployment compensation that would provide for 14 additional weeks of 
unemployment, but we were told there's no money and that was somewhere 
between 16, you know, to 20 billion that should have been designated as 
an emergency. Now we're dealing with a $5 billion slush fund. So I ask 
for an ``aye'' vote to use this money for deficit reduction.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't call this a slush 
fund. This is not an additional fund that was added by the subcommittee 
at the request of the Pentagon or the Department of Defense.

[[Page H4656]]

  When the subcommittee analyzed the request at our hearings and in the 
subsequent material provided us to justify the budget of the Defense 
Department for the overseas contingency operations, we had a strong 
disagreement. We did not think that their figures were well thought 
out. So rather than appropriate that $5 billion that they requested, we 
moved it to what we call this transfer fund. It is not any additional 
money; it is just taken out of one account and put into another 
account. This transfer fund is to give the Defense Department some 
flexibility when they do get their facts and figures together on what 
the actual costs are.

                              {time}  2120

  Now, the $5 billion, again, is not a slush fund. They can't spend 
this money without reporting back to Congress. Any money spent from 
this transfer fund must be reported to Congress, and Congress has 15 
days in which to respond to that request.
  This was done to try to make sure that we had what they needed, that 
the Defense Department had what they needed for the overseas 
contingency operations, but that they had to justify exactly how they 
were going to use the money. And to the contrary, rather than being the 
potential slush fund, this is definitely not a slush fund, and so I 
oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, war is not predictable. We 
have men and women today engaged in combat. And I am a combat veteran 
with the United States Marine Corps. I served in the first gulf war, 
and I served in the Iraq war. I wish that war was predictable. I wish 
we knew what the enemy was going to do and when they were going to do 
it, but we don't know that. This is a dedicated fund to the global war 
on terror. It provides flexibility that is necessary for our commanders 
in the field at this time.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment and would hope that it would 
be voted down.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       There is hereby established in the Treasury of the United 
     States the ``Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund''. For the 
     ``Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund'', $475,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2013:  Provided, That such sums 
     shall be available for infrastructure projects in 
     Afghanistan, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     which shall be undertaken by the Secretary of State, unless 
     the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense jointly 
     decide that a specific project will be undertaken by the 
     Department of Defense:  Provided further, That the 
     infrastructure referred to in the preceding proviso is in 
     support of the counterinsurgency strategy, requiring funding 
     for facility and infrastructure projects, including, but not 
     limited to, water, power, and transportation projects and 
     related maintenance and sustainment costs:  Provided further, 
     That the authority to undertake such infrastructure projects 
     is in addition to any other authority to provide assistance 
     to foreign nations:  Provided further, That any projects 
     funded by this appropriation shall be jointly formulated and 
     concurred in by the Secretary of State and Secretary of 
     Defense:  Provided further, That funds may be transferred to 
     the Department of State for purposes of undertaking projects, 
     which funds shall be considered to be economic assistance 
     under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for purposes of 
     making available the administrative authorities contained in 
     that Act:  Provided further, That the transfer authority in 
     the preceding proviso is in addition to any other authority 
     available to the Department of Defense to transfer funds:  
     Provided further, That any unexpended funds transferred to 
     the Secretary of State under this authority shall be returned 
     to the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund if the Secretary of 
     State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, 
     determines that the project cannot be implemented for any 
     reason, or that the project no longer supports the 
     counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan:  Provided further, 
     That any funds returned to the Secretary of Defense under the 
     previous proviso shall be available for use under this 
     appropriation and shall be treated in the same manner as 
     funds not transferred to the Secretary of State:  Provided 
     further, That contributions of funds for the purposes 
     provided herein to the Secretary of State in accordance with 
     section 635(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act from any person, 
     foreign government, or international organization may be 
     credited to this Fund, to remain available until expended, 
     and used for such purposes:  Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Defense shall, not fewer than 15 days prior to 
     making transfers to or from, or obligations from the Fund, 
     notify the appropriate committees of Congress in writing of 
     the details of any such transfer:  Provided further, That for 
     the purpose of the section the ``appropriate committees of 
     Congress'' are the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign 
     Relations and Appropriations of the Senate and the Committees 
     on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives: Provided further, That each amount 
     in this paragraph is designated as being for the global war 
     on terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 
     (112th Congress).


                 Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Cohen

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 133, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $200,000,000)''.
       Page 161, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $200,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, the Defense appropriations bill is one of 
our primary funding bills to help protect our country against threats. 
However, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike 
Mullen, correctly said that our national debt is our biggest national 
security threat.
  With that said, finding dollars that can be diverted from lower 
priorities to apply to deficit reduction will indeed make America 
safer. This amendment will reduce funding for the Afghanistan 
Infrastructure Fund by $200 million and return those funds to help 
reduce the deficit. That is $200 million to help reduce the deficit.
  The Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund was established to provide funds 
for infrastructure projects, and some reports also indicate funds could 
be used for other purposes; but, predominantly, they are for 
infrastructure purposes. My amendment does not completely eliminate 
funding. It keeps over $200 million in the infrastructure fund, but it 
reduces it so we can take a serious look at how we can achieve savings 
to reduce the deficit in funds spent overseas that are not being used 
properly and effectively.
  With the death of Osama bin Laden, there is not a need for a large 
U.S. presence in Afghanistan. In fact, the killing of Osama bin Laden 
was the biggest deficit reduction action this country has known if we 
take advantage of that action and act on it to make it into a deficit 
reduction action. We need to rethink our goals and strategy in 
Afghanistan.
  According to the World Bank, 97 percent of Afghanistan's gross 
domestic product is derived from military funding and foreign 
assistance--97 percent. If we build a vast infrastructure in 
Afghanistan, they will not be able to sustain it after we leave. The 
American people should not have to fund that infrastructure while 
sitting in traffic in our own Nation, in gridlock, seeing schools in 
disrepair, hospitals that can't provide services, and watching our own 
infrastructure crumble--infrastructure that can create and does create 
jobs carrying goods to market and providing jobs in America.
  If House rules permitted, I would direct some of these funds toward 
building our own infrastructure. That's what we need to do. But that's 
not the case. The Afghan Government cannot spend all that we are giving 
to it, and our funding is only fueling corruption and profiteering.
  Mr. Poe mentioned Pakistan being third from the bottom ahead of 
Nigeria and another nation. Afghanistan is right there with them. They 
are fighting for the third to last place. Afghanistan is historically a 
corrupt nation, and what fosters corruption is money and the moneys 
that we give them; and 97 percent comes from us. It is going into the 
pockets of people who aren't

[[Page H4657]]

using it to build that infrastructure to help their own people. We are 
fostering corruption. Afghans could build their own infrastructure for 
far less than we are investing.
  We need to pull back some of this funding to focus on our domestic 
priorities, but we need to be concerned about our deficit. Let's keep 
America safe and strong on all fronts.
  I urge my Republican colleagues to join with me in a bipartisan 
effort, stretching from Florida to Tennessee, the width of the 
Southeastern Conference, and Conference U.S.A., I may say as well for 
central Florida. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the AIF, Infrastructure Fund for 
Afghanistan was created by this Congress in the FY 2011 House-passed 
authorization bill. It was again fully authorized in the FY 2012 House-
passed authorization bill. We support the objectives of Operation 
Enduring Freedom, including the Afghan Security Forces Fund. This is a 
counterinsurgency tool that General Petraeus placed the highest 
priority on when he recommended that we create the AIF in place of the 
CERP, the Commanders Emergency Response Program. So we did that. We 
took money from the CERP, put the money into the AIF as part of General 
Petraeus's counterinsurgency program.
  So we think this is not a good amendment, and we are opposed to the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against my colleague from 
Tennessee's amendment.
  General Petraeus testified before the House Armed Services Committee 
and stated that the current counterinsurgency strategy employed by U.S. 
forces and NATO in Afghanistan is seeing success.
  I was there in mid-April; and having been there since 2005 through 
that time frame, the narrative there today is better than it has been 
since I started going over there in 2005. What we are doing there is 
working. The Afghan Infrastructure Fund is key to General Petraeus' 
counterinsurgency campaign as improvements to Afghanistan's 
infrastructure is necessary to obtain support from the local populace. 
General Petraeus' successful counterinsurgency strategy is dependent on 
the local populace and the intelligence they provide.
  Visible development projects increases the Afghan Government's 
legitimacy in relation to the Taliban, especially since these projects 
are conducted in areas vulnerable to Taliban influence. Furthermore, 
economic development increases security in Afghanistan by providing 
jobs for former insurgents and building markets for alternative crops 
to opium, thus reducing corruption.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. The House Armed Services 
Committee has fully authorized this program. The House Appropriations 
Committee has gone through this bill with a fine-tooth comb. They 
believe that these funds will be properly used and properly supervised 
in the building of Afghan infrastructure as we continue to put in place 
the system we need so that when we leave, and we will leave, the Afghan 
people can sustain what we are doing.
  One of the messages I got when I was there in April, unlike some of 
the previous efforts, we will build things to Afghan standards. That is 
not meant to be a pejorative; it is meant to face reality. When you 
build a road to U.S. standards, they cannot maintain that road to U.S. 
standards. But when you build a road to Afghan standards, they can in 
fact maintain that infrastructure. That is the new paradigm that they 
are working off of. Good enough for Afghanistan is not a pejorative; it 
is simply facing a reality that this country is different from the 
United States, and infrastructure projects there will be built to those 
Afghan standards.
  I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2130

