[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 71 (Thursday, May 17, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3022-H3038]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Markey
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Simpson). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 11 printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. MARKEY. 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:
In title II, strike section 211 and insert the following
new section:
SEC. 211. DELAY OF NEW LONG-RANGE PENETRATING BOMBER
AIRCRAFT.
(a) Prohibition on Funds.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, none of the funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for any
of fiscal years 2013 through 2023 for the Department of
Defense may be obligated or expended for the research,
development, test, and evaluation or procurement of a long-
range penetrating bomber aircraft.
[[Page H3023]]
(b) Reduction of Funds.--Notwithstanding the amounts set
forth in the funding tables in division D, the amount
authorized to be appropriated in section 201 for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Air Force, as specified in
the corresponding funding table in division D, is hereby
reduced by $291,742,000, with the amount of the reduction to
be derived from Line 042, Program Element 0604015F, Long
Range Strike, as set forth in the table under section 4201.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in support of my amendment.
Here's what my amendment says: Why are we building a new nuclear
bomber? It's 2012. The B 52s that we have--93 of them--are going to
last until 2040. The B 2s we have are going to last until 2058. That's
when they begin to retire.
Now, of all the things America doesn't need right now, it's a brand
new nuclear bomber.
We're talking about cutting Medicare or Medicaid out here on the
floor, there's not enough money to invest in research to find the cure
for Alzheimer's, but we need a new nuclear bomber for $18 billion? It
makes no sense. It's insane. We don't even have any more targets to hit
them with.
Every single nuclear submarine we have has 96 independently
targetable nuclear warheads on board. That's 96 cities in the Soviet
Union, the bombs in the Soviet Union would destroy, 96 cities in China
destroyed by one submarine. We already have 93 B 52s. We have 20 B 2s.
We have ICBMs ready to launch. And they want to build a new bomber, a
nuclear bomber with nuclear bombs. By the time the new nuclear bomb
arrives, there will be no place to hit. All the old bombers, all the
nuclear submarines will have hit all the targets.
The boom we should be listening to is the baby boom. We need money
for Medicare. We need money for Medicaid. We need money for Social
Security. We need money to invest in finding the cure for Alzheimer's
and Parkinson's. That's the boom that's going to hit American families.
That's the fear people have.
The fear that people have is not that they're going to be in a
nuclear war. The fear that people have is that there's going to be a
terrifying call that comes into their family that tells them that they
now have another case of Alzheimer's in their family, that it has not
been cured.
Each one of these bombers could double the size of the budget to find
the cure for Alzheimer's. That's what we should be doing. That's the
real terrorist that people are afraid of coming into their lives.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlemen from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKEON. I just might note that the B 52s that have been around
that their grandchildren are flying now that the original pilots flew,
the B 2s, we have 20. I inquired the other day how many of them were
ready to go on a mission--maybe eight. So I think that all of this talk
about nuclear, the next bomber is the next generation bomber that will
deliver all kinds of weapons, not just nuclear.
I yield, at this time, 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Delaying development of the new bomber for 10 years would put the
average age of the bomber fleet over 50 years old by the time a new
bomber was fielded, our oldest of which, the B 52, would be nearly 75
years old. It would create unacceptable levels of risk regarding power
projection requirements and would affect our national security.
The Air Force has only 19 B 2 stealth bombers in the inventory, but
they are 1980s technology, very maintenance intensive and very
expensive to own and operate. The aircraft availability rate of the B 2
bomber fleet today being ready at a moment's notice for a mission is
currently less than 40 percent.
A mainstay of the U.S. global military power is the ability to
conduct long-range conventional or nuclear strike missions anywhere in
the world and against any type of threat. Therefore, it is imperative
to maintain a credible bomber fleet.
The Air Force plans to affordably, cost-effectively develop off-the-
shelf technology--stuff that exists today--instead of inventing new
technologies which in the past have led to cost overruns.
And I would say to the gentleman, don't just take my opinion. It's in
the President's budget, so the administration obviously supports it.
The Air Force says it's one of its top priorities.
We're in a day when oftentimes Congress wants things for the Pentagon
that the Pentagon doesn't want. In this case, the Pentagon and the Air
Force wants it. But let me quote what the Air Force said:
Delaying the long-range strike bomber program for 10 years
would create unacceptable levels of risk in our ability to
directly support future power projection requirements,
significantly impacting national security. The long-range
bomber will possess unique capabilities, including long-
range, significant payload capacity, operational flexibility,
and survivability in anti-access environments. It will
replace existing bomber aircraft, some of which will be over
six decades old when the long-range strike bomber reaches
initial operational capability.
{time} 1740
Mr. MARKEY. Could the Chair inform me as to how much time is
remaining on our side?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Again, the experts all say that if we delay this just 10 years, which
is all I'm asking for, a 10-year delay, since the B 2s and the B 52s
aren't beginning to retire until between 2040 and 2058. All that Mr.
Welch and Mr. Conyers and I are saying is, if we delay it for 10 years,
there's still plenty of time to build them if there's a need.
But to begin to build new things right now with this era of
tremendous budget deficits, when we should just be trying to find a way
to reduce our deficits, you know, balance this budget, it's just
wasteful. It's wasteful. And I just want to balance the budget. And if
we're wasting money on projects like this, then we have no chance of
doing anything about this deficit reduction.
So, again, experience shows us that it only takes 16 years, not 30,
to bring a new bomber from the drawing board to the runway.
There are millions of families out there who are trying to get by
with a car that's a few years old and just keep it going. The Air Force
has already spent over $6 billion refurbishing all these planes. They
plan on spending billions more on refurbishing them. There's no reason
to believe they can't go out to the year 2060.
This is not the year for us to be spending this money.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms.
Bordallo), my friend and colleague.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I oppose amendment No. 11. It would delay
research and development funding for the NextGen bomber. The bomber is
critical to replacing an aging fleet. The new bomber is needed so we
don't raid our readiness accounts.
This is about the bomber carrying nuclear weapons. It does a lot more
than just carry nukes. It deters aggressors and even provides maritime
surveillance, especially in the Asia-Pacific area. Congress opposed a
similar amendment last year and, as cochair of the Long Range Strike
Caucus, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment again this year.
Mr. MARKEY. Again, could you, Mr. Chair, tell me how much time I
have?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Just look at this from the perspective of an ordinary family. They've
already got three cars in the driveway. Everyone says to them, you can
go another 100,000 on those three cars. And
[[Page H3024]]
yet the decision is made by some of the family members, we're going to
buy a brand new, top-of-the-line car right now, even though the whole
family is in debt. Everyone in the neighborhood would think that's
crazy.
That's what we're doing here today. The majority is saying, let's
build a brand new bomber, a gold-plated bomber that's been on the wish
list of the Air Force for a generation, even though we have plenty of
bombers, nuclear bombers in an era where there aren't any more nuclear
sites that we can be bombing around the world, and we're just going to
waste the money.
We should be balancing the budget. We have to tighten our belt. And I
just urge the majority to reconsider this. We have to save the money.
And there just are no targets, and there are plenty of bombers we have
that can last out to 2060.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. I ask unanimous consent to control the time of the
gentleman from California, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), a member of the committee.
Mrs. HARTZLER. I think this amendment is very curious when the
Secretary of Defense came out with a new defense strategy last year,
and they came out and said that the long-range strike fighter is one of
their top priorities. And yet a Member of their own party is trying to
do away with that.
As you know, gentlemen, over 50 percent of the cuts so far have come
from our national defense. And there's only a few things we're supposed
to be doing here in Congress, and one of them is provide for the common
defense.
I have the honor of representing the B 2 bombers at Whiteman Air
Force Base, and I couldn't be prouder of the good work that they are
doing. But we have 19, right now, aircraft. If we approve this
amendment, it would be over 50 years old by the time that we would be
moving forward with looking at the future, and we'd have the B 2s at 75
years old.
I would use his analogy and say a family would not wait until the car
is 50 years old, broken down in the garage and won't start before they
go consider advancing and getting a new car.
We need to be proactive. We need to make sure that our defense
industry remains strong. We need to be proactive. We need to oppose
this amendment and continue to support our long-range strike fighters.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself the remainder of my time.