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Cicilline

  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 133, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $475,000,000)''.
       Page 161, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $475,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
Afghanistan policy that is funded in the fiscal year 2012 Defense 
appropriations bill. I join the efforts of my colleagues in a variety 
of amendments designed to accelerate the end of the war in Afghanistan.
  For more than 9 years now, our troops have been executing the 
American mission in Afghanistan with bravery, dedication and 
extraordinary competence; but what started out as a ``quick war'' in 
2001 to bring Osama bin Laden to justice and to dismantle al Qaeda in 
Afghanistan has turned into the longest war in United States history. 
The original mission has now been largely accomplished, and with bin 
Laden's death in Pakistan, this provides an opportunity to reexamine 
our ongoing mission in Afghanistan, which some estimates indicate is 
costing us in excess of $8 billion per month.
  We should no longer be sending billions of American taxpayer dollars 
to the Afghan people for their schools, their hospitals, their roads, 
bridges, and police at the expense of making those same investments in 
our own country, especially when the Afghanistan Government, under the 
leadership of President Karzai, has proven itself incredibly corrupt.
  In fact, Transparency International ranked Afghanistan the third most 
corrupt country in the world; and The New York Times recently reported 
about a road construction project, just one example in Afghanistan, 
funded by American taxpayers. It's a 64-mile-long project and is 
expected to cost $176 million to build, which comes to $2.8 million a 
mile. Undisclosed amounts of money have gone to pay off local strongmen 
to buy security while the project is ongoing, and it was reported that 
the people collecting these bribes staged attacks on the construction 
crews in order to make the bribes necessary in the first place.
  With this kind of corruption and many other examples, we simply 
cannot afford to finance the infrastructure projects associated with 
this war. Don't forget, Mr. Chairman, that on top of everything else 
we're not even paying for this war. It's actually being financed on the 
national credit card. These are difficult economic and budgetary times. 
It is time to reassess U.S. involvement in Afghanistan so that we can 
focus on rebuilding our own economy, putting Americans back to work, 
and making sure our Nation can compete in the 21st century.
  That is why I'm offering this amendment today, which will strike $475 
million from the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund. Vital investments to 
our country's economic stability, the education of our children, the 
health of our seniors, and the employment of our workforce have time 
and again been put on the chopping block in this Congress. We're told 
that we can't afford to adequately repair our crumbling infrastructure 
here in America; we're told that Pell Grants and student loans are too 
expensive; and we're told that we need to change the safety nets for 
our Nation's seniors and most vulnerable populations--and in the same

[[Page H4658]]

breath, we're told we should continue to borrow billions and billions 
of dollars for nation-building in Afghanistan. What we really should be 
doing is nation-building right here at home. Instead of building roads 
and bridges and hospitals and schools halfway around the world in 
Afghanistan, we should be investing resources on the urgent needs of 
our own country.
  Budgets are a reflection of our priorities.
  Are we going to pay down our Nation's debt? Are we going to make the 
much needed investments in our own roads and bridges and ports? Are we 
going to protect our seniors? Are we going to ensure that access to 
college remains affordable? If we continue to spend billions and 
billions of dollars in Afghanistan, then we cannot have a balanced 
discussion of these priorities and these choices.
  As we debate the merits of raising the debt ceiling and as we 
consider our domestic priorities, I urge my colleagues to support my 
amendment, which strikes $475 million from nation-building in 
Afghanistan in order to keep those dollars right here at home--to 
invest in our future and to reduce our debt.
  There was a recent report, Mr. Chairman, done by the Eisenhower 
Research Project at Brown University's Watson Institute for 
International Studies just this past week. This group's cost of war 
project has released new figures for a range of costs associated with 
U.S. military responses to September 11, including our activities in 
Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. They project that the wars will cost 
Americans between $3.2- and $4 trillion and cost 225,000 lives.
  It is time to end this spending. It is time to make these investments 
in infrastructure in our own country, and I urge my colleagues to 
support my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. This is pretty much the same debate we just 
had. The difference is that this particular amendment just eliminates 
the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund altogether, and the other amendment 
didn't do that.
  This account, this Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund, was created by 
Congress in the fiscal 11 authorization bill and again in the fiscal 12 
authorization bill--which we just passed a few weeks ago--at the 
request of General Petraeus, who made this one of the most important 
parts of his counterinsurgency strategy. Now, if you don't believe that 
General Petraeus knows what he's talking about, then maybe you should 
vote for this amendment; but those of us who have watched General 
Petraeus skillfully function as the leader in Iraq and there again at 
Central Command and there again in Afghanistan, we believe that this is 
not a good amendment and that it should be defeated, the same as the 
other amendment that we just defeated, so I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CONAWAY. This amendment is very similar to the one we just 
debated except as to the amounts, and it does strike the entire 
infrastructure account. I would like to make a couple of points that I 
didn't make earlier with respect to the previous amendment.
  None of the conversation that I was ever aware of prior to bin 
Laden's death remotely said that the war was over or that the fight was 
over if we killed bin Laden. Had my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle been making that argument from start one, then it might have some 
validity to it; but quite frankly, that was just a marker in this long 
fight against Islamic jihadists and these terrorists.
  The other issue of invoking past costs, or sunk costs, is informative 
as to how we got to this point in time and as to looking at where we go 
from here to when we have all American troops out of there; but how we 
make the intelligent decisions and intelligent investments in 
Afghanistan between now and then is the bigger question. Whatever it 
costs to fight in Afghanistan, whatever it has cost to fight in Iraq 
over the past 8 years or whatever, I understand those are big numbers; 
but we are looking forward as to how we push the Afghan security system 
to a point where they can take care of themselves and, in fact, begin 
to run their country as they should.
  Most of my good colleagues' arguments were better suited for the 
conversation we had in April with reference to the overall budget. That 
budget passed. This amount that we are now going to spend on the 
Department of Defense fits under the discretionary spending cap that we 
put in place by the majority vote of this House back in April. The 
Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations had done their work, allocated 
their amount of moneys across a lot of priorities, said ``no'' to a lot 
of things, and said ``yes'' to this issue. So I rise in opposition to 
my colleague's amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose it 
as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island 
will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Clarke of Michigan

  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 135, line 11, insert before the period at the end the 
     following: ``: Provided  further, That of the funds made 
     available under this heading, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     transfer $236,000,000 to the Secretary of Transportation for 
     the National Infrastructure Investments program''.

  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent 
to waive the reading requirement.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. CLARKE of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. This amendment would shift $236 million from 
the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund and would return that money back to 
the taxpayers of the United States--the U.S. Department of 
Transportation's National Infrastructure Investments program.

                              {time}  2140

  Look, I understand that we're trying to fight terrorism by spending 
all this money in Afghanistan, but the best way to protect the American 
people from terrorist attacks is to repair our roads and bridges, 
secure our ports, help fund secure rapid transit systems so we don't 
have to spend as much money buying foreign oil--and you know that some 
of that money that goes to these foreign countries when we buy oil ends 
up in the hands of terrorists. Let's redirect a share of the money that 
is going to rebuild roads in Afghanistan to build and invest in transit 
in America. Not only is this good for Americans, we're going to pave 
over all these potholes that are damaging our cars. And with rapid 
transit programs, we're going to help provide people who can't afford a 
car--or in my area, in metro Detroit, people can't afford auto 
insurance even though they have good driving records because they're 
red-lined. At least if we transfer some of that money to transit, they 
will have a way to go to work and to other events for leisure.
  But the bottom line is this: If we invest this money in the United 
States as opposed to spending it all in Afghanistan, we're going to 
create jobs here in the United States. That is the best way

[[Page H4659]]

to secure our country--to make sure we put as many people as possible 
here back to work.
  I urge your support on this amendment.
  This amendment would shift $236 million from the Afghanistan 
Infrastructure Fund, AIF, to the Department of Transportation's 
National Infrastructure Investments Program.
  The Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund provides funding for 
infrastructure projects such as water, power and transportation and 
related maintenance and sustainment cost.
  My amendment would cut the amount dedicated to this fund in half. 
While we can agree that this funding is helpful to the Afghan people, I 
believe that we need to invest in nation-building at home at least as 
much as we invest abroad.
  My amendment would restore about half of the funding historically 
given to the National Infrastructure Investments Program, which is 
zeroed out in this bill.
  The National Infrastructure Investments Program awards grants to 
state, local, and transit agencies on a competitive basis for highway, 
bridge, port and rail projects that stand to make a significant 
national or regional impact.
  The Department of Transportation estimates that, for every $1 billion 
invested in Federal highways, more than $6.2 billion in economic 
activity is generated. Spending tax dollars in Afghanistan fails to 
create the same economic multiplier.
  The U.S. has invested approximately $51 billion in reconstruction and 
development for Afghanistan since 2002.
  Our nation faces an ``infrastructure deficit'' as well as a fiscal 
deficit: federal investment in infrastructure has declined as a share 
of GDP over the past fifty years while the cost of building new 
infrastructure has risen.
  A report from the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that 
the nation needs $2.2 trillion dollars of infrastructure expenditure 
over the next 5 years, but less than half that amount has been 
budgeted.
  This is an important issue, and we need to make sure we are taking 
care of our country's infrastructure needs. I hope that we can work 
together to make sure that we have adequate funding for the highway, 
bridge, and port projects that create jobs and further commerce here at 
home. I think that as we reassess our mission in Afghanistan we should 
be able to fund these kinds of important programs and still devote 
significant savings to the deficit.
  However, I understand that the House rules do not allow transfers 
such as are proposed in this amendment, so I will withdraw the 
amendment in the hopes we can work on this issue in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' 
The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to address the point of order?
  The gentleman from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I understand the honorable Representative's 
point of order here.
  You know, if there is anything that is not in order, it's the nature 
of these rules. There are people out here in this country who are 
taxpayers, they don't want to see their money spent or borrowed in 
Afghanistan rebuilding their roads when we have all these potholes 
right here. We should be able to, in this Congress----
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's comments must be confined to the 
point of order.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not debating the 
point of order, and so I insist on the point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting 
direction to transfer funds. The amendment therefore constitutes 
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Afghanistan Security Forces Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the ``Afghanistan Security Forces Fund'', 
     $12,800,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2013: Provided, That such funds shall be available to the 
     Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, for the purpose of allowing the Commander, Combined 
     Security Transition Command--Afghanistan, or the Secretary's 
     designee, to provide assistance, with the concurrence of the 
     Secretary of State, to the security forces of Afghanistan, 
     including the provision of equipment, supplies, services, 
     training, facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, and 
     construction, and funding: Provided further, That the 
     authority to provide assistance under this heading is in 
     addition to any other authority to provide assistance to 
     foreign nations:  Provided further, That up to $15,000,000 of 
     these funds may be available for coalition police trainer 
     life support costs: Provided further, That contributions of 
     funds for the purposes provided herein from any person, 
     foreign government, or international organization may be 
     credited to this Fund and used for such purposes: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify the 
     congressional defense committees in writing upon the receipt 
     and upon the obligation of any contribution, delineating the 
     sources and amounts of the funds received and the specific 
     use of such contributions: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Defense shall, not fewer than 15 days prior to 
     obligating from this appropriation account, notify the 
     congressional defense committees in writing of the details of 
     any such obligation: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Defense shall notify the congressional defense committees of 
     any proposed new projects or transfer of funds between budget 
     sub-activity groups in excess of $20,000,000: Provided 
     further, That each amount in this paragraph is designated as 
     being for the global war on terrorism pursuant to section 301 
     of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress).


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 135, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,000,000,000)''.
       Page 161, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,000,000,000)''.

  Mr. COHEN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
to waive the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Tennessee?
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I do realize the result of this amendment 
probably. There is another Latin phrase besides ``nunc pro tunc,'' 
which is ``morituri te salutant,'' which is basically ``we who are 
about to die salute you.''
  I understand the votes today, and I see them, but I find it hard to 
fathom, with the American public--and my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, who are indeed concerned about the deficit, not going at 
the place where you can really get to the deficit, which is in spending 
in the defense budget. That's Moby-Dick. You don't throw your harpoons 
at a minnow; you throw your harpoon at the whale. This is the whale. 
And Captain Ahab had a good point; you go out there and you see the big 
one, you go for it.
  This would reduce the funds we are giving to the Afghanistan security 
forces by $4 billion. It wouldn't take all of it. It would keep two-
thirds--they would still have two-thirds. It would reduce it by $4 
billion and return those funds to help the deficit. The $12.8 billion 
that is currently allocated to this fund is nearly equivalent to the 
entire GPD of Afghanistan. Their GPD is $14 billion to $16 billion. 
Let's understand this, Mr. Chairman: We are giving the Afghanistan 
people their entire GDP, and we're borrowing it from China and other 
places. This makes no sense. We need to go after the big whale.
  Six times the total annual revenue of the Afghan Government--which is 
approximately $1.5 billion--is what we're giving them. I understand 
these funds are to be used to provide assistance to the security forces 
of Afghanistan, including training and providing equipment, supplies, 
and services. Well, I have seen soldiers killed over there, my 
constituents that were killed by Afghanistan soldiers that we trained. 
We don't know which ones are Taliban and which ones are going to turn 
on us, and we're training them and giving them weapons.

[[Page H4660]]

  Roughly $6 billion of the $12.8 billion is for salaries and benefits. 
In light of the President's announcement of withdrawing troops from 
Afghanistan, we need to make reductions all around, and that includes 
reduction for these security forces. This country could not, should not 
fund the structure that the Afghanistan Government cannot fund and at a 
time when we need to take a look at our deficit.
  Now I have heard General Petraeus' name over there. I'm a fan of 
General Petraeus too, but he's sometimes wrong. He's sometimes wrong. 
And I think he was for us supporting the President in Libya. And some 
of the folks over there that are so supportive of General Petraeus 
weren't so supportive of General Petraeus then. So they understand he's 
not always right, and he's not right on these funds either. These 
troops are not going to be trained in a way that they're going to be 
able to sustain the forces. They're not going to use the weapons, 
they're not going to be able to supply them. It's going to be a waste.
  General Mike Mullen talked about our debt being our biggest security 
threat, and accordingly we need to readjust our priorities and find 
realistic ways to reduce our deficit. This is a way we can do it and 
save $4 billion--still give them $8.8 billion. It's plenty. I'd like to 
see it all cut, but I realize that's not realistic. But we are pulling 
out. We're not going to be able to train those troops to where they're 
going to be able to maintain the funds to pay those troops in the 
future. Most of it is salaries, and when we're gone they're not going 
to have the salaries.
  I've been to Afghanistan, you've been to Afghanistan. It is beyond 
Third World--it's Fourth World, and we're giving them the last of our 
dollars. If you really, really, really, really care about reducing the 
deficit, you've got to go for the whale, you've got to go for the 
defense budget. And just giving this money to Afghanistan is I think a 
dereliction of duty.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, as we speak, our marines, 
soldiers, sailors, and airmen are fighting for freedom in some of the 
toughest places imaginable. A vote for this resolution is a vote to 
pull the support out from under our troops and to leave a legacy of 
failure in Afghanistan. I urge against supporting this amendment.
  Although I applaud the bravery and skill of the personnel who brought 
Osama bin Laden to justice, it is important to remember that this is 
not justification to abandon our efforts to increase the security in 
Afghanistan. The men and women of our military are working tirelessly 
to increase the proficiency of Afghan security forces, but to 
transition lead responsibility for security to them is irresponsible at 
this time. The Afghan security forces did not suddenly become more 
proficient because of the death of Osama bin Laden. I am strongly 
supportive of transitioning responsibility to the Afghan security 
forces, but only when they are fully prepared to assume that 
responsibility.

                              {time}  2150

  I agree that nation-building should not be a principal tool for 
achieving America's national security objectives. Such campaigns are 
too expensive in both blood and treasure, particularly given the 
circumstances our Nation currently faces. However, this is not an 
excuse to negate the sacrifices our troops have made or the progress 
they have won in Afghanistan.
  I believe that establishing an arbitrary time line for withdrawal 
will actually hobble any efforts for a political reconciliation with 
the Taliban. If they are certain that our forces are leaving before the 
currently planned transition time line of 2014, they lose all incentive 
to work with us and the Afghan Government on a political solution.
  What this amendment, in fact, does, though, is cuts off funding for 
the development of Afghan security forces. Our entire exit strategy is 
based on developing Afghan security forces so that they are strong 
enough to allow us to pull our forces out to complete a transition 
whereby they assume operational control by 2014.
  Mr. COHEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COHEN. Half of the money we give them is for salaries. When we 
pull out, we don't pay the salaries. Their budget is only like 15 
percent of everything we give them. They can't pay the salaries. They 
can't borrow from China. So what's going to happen then?
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. We have three security objectives in 
Afghanistan. The first is to make sure the Taliban don't take over the 
entire country. The second is to keep al Qaeda out of the country. And 
the third is to have a permissive environment from which we can strike 
targets in Pakistan at will, as we did with Osama bin Laden.
  Cutting the legs under the current strategy of giving them the 
capability of standing up their own security forces completely 
undermines where we are right now and undermines the President's goals 
of being able to do that transfer of operational control by 2014.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. First, I want to compliment the gentleman from 
Colorado for having made a very, very eloquent statement that really is 
factual and gets right to the point. But the reason I rise also is 
earlier in the day, just in case there are Members here tonight that 
weren't there early today, I did suggest that I might say this again 
and again and again during this debate. This subcommittee that 
recommends this bill in a very nonpolitical way, in a very careful way, 
reviewed and analyzed all of the requests that we had from the 
administration in the President's budget request for fiscal year 2012 
appropriations for national defense.
  The original recommendation, we reduced by $9 billion, and I think 
that is larger than the gentleman's whale, but it is a substantial cut 
and it was made without any regard to politics. We were extremely 
careful not to affect the war fighter. We were extremely careful not to 
affect our Nation's readiness. This is not a good amendment, and I 
oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COHEN. I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Holt

  Mr. HOLT. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 135, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $35,000,000)''.
       Page 146, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It reduces the Afghan 
Security Forces account by about 1 part in 500, one five-hundredth, in 
order to increase the Defense Health Program account by $20 million to 
save soldiers' lives. It will give the Pentagon a much-needed infusion 
of funds to address a serious gap in our military's suicide prevention.
  I learned about this gap through the tragedy of a young constituent 
from New Jersey who fell through the cracks. He took his own life in 
September of 2008. But it is not just one soldier. We have a broad 
problem here. In each of the past 2 years, more American soldiers have 
died at their own hands than have been killed in war fighting.
  Coleman Bean of East Brunswick, New Jersey, attended East Brunswick 
public schools, he enlisted in the Army