We're $15 trillion in debt--$15 trillion. We've got all the bombers
we need. They can last to 2060. We don't need a new nuclear bomber.
Okay? We just don't need a new nuclear bomber. We don't have the
targets for them, we can't afford them, and we don't need them. How's
that for a combination?
Let's just cut back on something on this defense budget. Does it have
to be the entire wish list of every single defense contractor in the
United States, regardless of whether or not it relates to the military
needs of our country?
And by the way, 30 or 40 years from now, $18 billion. We can postpone
it 10 years, still have the brandnew planes ready to go in 2050 and
2060. We should be saving money for this generation right now, not just
passing it on for the next generation.
I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was on this House floor
commemorating the 70th anniversary of Ellsworth Air Force Base, which
is in my great State of South Dakota.
Our bomber fleet, the average age is 40 years old. Old dogs can learn
new tricks, and our bombers are certainly doing that. They've been
updated as much as they possibly can be, but they do eventually still
get older.
I will tell you that the B 1 bomber has performed admirably over the
last three decades, and so has the B 2 and the B 52. But I will tell
you, we must continue to upgrade and to maintain our bomber fleet. And
I will tell you that prohibiting development of the new generation
bomber for 10 years is shortsighted. It puts our national security at
risk.
I am going to urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the
distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. I rise in strong opposition to the Markey amendment. I
know my friend is trying to be humorous, but this is a very serious
subject.
I was one of the leaders who worked to do the B 2 bomber. That took
us between 15 and 20 years. Now, the reason we're starting is we've got
to pull this technology together and try to do this for less money. And
we need a long-range, modern, penetrating bomber with conventional
weapons.
The nuclear weapon isn't the priority to me. It's the smart,
conventional weapons that give us an enormous capability.
Let's vote ``no'' on the ill-conceived Markey amendment. And if he
wants to look at something, tell him to look at land-based missiles.
Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. 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
Massachusetts will be postponed.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Polis
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, 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 63, line 15, strike ``$1,261,000,000'' and insert
``$857,695,000''.
Page 64, after line 2, insert the following new subsection:
(c) Reduction.--Notwithstanding the amounts set forth in
the funding tables in division D, the amount authorized to be
appropriated in this section for the ground-based midcourse
defense system, as specified in the corresponding funding
table in division D, is hereby reduced by $403,305,000, with
the amount of the reduction to be derived from Ballistic
Missile Defense Midcourse Defense Segment, Line 080, East
Coast site planning and development, and EIS work program, as
set forth in the table under section 4201. The amount of such
reduction shall not be available for any purpose other than
deficit reduction.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, my amendment would reduce funding for the failed Ground-
based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program by $404 million. This missile
defense program was designed to intercept limited intermediate and
long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles before they reenter the
Earth's atmosphere. Now, a fine idea. But the only problem is that
while this failed missile defense program rarely hits anything, it
continues to cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
If we're going to target wasteful spending, then a missile defense
program that can't hit its targets is a good place to achieve taxpayer
savings. This program has documented failure after failure.
In a time of large deficits and increasing debt, Congress should have
to justify every penny that we spend of taxpayer money, and there isn't
any justification for spending an additional $400 million on a weapons
program that simply doesn't work.
Since 1997, the system has failed more than half its tests, missing
its target 9 in 17 times.
{time} 1750
The scheduled March flight test was cancelled because they're still
evaluating the previous failures.
Lieutenant General Patrick O'Reilly, the Director for the Missile
Defense
[[Page H3025]]
Agency, testified that the flight test failures weren't because of lack
of funds.
In fact, he said:
I don't think those failures would have been avoided if we
would have had a larger or a lesser budget than we had.
This is not a problem that we can solve by throwing more taxpayer
money and larger deficits after it. American taxpayers cannot afford a
Congress that keeps spending money on programs that don't work.
Now, I'm sure the other side will discuss the issues of why there is
strategic importance to a long-range missile threat and to preventing
attacks from North Korea and Iran, neither of which currently possess
the ability to launch a missile, but a missile defense system that
doesn't actually defend against missiles is no defense at all.
My amendment would cut funding for this program by $400 million just
as the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, recommended. They
took a close look at GMD and settled on a reasonable recommendation,
which is that we would cut spending by $403 million. It's what my
amendment is.
To quote the GAO:
Until the failure review investigation is completed,
mitigations are developed and proven in ground testing and
then confirmed through flight testing, funding for GMD is
premature.
I wholeheartedly agree with the GAO, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I yield 2 minutes to the
chairman of the Subcommittee of Strategic Forces, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. This is the first in a number of amendments that
are going to come from the other side of the aisle which are targeted
at weakening our national missile defense system.
This is at a time that we see rising and increased threats from both
Iran and North Korea. We have Secretary Gates having said that North
Korea's programs are becoming an absolute threat to the mainland United
States.
It also comes, coincidentally, at a time when our President has had
what is known as the ``open mic incident'' when he was in South Korea
and was speaking with President Medvedev of Russia and indicated that
he was hopeful for a time when he could get past this next election so
that he could have greater flexibility on missile defense.
This secret deal that the President has with the Russians to weaken
our missile defense is consistent with the amendments we are going to
be seeing from the other side of the aisle. We know the deal is secret
because, after the President returned back to the United States, we
asked him to tell us what is this increased flexibility and what is his
intention in weakening our missile defense system. He won't tell us. So
it remains a secret, but it is consistent with the amendments we are
seeing on the other side of the aisle to weaken our national defense.
This amendment, disturbingly, tries to cut our Ground-based Midcourse
Defense system, which currently is the only system that actually
protects the mainland United States. It is part of the public portion
of the President's plan that this be sustained. Again, we don't know
what his secret deal is, but this system actually includes the CE I
interceptor, which is three for three in its successful intercepts. We
know this is a system that works, and we know this is a system that's
important.
We also know, if people on this floor are serious about trying to
reduce the deficit, perhaps they should support the Ryan budget.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, a missile defense system that doesn't defend
against missiles is no defense at all.
With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I am going to have to be quick because,
first of all, I want to address the issue about the so-called ``open
mic incident.''
I do thank Mr. Turner for accurately describing what happened, but he
is wrong on one thing, which is that the President did, in fact,
respond as to what he meant. He sent a letter to Mr. Turner on April
13, explaining what he meant.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I don't have any time. I'm sorry. I don't
have any time. I can't yield.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Would you read the letter.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington controls the time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I read the letter.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington controls the time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. What it says is basically what is obvious to
everybody, which is that the President has a different opinion. The
President believes that Russia can be a partner to reduce the missile
threat and that he can possibly work with them to develop missile
defense systems that they don't feel threatened by. It's no big secret.
It's what the President has said.
Generally, the other side doesn't want to have anything to do with
Russia--okay, fine--but they are a factor. The President wants to
figure out some way in which we can work with someone who is no longer
our enemy to reduce this threat. There is no great mystery here. That's
what he is talking about.
I want to support Mr. Polis' amendment as well and say that the
problem is that we are going to need the ground-based missile system.
It's funded in the President's budget to a certain amount of money, but
because it has been missing so often, there was a limited amount of
money that you can spend testing this. It's not ready. They're spending
money testing it. They just don't need this additional money.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. So we're not saying that we don't need
missile defense. We're spending money on it. We're spending a lot of
money on it, and we're going to develop that.
Then the point on Russia is very simple and straightforward in that
the President would like to negotiate an understanding with Russia so
that we are not in conflict with one another. There are many who don't
want us to have that conversation, and I believe Mr. Turner is in that
camp. The President would like to have that conversation. That's all he
meant, and he explained it in this letter.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a member of
the committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentleman.
It can't be emphasized too often that our Ground-based Midcourse
Defense is the only tested system that we have that defends the
homeland of the United States against the most dangerous and powerful
weapons mankind has ever known. I just somehow have a hard time
cognitively grasping why a nuclear missile landing on our homeland
doesn't alarm people a little bit more than it seems to.
Assuming the SM 3 Block 2B missile is able to provide protection for
the homeland in that year--an assumption the GAO calls into question in
fairly alarmed terms--this system will be the only system that we have
that will be able to protect the homeland until at least 2020.
Mr. Chairman, we make a desperate mistake--for whatever the reason
is, whether it's a secret deal with the Russians or whatever it is--in
reducing the only system that protects the United States of America. It
is folly.
Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire as to how much time remains on
both sides.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 1\3/4\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. POLIS. What the gentleman from Arizona failed to acknowledge is
that the system simply doesn't work--missing its target more than half
the time. You can't solve a problem by throwing more government money
after it as the gentleman from Arizona is advocating.
I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Everyone here is alarmed, Mr. Chairman, about the
possibility of a nuclear attack on the
[[Page H3026]]
United States. We also should be alarmed about sticking to the facts in
the debate.
The fact is we are talking about a weapons system here that failed
two tests in 2010 and that hasn't passed a test since 2008. The fact is
that, in the meantime, we have a robust, successful, tested regional
system that can protect the homeland, the country, and the fact is that
the general who runs this program said:
In the program right now, we are addressing and are
prepared to come back to flight testing, but we've had two
failures, and no matter what budget we're dedicating, we have
to get over those flight test failures.
Fix it first. Fund it later. Support the Polis amendment.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a
distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
I do have the honor of representing Colorado Springs in my
congressional district, which has the Missile Defense Agency and some
of these other important assets for our Nation's defense, and I totally
oppose this amendment of my colleague's from northern Colorado.
We do have ground-based interceptors on the west coast. We have
ground-based interceptors in Alaska. We need them also on the east
coast. We need to start planning for that. The money that would be
slashed by this amendment would go to starting the planning process,
and it doesn't happen overnight. It's a multiyear process. We need to
start the planning now so we can defend the heavy population centers on
the east coast from intercontinental ballistic missile threats. There
are rogue nations in this world that mean us harm. There is the
possibility of an accidental launch by a number of countries. We have
to have that type of defense. The Institute for Defense Analyses did a
study that Congress called for. It said we need an east coast site.
Should this amendment pass, that money will not be there to begin that
process.
Unfortunately, Barack Obama has been slashing missile defense for 3
years now. This bad amendment would continue that same trend. The CE I
interceptor has worked three out of three times. That's a 100 percent
record.
I also disagree with the gentleman from New Jersey, who just spoke,
who said fix it first and then fund it. It's the other way around. You
fund it so you can fix it.
They have it backwards, I'm afraid. A vote for this amendment is
really nothing more than a vote against a strong missile defense for
the United States. I urge a ``no'' vote.
{time} 1800
Mr. POLIS. In closing, I was encouraged to hear my colleague from
Colorado say: ``You fund it so you can fix it.'' I hope that quotation
can also be used with regard to education and health care in this
country, to ensure that everybody has access to a good education and
the opportunities it can provide.
My amendment is a small step towards a sane defense budget. It would
make a modest cut to a failed program that you simply cannot--by the
military's own recognition--expect to fix by continuing to throw good
money after bad.
I would urge the House to listen to the experts, listen to our
military leaders, listen to independent auditors who are telling us not
to throw good money after bad. Let's get the defense budget on the
right track by spending money on our servicemembers and our programs
that are proven to protect our country successfully. Let's not spend
additional money on a missile defense system that simply doesn't work.
It should be targeted for savings in this bill. It should be fixed. At
that time, we can reconsider additional funding of this program. But
there is ample funding with these reductions.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Polis amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I want to encourage everyone to oppose this
amendment which, again, is the first of a series of amendments on the
other side of the aisle to weaken our National Missile Defense System.
This is the only deployed system that we have that protects the
mainland of the United States, and it is consistent with the
President's secret deal.
The President has never answered our request as to what are the terms
of his secret deal with the Russians where the President in a meeting
with Medvedev said: ``I have greater flexibility after I get past the
election.'' Imagine the audacity of saying that when he's no longer
subject to the electorate, that he's going to disclose a new missile
defense deal or arrangement with the Russians. In fact, Putin himself
acknowledges the agreement in a March 2, 2012, interview with a Russian
newspaper. He indicates that ``they made us a proposal just during the
talks. They told us we would offer you this, we would offer you that,
and they asked him to put it down on paper.''
There are ongoing negotiations between this administration and the
Russians. The President got caught in an open mic. There is a secret
deal with the Russians that the President needs to answer to. This
amendment would weaken our national defense and our missile defense
system, as would the President's secret deal with the Russians. Vote
``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chair, I oppose Representative Polis's amendment to
cut Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) by $403 Million.
Russia's most senior military leader recently threatened to pre-
emptively attack U.S.-led NATO missile defense sites in Europe should
America not kowtow to Russian demands.
In light of these threats, and others from North Korea and Iran, a
strong missile defense system is vital to the safety and security of
America and American troops deployed overseas.
And GMD works. For example, the CE1 interceptor, used by GMD, is
three for three in successful testing.
Hence, GMD is critical to America's national security. GMD must be
adequately funded.
I urge rejection of the Polis Amendment that puts American cities and
American lives at risk.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. 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 Colorado
will be postponed.
Amendments En Bloc No. 2 Offered by Mr. McKeon
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 661, I offer amendments
en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 2 consisting of amendment Nos. 33,
36, 65, 66, 75, 85, 89, 93, 98, 100, 104, 124, 127, and 128,
printed in House Report No. 112 485, offered by Mr. McKeon of
California:
amendment no. 33 offered by mr. flake of arizona
At the end of subtitle F of title X, add the following new
section:
SEC. 1069. REPORT ON COMMUNICATIONS FROM CONGRESS ON STATUS
OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS .
(a) Report Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress a report describing any letters from Congress
(including a committee of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, a member of Congress, an officer of
Congress, or a congressional staff member) received by the
Department of Defense that refers to or requests information
on the status of a military construction project on the
future-years defense program.
(b) Deadline.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
be submitted not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
amendment no. 36 offered by mr. grimm of new york
At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following new
section:
SEC. 1084. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZED NUMBER OF WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION CIVIL SUPPORT TEAMS.
(a) In General.--Section 1403(a) of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law
107 314; 116 Stat. 2676; 10 U.S.C. 12310 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``23'' and inserting ``a
minimum of 25''; and
(2) by striking ``55 teams'' each place it appears and
inserting ``57 teams''.
(b) Funding.--
[[Page H3027]]
(1) Increase.--Notwithstanding the amounts set forth in the
funding tables in division D, the amount authorized to be
appropriated in section 301 for operation and maintenance,
Army, as specified in the corresponding funding table in
section 4301, for Line 070, Force Readiness Operations
Support is hereby increased by $5,000,000.
(2) Offset.--Notwithstanding the amounts set forth in the
funding tables in division D, the amount authorized to be
appropriated in section 201 for research, development, test,
and evaluation, Defense-wide, as specified in the
corresponding funding table in division D, is hereby reduced
by $5,000,000, to be derived from Line 036, Program Element
0603384BP, Chemical and Biological Defense Program.
amendment no. 65 offered by Ms. Bordallo of guam
At the end of subtitle D of title III, add the following
new section:
SEC. 3__. CODIFICATION OF NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP
PROGRAM.
(a) State Partnership Program.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 1 of title 32, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 116. State Partnership Program
``(a) Availability of Appropriated Funds.--(1) Funds
appropriated to the Department of Defense, including for the
Air and Army National Guard, shall be available for the
payment of costs to conduct activities under the State
Partnership Program, whether inside the United States or
outside the United States, for purposes as follows:
``(A) To support the objectives of the commander of the
combatant command for the theater of operations in which such
contacts and activities are conducted.
``(B) To support the objectives of the United States chief
of mission of the partner nation with which contacts and
activities are conducted.
``(C) To build international partnerships and defense and
security capacity.
``(D) To strengthen cooperation between the departments and
agencies of the United States Government and agencies of
foreign governments to support building of defense and
security capacity.
``(E) To facilitate intergovernmental collaboration between
the United States Government and foreign governments in the
areas of defense and security.
``(F) To facilitate and enhance the exchange of information
between the United States Government and foreign governments
on matters relating to defense and security.
``(2) Costs under paragraph (1) may include costs as
follows:
``(A) Costs of pay and allowances of members of the
National Guard.
``(B) Travel and necessary expenses of United States
personnel outside of the Department of Defense in the State
Partnership Program.
``(C) Travel and necessary expenses of foreign participants
directly supporting activities under the State Partnership
Program.
``(b) Limitations.--(1) Funds shall not be available under
subsection (a) for activities described in that subsection
that are conducted in a foreign country unless jointly
approved by the commander of the combatant command concerned
and the chief of mission concerned.
``(2) Funds shall not be available under subsection (a) for
the participation of a member of the National Guard in
activities described in that subsection in a foreign country
unless the member is on active duty in the armed forces at
the time of such participation.
``(3) Funds shall not be available under subsection (a) for
interagency activities involving United States civilian
personnel or foreign civilian personnel unless the
participation of such personnel in such activities--
``(A) contributes to responsible management of defense
resources;
``(B) fosters greater respect for and understanding of the
principle of civilian control of the military;
``(C) contributes to cooperation between United States
military and civilian governmental agencies and foreign
military and civilian government agencies; or
``(D) improves international partnerships and capacity on
matters relating to defense and security.
``(c) Reimbursement.--In the event of the participation of
United States Government participants (other than personnel
of the Department of Defense) in activities for which payment
is made under subsection (a), the head of the department or
agency concerned shall reimburse the Secretary of Defense for
the costs associated with the participation of such personnel
in such contacts and activities. Amounts reimbursed the
Department of Defense under this subsection shall be
deposited in the appropriation or account from which amounts
for the payment concerned were derived. Any amounts so
deposited shall be merged with amounts in such appropriation
or account, and shall be available for the same purposes, and
subject to the same conditions and limitations, as amounts in
such appropriation or account.
``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `State Partnership Program' means a program
that establishes a defense and security relationship between
the National Guard of a State or territory and the military
and security forces, and related disaster management,
emergency response, and security ministries, of a foreign
country.
``(2) The term `activities', for purposes of the State
Partnership Program, means any military-to-military
activities or interagency activities for a purpose set forth
in subsection (a)(1).
``(3) The term `interagency activities' means the
following:
``(A) Contacts between members of the National Guard and
foreign civilian personnel outside the ministry of defense of
the foreign country concerned on matters within the core
competencies of the National Guard.
``(B) Contacts between United States civilian personnel and
members of the Armed Forces of a foreign country on matters
within such core competencies.
``(4) The term `matter within the core competencies of the
National Guard' means matters with respect to the following:
``(A) Disaster response and mitigation.
``(B) Defense support to civil authorities.
``(C) Consequence management and installation protection.
``(D) Response to a chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear, or explosives (CBRNE) event.
``(E) Border and port security and cooperation with
civilian law enforcement.
``(F) Search and rescue.
``(G) Medicine.
``(H) Counterdrug and counternarcotics activities.
``(I) Public affairs.
``(J) Employer support and family support for reserve
forces.
``(5) The term `United States civilian personnel' means the
following:
``(A) Personnel of the United States Government (including
personnel of departments and agencies of the United States
Government other than the Department of Defense) and
personnel of State and local governments of the United
States.
``(B) Members and employees of the legislative branch of
the United States Government.
``(C) Non-governmental individuals.
``(6) The term `foreign civilian personnel' means the
following:
``(A) Civilian personnel of a foreign government at any
level (including personnel of ministries other than
ministries of defense).
``(B) Non-governmental individuals of a foreign country.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 1 of such title is amended by adding at
the end the following new item:
``116. State Partnership Program.''.
(b) Repeal of Superseded Authority.--Section 1210 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111 84; 123 Stat. 2517; 32 U.S.C. 107 note) is
repealed.
amendment no. 66 offered by mr. altmire of pennsylvania
At the end of subtitle E of title III, add the following
new section:
SEC. 347. REPORT ON PROVIDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES TO
UNIFORMED PERSONNEL TRANSITING THROUGH FOREIGN
AIRPORTS.
(a) Report Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
the feasibility of providing market-rate or below-market rate
(or both) telecommunications service (either phone, VoIP,
video chat, or a combination thereof), either directly or
through a contract, to uniformed military personnel
transiting through a foreign airport while in transit to or
returning from deployment overseas. The Secretary also shall
investigate allegations of certain telecom companies
specifically targeting uniformed military personnel in
transit overseas (who have no other option to contact their
families) with above-market-rate fees, and shall include the
results of that investigation in the report.
(b) Submission.--The report required by subsection (a)
shall be submitted not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
amendment no. 75 offered by mr. welch of vermont
At the end of subtitle D of title V, add the following new
section:
SEC. 5__. COORDINATION BETWEEN YELLOW RIBBON REINTEGRATION
PROGRAM AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTERS.
The Office for Reintegration Programs shall assist each
State to coordinate services under the Yellow Ribbon
Reintegration Program under section 582 of the National
Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (10 U.S.C. 10101 note) with
Small Business Development Centers (as defined in section
3(t) of the Small Business Act) in each State.
amendment no. 85 offered by mr. boswell of iowa
At the end of subtitle I of title V of division A, add the
following new section:
SEC. 5__. REPORT ON EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE DEPLOYMENTS.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report on the effects of multiple deployments on the well-
being of military personnel and any recommended changes to
health evaluations prior to redeployments.
amendment no. 89 offered by mr. boswell of iowa
At the end of subtitle C of title VII, add the following
new section:
SEC. 725. STUDY ON BREAST CANCER AMONG MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES AND VETERANS.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall jointly conduct a study on the
incidence of breast
[[Page H3028]]
cancer among members of the Armed Forces (including members
of the National Guard and reserve components) and veterans.
Such study shall include the following:
(1) A determination of the number of members and veterans
diagnosed with breast cancer.
(2) A determination of demographic information regarding
such members and veterans, including--
(A) race;
(B) ethnicity;
(C) sex;
(D) age;
(E) possible exposure to hazardous elements or chemical or
biological agents (including any vaccines) and where such
exposure occurred;
(F) the locations of duty stations that such member or
veteran was assigned;
(G) the locations in which such member or veteran was
deployed; and
(H) the geographic area of residence prior to deployment.
(3) An analysis of breast cancer treatments received by
such members and veterans.
(4) Other information the Secretaries consider necessary.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall jointly submit to
Congress a report containing the results of the study
required under subsection (a).
(c) Funding Increase and Offsetting Reduction.--
Notwithstanding the amounts set forth in the funding tables
in division D--
(1) the amount authorized to be appropriated in section
1406 for the Defense Health Program, as specified in the
corresponding funding table in division D, is hereby
increased by $10,000,000, with the amount of the increase
allocated to the Defense Health Program, as set forth in the
table under section 4501, to carry out this section; and
(2) the amount authorized to be appropriated in section 101
for Weapons Procurement, Navy, as specified in the
corresponding funding table in section 4101 of division D, is
hereby reduced by a total $10,000,000, with the amount of the
reduction to be derived from--
(A) Line 004 (AMRAAM) in the amount of $2,700,000;
(B) Line 006 (JSOW) in the amount of $2,700,000; and
(C) Line 009 (Hellfire) in the amount of $4,600,000.
amendment no. 93 offered by ms. delauro of connecticut
At the end of subtitle A of title VIII, add the following
new section:
SEC. 802. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO CONTRACTS FOR PURCHASE OF
HELICOPTERS FOR AFGHAN SECURITY FORCES.
(a) Requirement for Competitively Bid Contracts.--Subject
to subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense shall award any
contract that will use United States funds for the
procurement of helicopters for the Afghan Security Forces
using competitive procedures.
(b) Prohibition on Contracting With Certain Entities.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense may
not award a contract, directly or indirectly, to any entity
controlled, directed, or influenced by--
(1) a country that has provided weapons to Syria at any
time after the date of the enactment of the Syria
Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of
2003 (Public Law 108 175); or
(2) any country that is currently a state sponsor of
terrorism.
(c) State Sponsor of Terrorism Defined.--In subsection (b),
the term ``state sponsor of terrorism'' means any country the
government of which the Secretary of State has determined has
repeatedly provided support for acts of international
terrorism pursuant to section 6(j) of the Export
Administration Act of 1979, section 620A of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, or section 40 of the Arms Export
Control Act.
(d) Effective Date.--The requirement in subsection (a)
shall apply to contracts awarded after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(e) National Security Waiver Authority.--The Secretary of
Defense may waive the applicability of this section if the
Secretary determines such a waiver is necessary in the
national security interests of the United States.
amendment no. 98 offered by mr. welch of vermont
Page 313, after line 20, insert the following:
SEC. 833. ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACT REPORT.