[[Page H4661]]

in 2001, and he attended Airborne school at Fort Benning. His first 
assignment with the 173rd Airborne was in Italy. In 2003, he and the 
rest of the 173rd conducted a combat jump into Iraq.
  Like many of his buddies, he saw the horrors of war firsthand, and, 
like some, he sought treatment from the VA for his diagnosed post-
traumatic stress disorder when he returned home in 2004. He was 
honorably discharged from active duty in 2005, and, like other Army 
members, Coleman Bean still had 4 years of reserve duty commitment 
through what is known as the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) program. He 
was recalled to duty in Iraq in 2007 through the IRR and was assigned 
to serve in northern Iraq. When he returned to New Jersey the following 
year, he was still suffering from the symptoms of PTSD but managed to 
conceal his condition from even those closest to him. No one reached 
out to him. Tragically, he took his own life in September 2008. 
Ironically, tragically, a few weeks after Coleman took his life, the VA 
called to say that his appointment was ready.
  Two Federal agencies charged with helping prevent suicides among our 
returning soldiers utterly failed this soldier and his family. Indeed, 
earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit Court, siding with two veterans 
groups that sued the Department of Veterans Affairs for failing to 
provide timely care for veterans at risk of suicide, noted that an 
average of 18 veterans per day take their own lives. We must stop this 
epidemic. This amendment will help. We can't allow another family to 
lose a son or a daughter, a father or a mother, a husband or a wife 
because of buck-passing.
  When I investigated Coleman Bean's tragedy, the VA confirmed that 
they don't offer dedicated suicide prevention programs for members of 
the IRR. They consider that a DOD responsibility. The DOD officials at 
TRICARE said that treating IRR members is the VA's problem. Simply 
stated, if you are a member of the Individual Ready Reserve suffering 
from PTSD, you're on your own.
  The same problem applies to other categories of reservists, such as 
the Individual Mobilization Augmentees (IMAs), and the members of the 
Inactive National Guard (ING). According to the Defense Department, 
there are at least 123,000 IRR, IMA, and ING members who have done at 
least one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan.
  My amendment would give the Secretary of Defense the funding needed 
to expand the suicide prevention outreach program to ensure that 
members of these reserve units who have served a tour in Iraq or 
Afghanistan will receive a call from a properly trained counselor not 
less than once every 90 days so long as the servicemember remains in 
the IRR, the IMA or the ING. In these calls, the trained counselor 
would be required to determine the emotional, psychological, mental, 
medical and career needs and concerns of the reservist. Covered 
reservists identified as being at risk would be immediately referred to 
the nearest military treatment facility.
  I have discussed this program with the Pentagon. The Undersecretary 
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Dr. Stanley, assures me that 
the Department has more than adequate legal authority to carry this 
out. What he needs is funding, and my amendment would provide that 
funding.
  When we get the word out about these counseling services, we save 
lives. This amendment is budget neutral, it is vitally needed, and I 
ask my colleagues to support it.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in support of the amendment, and urge that we 
accept it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. We will accept the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Clarke of Michigan

  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 136, line 23, insert before the period at the end the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available under this heading, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     transfer $2,000,000,000 to the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     to increase funds available for the State Homeland Security 
     Grant Program under section 2004 of the Homeland Security Act 
     of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 605)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. CLARKE of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. This amendment redirects $2 billion from 
Afghanistan Security Forces to the State Homeland Security Grants 
Program (SHSP).
  My amendment makes sure that the Afghanistan Security Forces aren't 
funded at the expense of our country's Homeland Security efforts.
  The State Homeland Security Grants Program ensures that states have 
strategies in place to protect, respond to, and recover from acts of 
terrorism and other catastrophic events.
  State Homeland Security Grants Program was cut dramatically in the FY 
'12 Homeland Security Appropriations bill and was underfunded in the FY 
'11 bill. This amendment would restore grant funding to the FY '10 
level to make sure our first responders have the resources they need to 
keep our communities safe.
  My amendment does not jeopardize the training and equipping of the 
Afghanistan Security Forces. Even with my amendment, the Afghanistan 
Security Forces Fund is funded above the FY '10 level of $9.1 billion.
  This is an important issue, and we need to make sure we are taking 
care of our country's homeland security needs. I hope that we can work 
together to make sure that we have adequate funding for protecting 
ourselves from terrorism and catastrophic events. I think that as we 
reassess our mission in Afghanistan we should be able to fund these 
kinds of important programs and still devote significant savings to the 
deficit.
  However, I understand that the House rules do not allow transfers 
such as are proposed in this amendment, so I will withdraw the 
amendment in the hopes we can work on this issue in the future.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general 
appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The 
amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does another Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I would like to speak on the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is pending.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I would like to speak on the point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. This bill, this amendment which transfers 
money from the Afghanistan Security Forces to Homeland Security, it 
better supports existing law, better supports this defense budget 
because it better protects the American people, less money by funding 
police and fire as opposed to blowing all that money in Afghanistan.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman must confine his remarks to the point 
of order.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Again the gentleman is discussing the amendment 
and not the point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will hear Members on the point of order.
  The Chair is prepared to rule.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chair, just to clarify.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. In order to explain my position on the point 
of

[[Page H4662]]

order, I had to explain the merits of this amendment. This Defense 
budget is about protecting the American people. I'm saying redirect the 
money to Homeland Security.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will confine his remarks to the point 
of order.
  The Chair is prepared to rule. For the reasons stated in the previous 
ruling, the amendment violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order 
is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I made this announcement earlier in the day that 
I would allow the Member to have the 5 minutes to speak on the 
amendment even though it was subject to a point of order, if that 
courtesy was not abused. In recent points of order, that courtesy has 
been abused.
  I will continue to show that courtesy to Members who do not abuse 
their 5 minutes and who do not abuse the point of order.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. As a new Member in this body, I have the 
utmost respect for this institution and to the chair. And to the extent 
that I appeared to be out of bounds, I do apologize.
  It's the fact that this country is in crisis. We have a huge debt. We 
have so many people that need jobs. And since the budget resolution was 
passed, April 15, Osama bin Laden was captured and killed, and that 
provided us with an opportunity to reassess our mission in Afghanistan.
  I want us to take a little share of our money that we're spending in 
Afghanistan and return it here to protect the American people, and also 
take the remainder of the savings to pay down our debt.
  And I do understand what the rules provide. It is just, Mr. Chair, in 
closing, I believe these rules are old and out of date. We need to, in 
this House, respond more quickly and nimbly and more effectively on 
behalf of the American people.
  And my closing point is this. We've spent over $50 billion in 
economic aid to Afghanistan. Let's take a share of that money, redirect 
it back home, create jobs here by repairing our roads and bridges. I 
understand that we don't want to have safe havens for terrorists around 
the world like Afghanistan. The best way to protect the American people 
is invest in homeland security, help fund our police and firefighters. 
They don't have the equipment that they need. The communication and 
radios with which they can talk to each other, they can share 
information.
  And also, too, I believe it's the duty of this Congress to find a way 
to provide more equipment in funding for police and fire because this 
Congress in the past had failed to effectively address the foreclosure 
crisis which really dropped property values so our local units of 
government don't have the revenue to hire more police and fire.
  So saying that, I want to say to the chairman that I respect your 
position; I respect this institution. I'm here trying to fight for my 
people I represent in metro Detroit and return American tax dollars 
back to Americans to create jobs here and to protect Americans here at 
home.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the ``Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund'', 
     $1,100,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013: 
     Provided, That such funds shall be available to the Secretary 
     of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purpose 
     of allowing the Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary's 
     designee, to provide assistance to Pakistan's security 
     forces; including program management and the provision of 
     equipment, supplies, services, training, and funds; and 
     facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, and 
     construction to build the counterinsurgency capability of 
     Pakistan's military and Frontier Corps: Provided further, 
     That the authority to provide assistance under this provision 
     is in addition to any other authority to provide assistance 
     to foreign nations: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Defense may transfer funds provided herein to appropriations 
     for operation and maintenance; procurement; research, 
     development, test and evaluation; defense working capital 
     funds; and to the Department of State, Pakistan 
     Counterinsurgency Capability Fund to accomplish the purpose 
     provided herein: Provided further, That the transfer 
     authority in the preceding proviso is in addition to any 
     other authority available to the Department of Defense to 
     transfer funds: Provided further, That funds so transferred 
     shall be merged with and be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriation or fund to 
     which transferred: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Defense shall, not fewer than 15 days prior to making 
     transfers from this appropriation account, notify the 
     Committees on Appropriations in writing of the details of any 
     such transfer: Provided further, That each amount in this 
     paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

  Mr. POE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 137, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000,000)''.
       Page 161, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000,000)''.

  Mr. POE of Texas (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent to 
waive the reading of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief.
  I had my argument on the other $1 billion that I asked to be deducted 
from the reimbursement account to be sent to the spending reduction 
account.
  This is a separate fund that also gives money to Pakistan, over a 
billion dollars. I'm asking that a billion dollars of that fund that 
goes into counterinsurgency also be sent to the spending reduction 
account.
  There are several reasons for that, but the main one is the Pakistan 
Government is correct: we don't know where the money is going. We found 
out that after we took out Osama bin Laden, in that compound we found 
documents that revealed discussions of promises of no al Qaeda attacks 
in Pakistan in exchange for sheltering Osama bin Laden.
  That's the type of things that we wonder about whether Pakistan is on 
our side or on the side of our enemies. We don't know whose side 
they're on. So I'd ask the adoption of our amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the final word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman from California for any comments he may 
have.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the goals of 
this amendment which are to demand accountability from a nation that 
until recently has been one of our good friends.
  Pakistan has faced serious problems throughout its history, and the 
United States has played a leading role in helping stabilize that 
troubled nation. We have spent billions and billion of dollars in 
military support and billions and billions more in economic assistance. 
We have worked as close as we can with Pakistan's military and 
intelligence agencies in order to stabilize the border region near 
Afghanistan where al Qaeda and the Taliban are trying to overthrow both 
Afghanistan and the Pakistan governments.
  It is therefore hard to express the anger and frustration of all 
Americans when we discovered that Osama bin Laden, the man who had 
engineered the death of thousands on American soil, was living in 
comfort just a short drive from Islamabad. And we have asked in vain 
how this could occur. Rather than help us get to the bottom of how this 
international criminal could live for years within blocks of their 
military school, we received protests from Pakistani officials that our 
brave Special Forces captured and killed bin Laden under their noses.