Not later than June 30, 2013, the Secretary of the Army,
the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force
shall each submit to the congressional defense committees a
report on the use of energy savings performance contracts by
the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and
the Department of the Air Force, respectively, including each
of the following:
(1) The amount of appropriated funds that have been
obligated or expended and that are expected to be obligated
or expended for energy savings performance contracts.
(2) The amount of such funds that have been used for
comprehensive retrofits.
(3) The amount of such funds that have been used to
leverage private sector capital, including the amount of such
capital.
amendment no. 100 offered by mr. holt of new jersey
At the end of title IX, add the following new section:
SEC. __. NATIONAL LANGUAGE SERVICE CORPS.
(a) Charter for National Language Service Corps.--The David
L. Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 (50 U.S.C.
1901 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``SEC. 813. NATIONAL LANGUAGE SERVICE CORPS.
``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) The Secretary of Defense shall establish and maintain
within the Department of Defense a National Language Service
Corps (in this section referred to as the `Corps').
``(2) The purpose of the Corps is to provide a pool of
personnel with foreign language skills who, as provided in
regulations prescribed under this section, agree to provide
foreign language services to the Department of Defense or
another department or agency of the United States.
``(b) National Security Education Board.--The Secretary
shall provide for the National Security Education Board to
oversee and coordinate the activities of the Corps to such
extent and in such manner as determined by the Secretary
under paragraph (9) of section 803(d).
``(c) Membership.--To be eligible for membership in the
Corps, a person must be a citizen of the United States
authorized by law to be employed in the United States, have
attained the age of 18 years, and possess such foreign
language skills as the Secretary considers appropriate for
membership in the Corps. Members of the Corps may include
employees of the Federal Government and of State and local
governments.
``(d) Training.--The Secretary may provide members of the
Corps such training as the Secretary prescribes for purposes
of this section.
``(e) Service.--Upon a determination that it is in the
national interests of the United States, the Secretary shall
call upon members of the Corps to provide foreign language
services to the Department of Defense or another department
or agency of the United States.
``(f) Funding.--The Secretary may impose fees, in amounts
up to full-cost recovery, for language services and technical
assistance rendered by members of the Corps. Amounts of fees
received under this section shall be credited to the account
of the Department providing funds for any costs incurred by
the Department in connection with the Corps. Amounts so
credited to such account shall be merged with amounts in such
account, and shall be available to the same extent, and
subject to the same conditions and limitations, as amounts in
such account. Any amounts so credited shall remain available
until expended.
``(g) USERRA Applicability.--For purposes of the
applicability of chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code,
to a member of the Corps--
``(1) a period of active service in the Corps shall be
deemed to be service in the uniformed services; and
``(2) the Corps shall be deemed to be a uniformed
service.".''.
(b) National Security Education Board Matters.--
(1) Composition.--Subsection (b) of section 803 of such Act
(50 U.S.C. 1903) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (5);
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs
(8) and (9), respectively; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new
paragraphs:
``(5) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
``(6) The Secretary of Energy.
``(7) The Director of National Intelligence.''.
(2) Functions.--Subsection (d) of such section is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(9) To the extent provided by the Secretary of Defense,
oversee and coordinate the activities of the National
Language Service Corps under section 813, including--
``(A) identifying and assessing on a periodic basis the
needs of the departments and agencies of the Federal
Government for personnel with skills in various foreign
languages;
``(B) establishing plans to address foreign language
shortfalls and requirements of the departments and agencies
of the Federal Government;
``(C) recommending effective ways to increase public
awareness of the need for foreign languages skills and career
paths in the Federal government that use those skills;
``(D) coordinating activities with Executive agencies and
State and Local governments to develop interagency plans and
agreements to address overall foreign language shortfalls and
to utilize personnel to address the various types of crises
that warrant foreign language skills; and
``(E) proposing to the Secretary regulations to carry out
section 813.''.
amendment no. 104 offered by mr. holt of new jersey
At the end of subtitle F of title X insert the following
new section:
SEC. 1069. FEDERAL MORTUARY AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a Federal Mortuary
Affairs Advisory Commission.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the Commission shall be to
advise the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs, and Congress on the best practices for
casualty notification, family support, and mortuary affairs
operations so as to ensure prompt notification and
compassionate and responsive support for families
[[Page H3029]]
who have lost servicemembers, and for the honorable and
dignified disposition of the remains of fallen
servicemembers.
(c) Scope.--Within the Department of Defense and the
Department of Veterans Affairs, the Commission shall examine,
on an ongoing basis, all matters that encompass the
notification of family members on the death of a
servicemember in said family; all family support programs,
policies, and procedures designed to assist affected
families; and all aspects of mortuary affairs operations,
including the final disposition of fallen servicemembers.
(d) Composition.--
(1) Members.--The Commission shall consist of 13 members,
appointed as follows:
(A) One member appointed by the President of the United
States.
(B) One member appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
(C) One member appointed by the Minority Leader of the
House of Representatives.
(D) One member appointed by the Majority Leader of the
Senate.
(E) One member appointed by the Minority Leader of the
Senate.
(F) One member appointed by the Chairman of the House
Committee on Veterans Affairs.
(G) One member appointed by the Ranking Member of the House
Committee on Veterans Affairs.
(H) One member appointed by the Chairman of the House
Committee on Armed Services.
(I) One member appointed by the Ranking Member of the House
Committee on Armed Services.
(J) One member appointed by the Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Veterans Affairs.
(K) One member appointed by the Ranking Member of the
Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs.
(L) One member appointed by the Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Armed Services.
(M) One member appointed by the Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Armed Services.
(2) Term.--Each member shall serve a term of three years.
(3) Meetings and quorum.--After its initial meeting, the
Commission shall meet upon the call of the chairman or a
majority of its members. Seven members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum.
(4) Chairman and vice chairman.--Upon convening for its
first meeting, the Commission members shall elect by majority
vote a chairman and vice chairman of the Commission.
(5) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall not
affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner in
which the original appointment was made.
(e) Qualifications.--
(1) Political party affiliation.--Not more than 5 members
of the Commission shall be from the same political party.
(2) Nongovernmental appointees.--An individual appointed to
the Commission may not be an officer or employee of the
Federal Government.
(3) Other qualifications.--At least four individuals
appointed to the Commission should include family members who
have direct experience dealing with the loss of a
servicemember that involved interactions with the Dover Port
Mortuary. At least three individuals should have extensive
private or public sector experience in mortuary science,
operations, procedures, and decorum.
(f) Duration.--The Commission shall have a 5 year duration,
beginning after the last member of the Commission is
appointed
(g) Meetings and Reports.--The Commission shall hold
regular public meetings, notification of which shall appear
in the Federal Register and on the Commission's website. Not
less than annually, the Commission shall provide a written
report to the President, the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and Congress on--
(1) recommendations for improving casualty notification,
family support, and remains disposition; and
(2) progress, or lack thereof, by the Department of Defense
and the Department of Veterans Affairs in acting upon prior
recommendations of the Commission. Said report shall also be
posted on the Commission's website for public inspection.
(h) Information From Federal Agencies.--
(1) In general.--The Commission is authorized to secure
directly from any executive department, bureau, agency,
board, Commission, office, independent establishment, or
instrumentality of the Government, information, suggestions,
estimates, and statistics for the purposes of this title.
Each department, bureau, agency, board, Commission, office,
independent establishment, or instrumentality shall, to the
extent authorized by law, furnish such information,
suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the
Commission, upon request made by the chairman, the chairman
of any subcommission created by a majority of the Commission,
or any member designated by a majority of the Commission.
(2) Receipt, handling, storage, and dissemination.--
Information shall only be received, handled, stored, and
disseminated by members of the Commission and its staff
consistent with all applicable statutes, regulations, and
Executive orders.
(i) Assistance From Federal Agencies.--
(1) General services administration.--The Administrator of
General Services shall provide to the Commission on a
reimbursable basis administrative support and other services
for the performance of the Commission's functions.
(2) Other departments and agencies.--In addition to the
assistance prescribed in paragraph (1), departments and
agencies of the United States may provide to the Commission
such services, funds, facilities, staff, and other support
services as they may determine advisable and as may be
authorized by law.