                              {time}  2210

  But, Mr. Chairman, what has really outraged me and many of my 
colleagues is that the Pakistanis have had

[[Page H4663]]

the audacity to arrest and detain the informants who helped us bring 
this ultimate terrorist to justice. It is almost too much to take, and 
it is time that we made it clear to the Pakistanis that our friendship 
is at the breaking point. For this reason, I am convinced that we must 
carefully scrutinize every dollar that we are spending in Pakistan in 
this bill, and especially in the Foreign Operations bill.
  And, Mr. Chairman, while I want to support Chairman Young and the 
work of Mr. Dicks, as well as the rest of my colleagues on this 
committee, I do want to serve notice that as we go forward and I am 
able to gather more information, I could very well be presenting a very 
similar amendment in the Foreign Operations bill. It is high time that 
we get the answers that we seek here and know really which friends are 
truly our friends.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I continue to be opposed, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that the 
Pakistanis are a troubled ally. They are an unstable Islamic country 
with extremist tendencies and a country that has nuclear weapons. The 
funding that we are talking about right now is that which is for 
training them in counterinsurgency operations.
  We have troops in combat at this time in Afghanistan. The Taliban, 
the Afghan Taliban who are fighting our forces in the field oftentimes 
have sanctuary in Pakistan. We are trying to stand up a Pakistani 
military that is not simply exclusively engaged or exclusively focused 
on a conventional war with India but is able to launch 
counterinsurgency operations, particularly in the Federally 
Administered Tribal Areas. I think this funding is critical so long as 
we have troops in the field in Afghanistan that we seek to maintain, or 
certainly increase the capability of the Pakistani military 
counterinsurgency operations.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and 
would urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              PROCUREMENT

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, 
     Army'', $387,900,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2014: Provided, That each amount in this paragraph is 
     designated as being for the global war on terrorism pursuant 
     to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress).

                       Missile Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Missile Procurement, Army'', 
     $118,412,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014: 
     Provided, That each amount in this paragraph is designated as 
     being for the global war on terrorism pursuant to section 301 
     of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress).

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Weapons and 
     Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'', $37,117,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2014: Provided, That each 
     amount in this paragraph is designated as being for the 
     global war on terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. 
     Res. 34 (112th Congress).

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
     Army'', $208,381,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2014: Provided, That each amount in this paragraph is 
     designated as being for the global war on terrorism pursuant 
     to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress).

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army'', 
     $1,398,195,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014: 
     Provided, That each amount in this paragraph is designated as 
     being for the global war on terrorism pursuant to section 301 
     of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress).

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, 
     Navy'', $492,060,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2014: Provided, That each amount in this paragraph is 
     designated as being for the global war on terrorism pursuant 
     to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress).

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Weapons Procurement, Navy'', 
     $41,070,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014: 
     Provided, That each amount in this paragraph is designated as 
     being for the global war on terrorism pursuant to section 301 
     of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress).

            Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
     Navy and Marine Corps'', $317,100,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2014: Provided, That each amount in this 
     paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).

                        Other Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Navy'', 
     $249,514,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014: 
     Provided, That each amount in this paragraph is designated as 
     being for the global war on terrorism pursuant to section 301 
     of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress).

                       Procurement, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Marine Corps'', 
     $1,183,996,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014: 
     Provided, That each amount in this paragraph is designated as 
     being for the global war on terrorism pursuant to section 301 
     of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress).

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $440,265,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2014: Provided, That each amount in this paragraph is 
     designated as being for the global war on terrorism pursuant 
     to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress).

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Missile Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $46,920,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2014: Provided, That each amount in this paragraph is 
     designated as being for the global war on terrorism pursuant 
     to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress).

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
     Air Force'', $139,510,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2014: Provided, That each amount in this 
     paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $3,213,010,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2014: Provided, That each amount in this paragraph is 
     designated as being for the global war on terrorism pursuant 
     to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress).

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', 
     $406,668,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014: 
     Provided, That each amount in this paragraph is designated as 
     being for the global war on terrorism pursuant to section 301 
     of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress).

                  National Guard and Reserve Equipment

       For procurement of aircraft, missiles, tracked combat 
     vehicles, ammunition, other weapons and other procurement for 
     the reserve components of the Armed Forces, $1,500,000,000, 
     to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2014, 
     of which $490,000,000 shall be available only for the Army 
     National Guard:  Provided, That the Chiefs of National Guard 
     and Reserve components shall, not later than 30 days after 
     the enactment of this Act, individually submit to the 
     congressional defense committees the modernization priority 
     assessment for their respective National Guard or Reserve 
     component: Provided further, That each amount in this 
     paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).

              Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund, 
     $3,195,170,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013: 
     Provided, That such funds shall be available to the Secretary 
     of Defense, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to 
     procure, sustain, transport, and field Mine Resistant Ambush 
     Protected vehicles: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     shall transfer such funds only to appropriations made 
     available in this or any other Act for operation and 
     maintenance; procurement; research, development, test and 
     evaluation; and defense working capital funds to accomplish 
     the purpose provided herein: Provided further, That such 
     funds transferred shall be merged with and be available for 
     the same purposes and the same time period as the 
     appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That 
     this transfer authority is in addition to any other transfer 
     authority available to the Department of Defense: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary shall, not fewer than 10 days 
     prior to making transfers from this appropriation, notify the 
     congressional defense committees

[[Page H4664]]

     in writing of the details of any such transfer: Provided 
     further, That each amount in this paragraph is designated as 
     being for the global war on terrorism pursuant to section 301 
     of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress).

              RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Army'', $8,513,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2013: Provided, That each amount in this 
     paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Navy'', $53,884,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2013: Provided, That each amount in this 
     paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).

         Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Air Force'', $182,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2013: Provided, That each 
     amount in this paragraph is designated as being for the 
     global war on terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. 
     Res. 34 (112th Congress).

        Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $192,361,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2013: Provided, That each 
     amount in this paragraph is designated as being for the 
     global war on terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. 
     Res. 34 (112th Congress).

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                     Defense Working Capital Funds

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Working Capital 
     Funds'', $435,013,000: Provided, That each amount in this 
     paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         Defense Health Program

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program'', 
     $1,228,288,000, which shall be for operation and maintenance: 
     Provided, That each amount in this paragraph is designated as 
     being for the global war on terrorism pursuant to section 301 
     of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th Congress).

             Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities

       For an additional amount for ``Drug Interdiction and 
     Counter-Drug Activities'', $469,458,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2013:  Provided, That each amount in this 
     paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).

             Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Joint Improvised Explosive 
     Device Defeat Fund'', $2,577,500,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2014:  Provided, That such funds shall be 
     available to the Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, for the purpose of allowing the 
     Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
     Organization to investigate, develop and provide equipment, 
     supplies, services, training, facilities, personnel and funds 
     to assist United States forces in the defeat of improvised 
     explosive devices:  Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Defense may transfer funds provided herein to appropriations 
     for military personnel; operation and maintenance; 
     procurement; research, development, test and evaluation; and 
     defense working capital funds to accomplish the purpose 
     provided herein:  Provided further, That this transfer 
     authority is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     available to the Department of Defense:  Provided further, 
     That the Secretary of Defense shall, not fewer than 15 days 
     prior to making transfers from this appropriation, notify the 
     congressional defense committees in writing of the details of 
     any such transfer: Provided further, That each amount in this 
     paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For an additional amount for the ``Office of the Inspector 
     General'', $11,055,000: Provided, That each amount in this 
     paragraph is designated as being for the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 301 of H. Con. Res. 34 (112th 
     Congress).

                     GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS TITLE

       Sec. 9001.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds made available in this title are in addition to amounts 
     appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department 
     of Defense for 2012.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 9002.  Upon the determination of the Secretary of 
     Defense that such action is necessary in the national 
     interest, the Secretary may, with the approval of the Office 
     of Management and Budget, transfer up to $3,000,000,000 
     between the appropriations or funds made available to the 
     Department of Defense in this title: Provided, That the 
     Secretary shall notify the Congress promptly of each transfer 
     made pursuant to the authority in this section: Provided 
     further, That the authority provided in this section is in 
     addition to any other transfer authority available to the 
     Department of Defense and is subject to the same terms and 
     conditions as the authority provided in the Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Act, 2012.
       Sec. 9003.  Supervision and administration costs associated 
     with a construction project funded with appropriations 
     available for operation and maintenance, ``Afghanistan 
     Infrastructure Fund'' or the ``Afghanistan Security Forces 
     Fund'' provided in this Act and executed in direct support of 
     overseas contingency operations in Afghanistan, may be 
     obligated at the time a construction contract is awarded: 
     Provided, That for the purpose of this section, supervision 
     and administration costs include all in-house Government 
     costs.
       Sec. 9004.  From funds made available in this title, the 
     Secretary of Defense may purchase for use by military and 
     civilian employees of the Department of Defense in the U. S. 
     Central Command area of responsibility: (a) passenger motor 
     vehicles up to a limit of $75,000 per vehicle and (b) heavy 
     and light armored vehicles for the physical security of 
     personnel or for force protection purposes up to a limit of 
     $250,000 per vehicle, notwithstanding price or other 
     limitations applicable to the purchase of passenger carrying 
     vehicles.
       Sec. 9005.  Not to exceed $400,000,000 of the amount 
     appropriated in this title under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Army'' may be used, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, to fund the Commander's Emergency Response 
     Program (CERP), for the purpose of enabling military 
     commanders in Afghanistan to respond to urgent, small scale, 
     humanitarian relief and reconstruction requirements within 
     their areas of responsibility:  Provided, That each project 
     (including any ancillary or related elements in connection 
     with such project) executed under this authority shall not 
     exceed $20,000,000:  Provided further, That not later than 45 
     days after the end of each fiscal year quarter, the Secretary 
     of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees a report regarding the source of funds and the 
     allocation and use of funds during that quarter that were 
     made available pursuant to the authority provided in this 
     section or under any other provision of law for the purposes 
     described herein:  Provided further, That, not later than 30 
     days after the end of each month, the Army shall submit to 
     the congressional defense committees monthly commitment, 
     obligation, and expenditure data for the Commander's 
     Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan:  Provided further, 
     That not less than 15 days before making funds available 
     pursuant to the authority provided in this section or under 
     any other provision of law for the purposes described herein 
     for a project with a total anticipated cost for completion of 
     $5,000,000 or more, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a written notice containing 
     each of the following:
       (1) The location, nature and purpose of the proposed 
     project, including how the project is intended to advance the 
     military campaign plan for the country in which it is to be 
     carried out.
       (2) The budget, implementation timeline with milestones, 
     and completion date for the proposed project, including any 
     other CERP funding that has been or is anticipated to be 
     contributed to the completion of the project.
       (3) A plan for the sustainment of the proposed project, 
     including the agreement with either the host nation, a non-
     Department of Defense agency of the United States Government 
     or a third party contributor to finance the sustainment of 
     the activities and maintenance of any equipment or facilities 
     to be provided through the proposed project.
       Sec. 9006.  Funds available to the Department of Defense 
     for operation and maintenance may be used, notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, to provide supplies, services, 
     transportation, including airlift and sealift, and other 
     logistical support to coalition forces supporting military 
     and stability operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: Provided, 
     That the Secretary of Defense shall provide quarterly reports 
     to the congressional defense committees regarding support 
     provided under this section.
       Sec. 9007.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this or any other Act shall be obligated or 
     expended by the United States Government for a purpose as 
     follows:
       (1) To establish any military installation or base for the 
     purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United 
     States Armed Forces in Iraq.
       (2) To exercise United States control over any oil resource 
     of Iraq.
       (3) To establish any military installation or base for the 
     purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United 
     States Armed Forces in Afghanistan.
       Sec. 9008.  None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used in contravention of the following laws enacted or 
     regulations promulgated to implement the United Nations 
     Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 
     Degrading Treatment or Punishment (done at New York on 
     December 10, 1984):
       (1) Section 2340A of title 18, United States Code.

[[Page H4665]]

       (2) Section 2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
     Restructuring Act of 1998 (division G of Public Law 105-277; 
     112 Stat. 2681-822; 8 U.S.C. 1231 note) and regulations 
     prescribed thereto, including regulations under part 208 of 
     title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, and part 95 of title 
     22, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (3) Sections 1002 and 1003 of the Department of Defense, 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes 
     in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 
     (Public Law 109-148).
       Sec. 9009. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees not later than 45 days after 
     the end of each fiscal quarter a report on the proposed use 
     of all funds appropriated by this or any prior Act under each 
     of the headings Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, Afghanistan 
     Infrastructure Fund, and Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund on a 
     project-by-project basis, for which the obligation of funds 
     is anticipated during the 3-month period from such date, 
     including estimates for the accounts referred to in this 
     section of the costs required to complete each such project.
       (b) The report required by this subsection shall include 
     the following:
       (1) The use of all funds on a project-by-project basis for 
     which funds appropriated under the headings referred to in 
     subsection (a) were obligated prior to the submission of the 
     report, including estimates for the accounts referred to in 
     subsection (a) of the costs to complete each project.
       (2) The use of all funds on a project-by-project basis for 
     which funds were appropriated under the headings referred to 
     in subsection (a) in prior appropriations Acts, or for which 
     funds were made available by transfer, reprogramming, or 
     allocation from other headings in prior appropriations Acts, 
     including estimates for the accounts referred to in 
     subsection (a) of the costs to complete each project.
       (3) An estimated total cost to train and equip the 
     Afghanistan and Pakistan security forces, disaggregated by 
     major program and sub-elements by force, arrayed by fiscal 
     year.
       Sec. 9010. (a) Funding for Outreach and Reintegration 
     Services Under Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program.--Of the 
     amounts appropriated or otherwise made available by title IX, 
     up to $20,000,000 may be available for outreach and 
     reintegration services under the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration 
     Program under section 582(h) of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 
     122 Stat. 125; 10 U.S.C. 10101 note).
       (b) Supplement Not Supplant.--The amount made available by 
     subsection (a) for the services described in that subsection 
     is in addition to any other amounts available in this Act for 
     such services.
       Sec. 9011.  Funds made available in this title to the 
     Department of Defense for operation and maintenance may be 
     used to purchase items having an investment unit cost of not 
     more than $250,000: Provided, That, upon determination by the 
     Secretary of Defense that such action is necessary to meet 
     the operational requirements of a Commander of a Combatant 
     Command engaged in contingency operations overseas, such 
     funds may be used to purchase items having an investment item 
     unit cost of not more than $500,000.
       Sec. 9012. (a) The Task Force for Business and Stability 
     Operations in Afghanistan may, subject to the direction and 
     control of the Secretary of Defense and with the concurrence 
     of the Secretary of State, carry out projects in fiscal year 
     2012 to assist the commander of the United States Central 
     Command in developing a link between United States military 
     operations in Afghanistan under Operation Enduring Freedom 
     and the economic elements of United States national power in 
     order to reduce violence, enhance stability, and restore 
     economic normalcy in Afghanistan through strategic business 
     and economic opportunities.
       (b) The projects carried out under paragraph (a) may 
     include projects that facilitate private investment, 
     industrial development, banking and financial system 
     development, agricultural diversification and revitalization, 
     and energy development in and with respect to Afghanistan.
       (c) The Secretary may use up to $150,000,000 of the funds 
     available for overseas contingency operations in ``Operation 
     and Maintenance, Army'' for additional activities to carry 
     out projects under paragraph (a).
       Sec. 9013.  From funds made available in this title to the 
     Department of Defense for operation and maintenance, up to 
     $524,000,000 may be used by the Secretary of Defense, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, to support the 
     United States Government transition activities in Iraq by 
     undertaking facilities renovation and construction associated 
     with establishing Office of Security Cooperation locations, 
     at no more than ten sites, in Iraq:  Provided, That not less 
     than 15 days before making funds available pursuant to the 
     authority provided in this section, the Secretary shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a written 
     notice containing a detailed justification and timeline for 
     each proposed site and the source of funds.
       Sec. 9014. (a) Not more than 85 percent of the funds 
     provided in this title for operation and maintenance may be 
     available for obligation or expenditure until the date on 
     which the Secretary of Defense submits the report under 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report on contractor 
     employees in the United States Central Command, including--
       (1) the number of employees of a contractor awarded a 
     contract by the Department of Defense (including 
     subcontractor employees) who are employed at the time of the 
     report in the area of operations of the United States Central 
     Command, including a list of the number of such employees in 
     each of Iraq, Afghanistan, and all other areas of operations 
     of the United States Central Command; and
       (2) for each fiscal year quarter beginning on the date of 
     the report and ending on September 30, 2012--
       (A) the number of such employees planned by the Secretary 
     to be employed during each such period in each of Iraq, 
     Afghanistan, and all other areas of operations of the United 
     States Central Command; and
       (B) an explanation of how the number of such employees 
     listed under subparagraph (A) relates to the planned number 
     of military personnel in such locations.
       Sec. 9015.  Of the amounts appropriated or transferred to 
     the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (hereafter in this 
     subsection referred to as the `Fund') for any fiscal year 
     after fiscal year 2011--
       (1) not more than 25 percent of such amounts may be 
     obligated or expended until such time as the Secretary of 
     Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State--
       (A) submits to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     report on the strategy to utilize the Fund and the metrics 
     used to determine progress with respect to the Fund; and
       (B) notifies the appropriate congressional committees of 
     the intent of the Secretary to obligate or expend amounts 
     that are in excess of such 25 percent and a period of 30 days 
     has elapsed following such notification.
       (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     amounts described in the matter preceding paragraph (1) shall 
     be available for reprogramming.
       (3) Such report shall include, at a minimum, the following:
       (A) A discussion of United States strategic objectives in 
     Pakistan.
       (B) A listing of the terrorist or extremist organizations 
     in Pakistan opposing United States goals in the region and 
     against which the United States encourages Pakistan to take 
     action.
       (C) A discussion of the gaps in capabilities of Pakistani 
     security units that hamper the ability of the Government of 
     Pakistan to take action against the organizations listed in 
     subparagraph (B).
       (D) A discussion of how assistance provided utilizing the 
     Fund will address the gaps in capabilities listed in 
     subparagraph (C).
       (E) A discussion of other efforts undertaken by other 
     United States Government departments and agencies to address 
     the gaps in capabilities listed in subparagraph (C) or 
     complementary activities of the Department of Defense and how 
     those efforts are coordinated with the activities undertaken 
     to utilize the Fund.
       (F) Metrics that will be used to track progress in 
     achieving the United States strategic objectives in Pakistan, 
     to track progress of the Government of Pakistan in combating 
     the organizations listed in subparagraph (B), and to address 
     the gaps in capabilities listed in subparagraph (C).
       Sec. 9016. (a) Not to exceed $176,575,000 from amounts made 
     available to the Department of Defense in this Act or any 
     other Act for fiscal year 2012 may be obligated for 
     information operations or military information support 
     operations: Provided, That such amount is to be derived from 
     the amounts provided in title IX of this Act for the 
     following accounts in this title as follows:
       ``Operations and Maintenance, Army'', $104,675,000;
       ``Operations and Maintenance, Navy'', $1,200,000;
       ``Operations and Maintenance, Air Force'', $20,400,000; and
       ``Operations and Maintenance, Defense Wide'', $50,300,000.
       (b) Such amounts are to be allocated only in accordance 
     with the direction and for the purposes specified in the 
     classified annex accompanying this Act.

                             (rescissions)

       Sec. 9017.  Of the funds appropriated in Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Acts, the following funds are hereby 
     rescinded from the following account in the specified amount:
       ``Mine Resistant Ambush Protection Vehicle Fund'', 2011/
     2013, $595,000,000.