(j) Staff of Commission.--
(1) Appointment and compensation.--The chairman, in
consultation with vice chairman, in accordance with rules
agreed upon by the Commission, may appoint and fix the
compensation of a staff director and such other personnel as
may be necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its
functions, without regard to the provisions of title 5,
United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive
service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51
and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to
classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that no
rate of pay fixed under this subsection may exceed the
equivalent of that payable for a position at level V of the
Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United
States Code.
(2) Personnel as federal employees.--
(A) In general.--The executive director and any personnel
of the Commission who are employees shall be employees under
section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of
chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, and 90 of that title.
(B) Members of commission.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be
construed to apply to members of the Commission.
(3) Detailees.--Any Federal Government employee may be
detailed to the Commission without reimbursement from the
Commission, and such detailee shall retain the rights,
status, and privileges of his or her regular employment
without interruption.
(4) Consultant services.--The Commission is authorized to
procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance
with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at
rates not to exceed the daily rate paid a person occupying a
position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section
5315 of title 5, United States Code.
(k) Compensation and Travel Expenses.--
(1) Compensation.--Each member of the Commission may be
compensated at not to exceed the daily equivalent of the
annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at level IV
of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5,
United States Code, for each day during which that member is
engaged in the actual performance of the duties of the
Commission.
(2) Travel expenses.--While away from their homes or
regular places of business in the performance of services for
the Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence,
in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the
Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703(b)
of title 5, United States Code.
In the table of contents in section 2(b), insert after the
item relating to section 1068 the following new item:
Sec. 1069. Federal mortuary affairs advisory commission.
amendment no. 124 offered by mr. welch of vermont
At the end of subtitle D of title XII of division A of the
bill, add the following:
SEC. 12XX. REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT TO CONGRESS A PLAN FOR A
FOREIGN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT USING FUNDS MADE
AVAILABLE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
(a) Plan Required.--Not later than 60 days prior to the
commencement of a covered infrastructure project, the head of
the Federal department or agency with primary responsibility
for carrying out the project shall submit to Congress a plan
to carry out and sustain the project.
(b) Matters to Be Included.--The plan shall include a
description of the following:
(1) The total amount of funds to be obligated and expended
under the project, including the total amount of funds to be
contributed from other sources.
(2) How the project will be maintained after its
completion, who will be responsible for maintaining the
project, and who will contribute funds for maintaining the
project.
(3) How the project will be protected after its completion.
(c) Covered Infrastructure Project.--In this section, the
term ``covered infrastructure project'' or ``project'' means
a project to improve the infrastructure of a foreign country
under which the United States contributes not less than
$1,000,000 from funds made available for overseas contingency
operations.
(d) Effective Date.--This section takes effect on the date
of the enactment of this Act and applies with respect covered
infrastructure projects commenced on or after 60 days after
such date of enactment.
amendment no. 127 offered by mr. flake of arizona
At the end of subtitle B of title XV, add the following new
section:
SEC. 1523. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS IN OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY
OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND.
Amounts appropriated to the Overseas Contingency Operations
Transfer Fund pursuant to the authorizations of
appropriations
[[Page H3030]]
contained in this title and available for use or transfer to
cover expenses directly relating to overseas contingency
operations by the United States Armed Forces may be used only
for an item or activity specified in the overseas contingency
operations portion of the budget submitted to Congress by the
President under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code,
for fiscal year 2013.
amendment no. 128 offered by mr. hunter of california
In section 1531, relating to the Joint Improvised Explosive
Device Defeat Fund, add at the end the following new
subsection:
(c) Additional Authorized Use of Funds in JIEDDF.--Funds in
the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund shall be
available, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State,
for the purpose of monitoring, disrupting, and interdicting
the movement of explosive device precursors from a country
that borders Afghanistan to a location within Afghanistan.
For a country in which the actions and activities described
in the preceding sentence are carried out, such funds may,
with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, also be used
to train and equip the security forces of that country that
support missions to monitor, disrupt, and interdict the
movement of explosive device precursors into Afghanistan.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Smith) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) for the purpose of a
colloquy.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chair, I rise to commend the Armed Services
Committee on their good work in a number of areas in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, but I have a concern
with the report language from section 815 that I would like to bring to
the chairman of the committee's attention.
I certainly approve of utilizing competition to both improve contract
performance and cost effectiveness of weapons systems. However, I want
to bring to attention the fact that the C 17 and its F117 engines have
been a model of modern sustainment. Today, time-on-wing for F117
engines has doubled since the start of this sustainment program while
making multiple design and hardware upgrades.
Today, the F117 engines are sustained through an award-winning
performance based on logistics contracts that minimize life-cycle costs
with fixed fees based on flight cycles. This contract type requires
comprehensive understanding and investment by the service provider,
along with the engineering design expertise to develop and implement
improvements in response to the actual mission.
I support the use of every practical means of providing for the
efficient defense of this country in the protection of our warfighters.
That includes the appropriate use of competition and any other
contracting method that incentivizes positive outcomes for cost
effectiveness and performance. In fact, the Air Force has taken steps
to ensure these outcomes are achieved on the C 17 sustainment contract.
As we push the Air Force and other services to extend the practices
further, we must always keep reliability and readiness of the weapons
system in mind.
I look forward to working with the chairman to address these issues
in conference, and I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his remarks and
his strong support for the readiness of our Armed Forces. There's no
doubt that our C 17 fleet is doing a remarkable job around the globe,
and I assure the gentleman that this committee strongly shares in your
desire to ensure that the C 17 continues to perform magnificently for
many years to come.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc for a
couple of reasons I think are very important to all of us. As we know,
the amendment that I'm concerned with and talking about has to do with
the issue of multiple deployments and to add to the Armed Forces Breast
Cancer Research Act of 2012 to the underlying legislation.
Amendment No. 85 requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report
on the effects that multiple deployments have on the well-being of our
military personnel. I, along with some of you, have some appreciation
for multiple deployments. We used to call them tours, but we understand
that the deployments and the impact on our troops in uniform and our
families is severe. We need to know more about it.
The other is I had a former staffer that went to a 5-year reunion, a
female staffer. She's an Iraq war veteran, and she returned to tell me
that six of the 70 women in her battalion, ages 25 to 35, had been
diagnosed with breast cancer and others had noncancerous masses. This
startled me, as did a study that indicates breast cancer is more
prevalent in military women than civilian.
The women are not the only ones that need this study. At last count,
at least 78 men who served at Camp Lejeune between 1950 and 1985 have
been diagnosed with breast cancer. These marines and their families
deserve more information. Last Congress, the Iraq and Afghanistan
Veterans of America and the VFW supported conducting this study.
More troops are returning from duty only to face a new battle--breast
cancer. So I urge my colleagues to get them answers. Support this en
bloc amendment and the other good features of it.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for
including in this en bloc amendment an amendment that I and the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) offered to ensure that we
budget honestly.
We have something called the Overseas Contingency Operations Account,
or OCO, and this we fear is sometimes used to put in items that we
don't want to become part of the budget, that are above the budget, or
outside of the budget. This amendment will ensure that those items in
this account are war related and not simply items to get around budget
constraints in the budget that we've established for defense.
I thank the gentleman for putting this in. This is an important
amendment. We've got to ensure that we budget honestly, and then make
sure in the future we know what our budget is, and we know what
accounts are doing. This is a good step in that direction.
{time} 2700
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
I wanted to take this moment while we have a little extra time on
this one to talk about Afghanistan and to express our opinions since we
weren't able to get our amendment ruled in order.
It's important for all the Members on the floor to understand that
the base bill has language on Afghanistan, and the base bill calls for
us keeping 68,000 troops in Afghanistan until the end of 2014 and then
makes unspecified requests to make sure that we have sufficient troops
to accomplish a series of missions after 2014. It very aggressively
calls for a large troop presence in Afghanistan for an extended period
of time.
I, and many Members on this side of the aisle as well as some on the
other, oppose that. We do not think that keeping that many troops in
Afghanistan for that long is in the best interest of our national
security or our country, and the bulk of the country agrees with us on
that. Unfortunately, we weren't offered the opportunity to offer our
amendment that offers what I think is a better approach.
I am also going to reluctantly oppose Representative Lee's amendment,
the only alternative we were given, which is to pull us out as fast as
we safely and responsibly can. Representative Lee's amendment does not
allow us to maintain any sort of counterterrorism mission, which I do
think is critically important. The amendment we wanted to offer was to
put us on a more aggressive, quicker drawdown pace to speed up the
transition to the Afghan forces for security while enabling us, with a
relatively small number of troops, to maintain that counterterrorism
issue.
We have trained over 350 Afghan national security forces. They have
taken over responsibility for an increasing number of provinces and
districts
[[Page H3031]]
throughout the country and for an increasing number of security
responsibilities. It is time to make that transition.
My objection to the base bill is it doesn't give us the opportunity
to make that transition because it mistakenly believes that the key to
Afghan stability is keeping as many U.S. troops in Afghanistan for as
long as possible. Having that large of a foreign military force--as we
have seen, there's been a huge increase in attacks by Afghan forces on
U.S. forces. We had the Koran burning incident. We had the horrible
incident of a soldier going off and allegedly killing 16 or 17
civilians in Afghanistan.
Our presence at this point, in and of itself, is destabilizing. And
what we want is a responsible drawdown of that force. We don't want to
do it hastily in a way that jeopardizes the mission or jeopardizes
Afghanistan. That was the purpose of the amendment that I, along with
Congressman McGovern and others, authored. And it is unfortunate that
for reasons I cannot understand, the majority refused to allow us the
opportunity to debate that.
Now, as I said earlier, I speculated that part of the reason is
because they know that the American people agree with us. It's a debate
they don't want to have and a vote they don't want to take. And I
respect that. A number of my colleagues have joked with me over the
years, The toughest part of this job is voting; that's when people
actually see where you stand.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
There have been many times where I wished I didn't have to do that,
but it comes with the job and particularly on something as important as
Afghanistan.
I don't think anyone would dispute that the most important thing
about this bill, the Armed Services Committee bill, this year is what's
going on in Afghanistan. The single most important issue, and we're
denied the opportunity to have a vote on what I think is a much better
plan, rather, leaving in place in the base bill a call for having
68,000 troops in Afghanistan until the end of 2014.
It is very simple: the majority is in favor of a larger troop
presence for a longer period of time. We are in favor of a smaller
troop presence for a shorter period of time. I believe it's the better
policy. I regret that we will not have the opportunity to vote on it;
but as we go into conference, I will strenuously argue this point. It
is a major flaw, I believe, in an otherwise very strong bill.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I'm not as good as my friend in characterizing or talking about
something, so I would just like to read from the bill what it actually
says:
The United States military should not maintain an
indefinite combat mission and should transition to a
counterterrorism and advise and assist mission at the
earliest practicable date, consistent with conditions on the
ground. In order to reduce this uncertainty and to promote
further stability and security in Afghanistan, the President
should fully consider the international security assistance
force commander's assessment regarding the need for the
United States to maintain a significant combat presence
through 2013. And finally, maintain a force of at least
68,000 troops through December 31, 2014, unless fewer forces
can achieve the United States objective.
This is the policy that has been established by the Commander in
Chief in consultation with the generals and the field commanders. Now,
I met with General Allen, the commander in Afghanistan, about a month
ago. I asked him how many troops he needed, and he said he was in the
process of evaluating. He didn't have a number yet. When he got that
number, he would send it back through the chain of command to the
Commander in Chief.
At that time, if he finds after his assessment that he may be able to
withdraw troops sooner or may be able to accomplish his mission with
less than 68,000, I would imagine the Commander in Chief will want to
change his policy. And this allows for that because if the Commander in
Chief, in consultation with the commander in the field, says that we
can do it with fewer forces to achieve the objective, that's exactly
what the bill says.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I would just say that no part of the
President's plan calls for having at least 68,000 troops through
December 31, 2014. If you had struck that out of the bill, that would
change things. But having that number in there makes an enormous
difference.
And with that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in support of this amendment. It includes my
amendment, prohibiting the Defense Department from purchasing
helicopters, directly or indirectly, for the Afghan security forces
from any entity controlled, directed, or influenced by Russia, any
other state that provides weapons to Syria, or other state sponsors of
terrorism. It also requires that any such future contract be
competitively bid.
The U.N. estimates more than 9,000 people in Syria have been killed
by the Assad regime since violence began there. And the Russian state
arms dealer Rosoboronexport continues to provide that regime with the
means to perpetrate widespread and systematic attacks on its civilians,
including signing a deal with Damascus in January to supply Syria with
36 combat jets.
Incredibly, the Defense Department is purchasing 21 Mi-17 helicopters
for the Afghan security forces through a no-bid contract with that
Russian company, even though it supplies arms to Syria and it was, for
years, on the U.S. sanctions list for providing illegal nuclear
assistance to Iran.
If U.S. taxpayer dollars are going to be spent providing helicopters
to the Afghans, those dollars should be spent on American systems that
create jobs here at home.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm).
Mr. GRIMM. I thank the chairman.
I rise today in support of my amendment. We know that the DOD faces a
difficult challenge in balancing cuts with our national security
strategy. However, the proposed elimination of two National Guard WMD
civil support teams poses tremendous risk.
These teams are highly trained units that provide rapid support to
civil authorities. Of special concern is the proposed elimination of
the 24th WMD-CST located in New York City. This team has been
instrumental in contingency preparations for high-profile activities
like massive sporting and political events to national holidays. They
have also responded to numerous crises situations.
My amendment, which I offered with my colleagues Representatives
Tonko, Bilirakis and Castor, simply changes the authorized numbers of
teams from 55 to 57, bringing this in line with the current number of
active teams.
Making sure New York City, a top terrorist target, has the assets
needed should we have another terrorist attack, is vital. I encourage
my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, in March, ``NBC News'' ran a story about a
soldier who was charged $41 for a three-second voicemail he left his
wife from a pay phone in an airplane in Germany.
{time} 1820
This is simply outrageous.
For servicemembers in transit to and from deployment, a quick phone
call from an airport pay phone is often their only link to loved ones
at home. Because public phones in foreign airports may not accept
prepaid calling cards, servicemembers have to accept whatever cost the
pay phone service charges in that particular airport. It is important
that we help provide that crucial link for our servicemembers during
this time of transit.
My amendment would direct the DOD to submit a report on the
feasibility of providing telecom services to servicemembers in transit
to overseas deployment and to investigate allegations of overcharging
servicemembers. The brave men and women of our Armed Forces deserve
better than $41 3-second call.
[[Page H3032]]
I encourage all Members to support my amendment.
Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. May I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that
illustrates an old saying: Adding insult to injury. The insult is the
terms under which we are debating this vast commitment of taxpayer
dollars to the most important issue we have--defense.
People will be debating at 11 o'clock tonight, in 5 minutes on a
side, very significant issues. We had a few minutes to debate the
question of Afghanistan. My colleague, Ms. Lee, and some Republicans
will join to try to bring this budget number down to where it should
be--$8 billion at least, back to the number of the agreement. And they
will have 5 minutes in which to do it. That's outrageous.
Also, it's important to note if this bill goes through, it is a
statement that efforts to improve the quality of life at home will be
sacrificed to foreign adventures that are ill-fated in many cases.
I read a letter from the chairman of the committee to the Secretary
of Defense. He said, Mr. Secretary, if we increase spending here, it
won't come out of other national security accounts. Of course not. It
will come out of Medicare. It will come out of Medicaid. It will come
out of efforts to protect the environment. It will come out of police
on our streets.
There is an excess of money here. Afghanistan is a good example. A
commitment of 68,000 troops. The gentleman from California complained
about what the gentleman from Washington said. It sounded the same to
me. They put down 68,000 troops, dictating to the Commander in Chief--
or trying to--what it should be.
There is an effort going on in Afghanistan which has gone far beyond
what was justified by our national security. There is a commitment to
spend more than is necessary on nuclear weapons when the military
hasn't asked for them. There are weapons systems here the Pentagon
didn't want. And where does it come from? It comes from everything we
try to do to improve the quality of life at home.
This is an attack on our ability to provide the funding that America
needs for a decent set of conditions here.