                              {time}  2220

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 161, line 4, be 
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page H4666]]

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS


                       spending reduction account

       Sec. 10001. The amount by which the applicable allocation 
     of new budget authority made by the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives under section 
     302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the 
     amount of proposed new budget authority is $0.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. McCollum

  Ms. McCOLLUM. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The total amount of appropriations made available 
     by this Act is hereby reduced by $124,800,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It cuts $124.8 
million from the overall bill. For my colleagues who say they are 
committed to deficit reduction, this is your chance to prove it.
  This amendment reduces government spending while protecting the 
Pentagon's national security mission by reducing the funding for 
military bands to the authorized level. Currently this bill and the 
Pentagon's budget includes a total of $324.8 million for 154 military 
bands and more than 5,000 full-time professional military musicians.
  This amendment would reduce the total funding for military bands to 
$200 million. The limit set for spending on military bands included a 
voice vote in the 2012 defense authorization bill, H.R. 1540.
  Let me be clear: This amendment brings the defense appropriations 
bill in line with the spending on military bands established in the 
defense authorization bill. Again, the House is already on record 
voting to limit spending on military bands to $200 million.
  Earlier, in debate on this bill, Representative Carter of Texas had 
an amendment that struck the language that I had inserted in the 
defense appropriations bill that would limit the military bands to $200 
million. This amendment was agreed to on voice vote.
  I do not believe that the majority of Republicans and Democrats in 
this House want to be on record adding, adding over $124 million in 
spending for military bands.
  This amendment gives all of my colleagues the opportunity to reduce 
the cost to government by cutting $124 million from this bill, while 
allowing the Pentagon to continue to spend $200 million for choirs, 
jazz bands, ensembles, and other musical missions.
  There is no doubt that bands are important. We all enjoy listening to 
military bands and cherish the traditions of military music. But at a 
time of fiscal crisis, $200 million must be enough for ceremonial 
music, concerts, choir performance, and country music jam sessions.
  Maybe you believe that spending $325 million in 2012 is in our 
national security interests, a national priority that cannot even be 
cut or reduced.
  Well, I couldn't disagree more. There are really Members in this 
House who in good conscience vote to cut nutrition for programs for 
poor, hungry women and infants, but vote to protect a military bands 
budgets? Is this House really capable of gutting investments on women's 
health care, but allow $5 million increases in funding for military 
bands?
  Republicans are forcing cuts in law enforcement, firefighters, 
homeless veterans, but they take a stand opposing limiting funding for 
military bands to $200 million as a national security priority. Is this 
Congress really going to raise the debt ceiling so it can pay $325 
million for military bands next year with money borrowed from China? 
These are truly misplaced priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, this Congress faces record deficits, and it's time for 
both smart investments and tough choices. In this $650 billion defense 
appropriations bill, this amendment proposes an extremely modest test 
of this House's willingness to cut spending for nonessential military 
functions.
  Last year the Army Materiel commander had a $4.4 million state of the 
art building especially constructed for the Army Materiel Command Band. 
While schools, health care centers and food banks are getting cut, $4.4 
million is an example that seems to indicate to me that no one told the 
Pentagon that this is a fiscal crisis.
  The Pentagon does not need any more band aid.
  Mr. Carter argued against reducing spending on military bands, saying 
the language didn't save 1 cent, and he was correct. This amendment 
saves U.S. taxpayers $124.8 million, and that makes a lot of sense to 
the Minnesotans I represent. And it should make a lot of sense to my 
tea party Republican colleagues who march to their own drummers.
  This amendment gives all my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, a 
chance to show our constituents a deficit reduction. I urge my 
colleagues to support this reduction to unnecessary defense spending.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman's amendment would 
essentially cap funding for military bands at $200 million and reverse 
a decision of the body earlier this evening.
  The band's main mission is music, with a secondary wartime mission 
for security. Band members train for security, and given the shortage 
of guards, security is often the band members' go-to-war mission. Every 
soldier is taught their basic combat skills and can secure the 
perimeter.
  The Department of Defense strongly believes that military bands are 
vital to recruiting, retaining, and community relations, and that they 
provide patriotic, inspirational music to instill in soldiers, sailors, 
and airmen the will to fight and win, and foster the support of our 
citizens and promote national interests.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment and urge others to oppose it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. McCollum

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments left, and this one 
will deal with the subject of NASCAR.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. ___.  Not more than $20,000,000 of the funds made 
     available by this Act may be used to pay motorsports drivers, 
     racing teams, or racing cars in the National Association for 
     Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR), the National Hot Rod 
     Association (NHRA), the Indy Racing League Indy Car Series, 
     or the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) Super Bike 
     Racing or otherwise conduct recruiting outreach through motor 
     sports under the authority of section 561(b) of the Floyd D. 
     Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 
     1654A-129).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                              {time}  2230

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires the Department of 
Defense to limit what they spend on motorsports sponsorships for 
NASCAR, the National Hot Rod Association, the Indy Car Series, or AMA 
Super Bike Racing to no more than $20 million in fiscal year 2012. With 
our Nation in a fiscal crisis, I can't imagine anyone wanting to spend 
more than $20 million for taxpayer-funded racing teams.
  As Members of Congress, we must make choices with what to do with 
America's taxpayer money. Congress needs to set priorities that will 
reduce the deficit and grow our economy.
  This year, the Department of Defense will spend at least $63 million 
in taxpayer funds to sponsor motorsports for so-called recruitment 
purposes. In the last decade, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars 
have been spent to sponsor motorsports racing.

[[Page H4667]]

  And what do the American people get for their investment? Those 
millions of tax dollars buy decals--big stickers--on race cars. They 
pay for multimillion dollar race contracts for millionaire race car 
drivers and racing team owners. For example, the National Guard is 
currently spending $20 million in taxpayers' funds to sponsor one race 
car driver, $20 million, one race car driver.
  At a time when our Nation is fighting two wars and facing a fiscal 
crisis, why are we borrowing money from China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia 
to pay for sponsorships and millionaire car drivers? How does that 
advance national security?
  Now, many of my colleagues insist that these sponsorships are 
critical to the survival of an all-volunteer military. I disagree. But 
I respect their passion despite the fact there is no evidence to 
demonstrate that this motorsports program is effective in recruiting. 
And that is why my amendment maintains a significant and sufficient 
investment in motorsports sponsorships, $20 million, to allow the 
Pentagon to demonstrate to us and to the taxpayers it does work.
  Now as Members of Congress, we must do a better job of exercising our 
oversight over the Pentagon's recruiting budget. Right now, 75 percent 
of Americans ages 17 to 24 years old are not qualified--let me repeat--
75 percent of young Americans ages 17-24 years old are not qualified to 
serve in the Armed Forces.
  Motorsports sponsorships are not the answer to making America's youth 
more physically fit or more academically prepared to serve. And 
according to a 2010 report by a retired military leader entitled ``Too 
Fat to Fight,'' the U.S. military faces serious long-term recruiting 
challenges.
  Let me quote the report directly. When weight problems are combined 
with educational deficits, criminal records, and other disqualifiers 
such as asthma or drug abuse, 75 percent of Americans 17-24 years old 
are unable to join the military for one or more of those reasons. The 
military will have to have more fit young men and women if they are 
going to find enough recruits with the excellent qualifications needed 
for a modern military.
  But we're not talking about $63 million to sponsor academic 
decathlons, soccer leagues, or baseball teams.
  With these alarming trends facing America's young people, the 
Pentagon needs to be leading a national effort to ensure young people 
around this country from coast to coast are educationally prepared, 
physically fit, morally sound, and dedicated to serving our country. 
Those young men and women aren't just found at racetracks. Yet that is 
where our branches of military are spending disproportionate amounts of 
recruiting budgets on an increasingly small number of recruiting 
targets.
  Here is an example of a motorsport's recruiting power. In 2010, the 
National Guard spent $645,000 to sponsor one single NASCAR race, the 
Air Guard 400. According to the Air National Guard, that $650,000 
sponsorship generated 439 recruits. Only six of those leads were 
qualified leads or recruited eligible.
  How many enlistments for $650,000? Zero. Zero enlistments, zero 
contracts signed. Other branches of the Armed Forces have found these 
sponsorships to be a waste. The Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Navy 
have all canceled their motorsports sponsorships years ago, shifting 
their valuable recruitment dollars to more effective programs.
  I respect the patriotism and passion of motorsports fans. I do. And I 
encourage the U.S. military to continue its longstanding relationship 
with motorsports like NASCAR. This amendment does nothing to the 
additional $8 million the Army spends on outreach to NASCAR racing 
events or the millions spent on military recruitment at races. But we 
are wasting taxpayers' dollars on race cars and millionaire drivers 
with little or nothing to show from it.
  I've heard from supporters of racing sponsorships talk about the 
passion points and media impressions these sponsorship dollars produce 
among television viewers. Really? Americans don't know that there is an 
Army or an Air Force, or the American people don't know that we are at 
war in Iraq and Afghanistan? They don't need a racing car to tell them 
that we have a volunteer military and our country is at war.
  Already this year, the Republican Congress has voted to cut nutrition 
programs for poor, hungry women and infants. And this majority is 
cutting investments in energy efficiency at a time of high gas prices.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to limit the 
sponsorship of motor racing to $20 million.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I compliment the gentlelady for her 
determination. She has really worked this amendment hard on more than 
one occasion. The House has already spoken on this issue. When we 
considered earlier H.R. 1, this amendment was defeated by more than 100 
votes, 448-281.
  But this is a recruiting tool. I don't think any of us want to go 
back to a draft. I think we like the fact that we have an all-volunteer 
service. But if you feel an all-volunteer service means you have got to 
recruit, then you use more than just NASCAR or sporting events or 
advertising in newspapers to gain recruits so that we can have an all-
volunteer military, as opposed to a conscripted, drafted military.
  The Army National Guard estimated that it engaged more than 83,000 
prospects in the year 2010. The Air Force reports that their NASCAR 
sponsorship is the second-highest source of accessions of all event 
sports sponsorships. The Army expects that they will, this year, engage 
28,700 prospects and gain access to 182 schools through its sponsorship 
of NASCAR.
  Now, the gentlelady, as I said, is persistent. She uses the occasion 
to mention the fact that the Marine Corps does not use sporting, does 
not use NASCAR for recruiting. Which is true. But that is not a reason 
why we should discontinue the program. The Navy and the Marine Corps do 
not sponsor motorsports, NASCAR. But they both use the sponsorship of 
sporting events as part of their recruiting programs. The Navy is a 
sponsor of the X Games, while the Marine Corps sponsors a variety of 
events, including the Ultimate Fighting Championship.
  The fact of the matter is we spend a lot of money for recruiting, and 
the recruiting for our programs that are successful ought to be 
continued and should not be denied for whatever the reason that someone 
objects to using the money for sponsoring race car vehicles.
  The National car took seventh place, by the way, in Daytona this past 
weekend. And not only do we get the sponsorship, the excitement of the 
crowds and many of whom go to the recruiting stations, but we get 
newspaper coverage for free, we get television coverage for free, 
coverage that we don't have to pay for because of these events that we 
do sponsor.
  So, as we did in the Appropriations Committee, and as we did on H.R. 
1 earlier in this year, I just hope that we will, once again, defeat 
this amendment, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2240

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. McCollum

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be provided to the Task Force for Business and Stability 
     Operations in Afghanistan or used to carry out section 9012.

  Ms. McCOLLUM (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota?

[[Page H4668]]

  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, Section 9012 of this Defense 
appropriations bill contains language authorizing the Pentagon, under 
the direction and control of the Secretary of Defense, to operate a 
task force for business and stability operations in Afghanistan.
  The bill provides $150 million to the Secretary of Defense to operate 
this business task force. Our brave military men and women have been in 
Afghanistan for 10 long years confronting the Taliban, killing 
terrorists, and helping secure a better future for the Afghan people.
  When in the course of this long war did it become the Department of 
Defense's role to facilitate business opportunities for Afghan and 
foreign companies?
  Is it really within the Pentagon's expertise or mission to excel at 
business development, farming, or mineral exploration?
  This bill gives the Department of Defense authorization to carry out 
``projects that include private investment, industrial development, 
banking and financial system development, agricultural diversification 
and revitalization, energy development in and with respect to 
Afghanistan.''
  Afghanistan is an active war zone.
  American servicemembers are under attack and our Department of 
Defense should be solely focused on their security. The Pentagon's 
focus should not be on starting up businesses or facilitating business 
development tours for corporate CEOs. Economic development is an 
important part of America's overall strategy in Afghanistan, but that 
is the role of civilian agencies like USAID, the Department of State, 
or the Department of Commerce.
  Congress needs to invest in America's civilian capacity to carry out 
this function. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in this House 
does not believe international development activities are a component 
of national security. If they did, they would not cut vital foreign 
assistance capacity and programs.
  Every House Member needs to ask why the Pentagon is supporting the 
development of the Afghan carpet industry while U.S. soldiers are under 
attack. Afghan carpets should not be a strategic priority for the 
Department of Defense.
  Every House Member needs to ask why the Department of Defense is 
helping Kate Spade, an exclusive New York handbag designer, to source 
raw materials in Afghanistan? Since when did the Pentagon invest 
taxpayer dollars in promoting women's fashion?
  The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense described his role in heading 
up the task force in The Washington Post: ``We do capitalism. We're 
about helping companies make money.''
  Colleagues, helping companies make money is not the role of the 
Department of Defense. This is the worst example of mission creep. It 
is up to Congress to perform its oversight duty and rein in the 
Pentagon.
  Getting people to work in Afghanistan is important. Afghans who are 
working on farms, in factories, in functioning government ministries, 
and in the police and military are likely not shooting at our troops. 
But this report that accompanied the Defense authorization bill that 
passed in May said it best, and I quote from the Defense authorization 
bill: ``The function of private sector business development falls 
outside of the core competency of the Department of Defense.''
  The House Armed Services Committee's report went on to further state: 
``The mission of TFBSO should eventually fall under the jurisdiction of 
a different agency, likely USAID or possibly the Department of 
Commerce.''
  The Task Force for Business and Stability Operations in Afghanistan 
and its $150 million budget should not be funded and not authorized in 
the Defense authorizations bill. This function and this money belongs 
in the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill.
  This task force is another example of the militarization of foreign 
assistance that diverts the Pentagon from its core mission of security 
and war fighting. It also dangerously blurs the line between military-
affiliated personnel in a war zone and civilian personnel carrying out 
development activities.
  America needs the Department of Defense to take care of its top 
priority: ensuring the national security of our country. We all know 
there will be fewer and fewer military personnel in Afghanistan in the 
coming months. Troops stationed in Afghanistan will be in increasing 
danger. We must allow those troops to focus on their security mission.
  If the Secretary of Defense truly believes business development and 
the work of the task force is vital to national security, then the 
Pentagon can contract with professionals at USAID to carry out this 
function.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and get the business 
development and cooperative investment support out of the Pentagon.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, some years ago, the Americans and 
our allies pretty much stabilized Afghanistan and neutralized the 
Taliban. But then before the job was completed, we all walked away. The 
Taliban resurged, came back, and created the situation that we face 
today and yesteryear and the year before. Let's not let that happen 
again.
  Now this Task Force for Business and Stability is part of that 
operation to try to maintain stability once we clear out and neutralize 
the Taliban once again. The mission of the task force is to assist the 
commander of U.S. Central Command in developing a link between U.S. 
military operations in Afghanistan and economic elements of U.S. 
national power in order to reduce violence, enhance stability, and to 
restore economic normalcy in Afghanistan through business and economic 
opportunities such as agricultural diversification and energy 
development.
  The Secretary may use up to $150 million of available operations for 
overseas contingency operations. This amendment would prohibit that. 
This amendment would not permit us to do the things that we need to do 
after winning on the battlefield. After eliminating the combat areas, 
we have got to maintain an Afghanistan that is not any longer under the 
jurisdiction and the influence of the Taliban.
  As I said, we did that once before at great cost. We neutralized the 
Taliban. We basically stabilized Afghanistan, and then we walked away. 
We didn't do the things that this Business and Stability Operations 
Task Force would do.
  So let's do them this time so we don't have to go back and refight 
the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is not a good amendment. 
It is not a good amendment, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I agree with the gentleman on this particular amendment. I 
think we should vote it down.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  The amendment was rejected.


                  Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Holt

  Mr. HOLT. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
         At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
         Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used to close the defense commissary store at Fort 
     Monmouth, New Jersey.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, over 19,000 people in New Jersey depend on 
the goods and services provided by the commissary at Fort Monmouth. The 
looming closure of Fort Monmouth has cast a cloud over the future of 
this facility, causing considerable consternation among the active 
duty, Guard and Reserve, and military retirees who count on the 
commissary to help them save money and live their quality lives that we 
have promised them.

[[Page H4669]]

  In February 2011, the Secretary of the Army recognized the importance 
of this facility and recommended to the Pentagon leadership that the 
facility remain open. Department regulations give the Pentagon the 
ability to decide whether to keep the commissary open after a base 
closes.

                              {time}  2250

  I should point out that the active personnel at Naval Weapons Station 
Earle, which does not have a commissary, depend on this commissary as 
well. We in New Jersey, in the New Jersey delegation, strongly agree 
with Secretary McHugh's recommendation, which is currently under 
consideration in the Pentagon.
  The amendment I am offering, but will withdraw pursuant to a 
discussion, a colloquy with my colleagues, would bar the use of fiscal 
12 funds to close the commissary.
  At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), 
the ranking member.
  Mr. DICKS. I can completely understand the gentleman's concern here. 
I want the gentleman to know that I am prepared to work with him on 
this to see if we can talk to the powers that be over in the Pentagon. 
Hopefully, they can accept Secretary McHugh's recommendation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOLT. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me say that I agree with Mr. Dicks. We are more than happy to 
work with you in order to work out this problem.
  Mr. HOLT. I thank both gentlemen. This means a great deal to the 
people of New Jersey, to whom we owe a great deal for their military 
work.


                                        Secretary of the Army,

                                Washington, DC, February 25, 2011.
     Hon. Rush Holt,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Holt: Thank you for your August 17, 
     2010 letter concerning the closure of the commissary and post 
     exchange on Fort Monmouth, New Jersey.
       As we have discussed, the post exchange stores at Fort 
     Monmouth must close in preparation for the closure of Fort 
     Monmouth. However, I have directed the Assistant Secretary of 
     the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment to send an 
     official request to the Under Secretary of Defense for 
     Personnel and Readiness [USD(P&R)] to keep the Fort Monmouth 
     commissary open for a transitional 2-year period following 
     installation closure.
       If USD(P&R) approves this request, the continued operation 
     of the commissary for this 2-year period will be conditional 
     on a volume of sales that supports operational costs. Defense 
     Commissary Agency's (DeCA) projections indicate annual sales 
     of $9.2M in the year following closure. DeCA will continue to 
     review sales and cost data and will advise the Army if sales 
     decline significantly.
       Thank you for your inquiry into this matter and for your 
     continued support of our Soldiers and their Families.
           Sincerely,
                                                   John M. McHugh.
  With that understanding, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Frelinghuysen) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gardner, Acting Chair of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2219) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________