No one is opposing adequate national defense. This continues a
pattern of overspending. I remember, again, what Rupert Murdoch's Wall
Street Journal said, hailing the Republican budget, which this is
carrying out. It protects defense so they can cut Medicare and Medicaid
and other domestic programs. It's too bad we don't have a decent amount
of time to expose the extent to which that is going on.
Mr. McKEON. How much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I don't quite know where to start. We have just cut in this budget
and in the previous Deficit Reduction Act $487 billion and another $500
billion, $600 billion that kicks in with sequestration next January, so
that over the next 10 years we'll be cutting $100 billion dollars a
year out of defense at a time when we are fighting a war.
In my lifetime, I have seen this cut back after every war so that we
won't be prepared, I guess, for the next one. And what happens when we
get in the next conflict, being not prepared and having run our
military down, is we end up losing a lot of people. And I do not want
to see that happen if there is any possible way that we can overcome
it.
I was in a meeting in the Pentagon a couple of months ago when the
Secretary was laying out this budget. A senior military officer, one of
the highest ranking in our country, was sitting across the table from
me, and he looked at me at the end of the meeting, and said, In my 37
years in the military, and doing this, I have never seen a time more
serious, more dangerous than right now.
We're facing a possible nuclear weapon in Iran. Much of the terrorism
that we see around the world is nurtured and paid for and embraced and
sent forth from Iran. We have the problem, we know, in North Korea. We
have the problem of China that is decreasing their defense spending and
pushing us further back in helping us defend Taiwan and other
commitments that we have in the area. We had the Arab Spring that
nobody had thought about or planned on. And where is the next hotspot
going to be? We do not know. But I guarantee you that when you run down
your defenses, that is when somebody will take advantage.
President Reagan said we should have peace through strength. General
Eisenhower, President Eisenhower, we hear a lot the quotes about beware
of the military industrial complex. He also said our military, our
strength, our people in the military, are the ones that keep us safe,
and we should be so strong that no one ever should dare attack us for
fear of being annihilated. It's when we run down those forces, as we
have.
I remember I was at the Reagan Library recently and they showed a
video of when President Reagan ran in 1980. You might recall that we
had hostages in Iran that had been causing lots of problems for
President Carter. And we tried to send the military on a mission, and
they couldn't even fly across the desert with the equipment they had at
that time. We had a hollowed-out military.
We do not want to go there at this point. Half of the savings that we
have taken in deficit reduction have come out of the military. We have
done this on the backs of our troops, when they account for less than
19 percent of the overall spending. If we had no discretionary
spending, we would be running a deficit of a half-trillion dollars a
year. That is no military spending, no education spending, no spending
on our parks.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition of Mr. Gallegly's
Amendment #15 to H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the Navy have a long track record
of working together on otter conservation through the Integrated
Natural Resources Management Plan. The Navy activities have not lead to
the harassment of otters off the coast of California, so the provisions
to continue Naval exemptions from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) should be preserved in H.R. 4043.
This amendment takes the necessary step of extending the Navy's
exemption allowing ongoing military operations. However, I do not
believe that we should be using our Nation's military readiness as a
cover for establishing regulations that only benefits a special
interest group. I have serious concerns with the broad exemptions for
fishermen included in this amendment. Fishermen working south of Point
Conception, California would be given incidental take exemptions from
the ESA and MMPA indefinitely. This would remove any ability of the
Fish and Wildlife Service or any other agency to address problems that
may arise with otter recovery as a result of interaction with
fisheries. ESA and MMPA exemptions for specific industries undermine
the principles of management based on sound science under these
statutes and set a dangerous precedent of Congressional micromanagement
for political reasons.
The Navy has agreed to continue the management of the sea otters on
these installations, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior. Mr. Schregardus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Navy on
Environment, testifying before the Fisheries and Oceans Subcommittee,
specified that the further provisions have no relevancy to military
readiness operations in the region. None of the witnesses present at
the hearing could identify how the management actions specified in
subsection (g) had any impact on military readiness. Additionally, we
have heard testimony from scientists that indicate the concerns for the
ongoing viability of the California shellfish industry do not rest on
the shoulders of sea otters. Commercial over-harvest and withering
disease are the primary culprits to the decline of endangered abalone
species. The presence of sea otters and related improvement to the
nearshore kelp forest ecosystems can actually benefit abalone.
Southern sea otters are recovering from the devastating fur trade in
the 18th and 19th centuries, which almost eliminated them completely.
The nearly 2,800 otters that live in the region today have grown from
just over 40 individuals that remained on the California coast in the
1930s.
[[Page H3033]]
While the population is growing, the recovery of this species is
extremely slow. It is very important that our legislative actions do
not reverse past conservation successes that have developed as a result
of collaboration between the Navy, the Fish and Wildlife Service and
other scientists and stakeholders.
I urge adoption of only the naval provisions in this amendment, which
would address the national security needs of the nation without
compromising the recovery of the southern sea otter.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking
Member Smith for accepting this amendment. When the long-running
problems at the Dover Port Mortuary were revealed to the public last
year, all of us were appalled and ashamed at how the remains of fallen
warriors had been mishandled. It took a number of people, including a
constituent of mine who is the widow of a deceased Iraq veteran, as
well as several brave whistleblowers--public servants in the truest
sense--to bring these problems to light. What we now know is that
multiple Air Force IG inspections missed the mishandling of bodies,
improper cremations and other serious problems that plagued the Dover
Port Mortuary for years. Clearly, a higher, more sustained level of
oversight of Dover and of our overall process for military mortuary
affairs is called for.
My amendment would provide that higher level of oversight by creating
a Federal Mortuary Affairs Advisory Commission. The amendment requires
the appointment of family members with direct experience in dealing
with Dover, as well as the appointment of outside specialists in
mortuary affairs. We owe it to our fallen warriors and their families
to make this painful process as dignified and respectful as possible.
Creating this Commission will help us do that, which is why I ask for
my colleagues to support it.
Without world class linguists we would not have found Bin Laden. It
was an important reminder about the need to improve foreign language
education and ensure our national security and defense officials have
the skilled linguists they need to get the job done.
Since it was created as a pilot program in 2005, The National
Language Service Corps (NLSC) has help meet the growing need for
linguists and my amendment will ensure that this program becomes
permanent.
The NLSC is a corps of on-call language-certified experts who are
available to supplement Federal agencies' language capacity. It is
designed to provide a surge capability for meeting short-, mid-, and
long-term requirements through the identification of a reserve
workforce with expertise and skills in over 120 languages that are
either currently or potentially critical to the Federal government. The
NLSC currently has over 1800 members who are proficient in a critical
foreign language. My amendment will help our government have the
linguists needed at a moment's notice. I appreciate the committees
understanding of the importance of American having a strong foreign
language capacity for our defense and non-defense needs.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
The en bloc amendment were agreed to.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Rohrabacher of California.
Amendment No. 5 by Ms. Lee of California.
Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Rooney of Florida.
Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland.
Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Polis of Colorado.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher) 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 84,
noes 335, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 263]
AYES--84
Adams
Amash
Baldwin
Benishek
Bilirakis
Black
Bono Mack
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Cohen
Cravaack
Culberson
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Denham
DesJarlais
Doggett
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Green, Gene
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Jordan
Keating
King (IA)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Landry
LoBiondo
Lummis
Lynch
Mack
McClintock
Miller (FL)
Mulvaney
Napolitano
Nugent
Pallone
Paul
Petri
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Ribble
Rigell
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Runyan
Rush
Schilling
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Tiberi
Upton
Walsh (IL)
Westmoreland
Woodall
Yoder
NOES--335
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gibbs
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Polis
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
[[Page H3034]]
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--12
Amodei
Biggert
Cardoza
Costello
Cuellar
Filner
Holden
Kelly
Pascrell
Sanchez, Loretta
Slaughter
Wasserman Schultz
{time} 1851
Messrs. FLEMING, JOHNSON of Georgia, DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California,
KINGSTON, and BERG changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. BONO MACK, Messrs. RIBBLE, BENISHEK, RIGELL, LYNCH, FARENTHOLD,
BILIRAKIS, Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER, Ms. JENKINS, Mrs. BLACK, and Mr. ROKITA
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 263, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of Florida was allowed to speak out
of order.)
20th Annual Congressional Sportsmen's Shoot-Out
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, a couple of days ago we had the
20th Annual Congressional Sportsmen's Shoot-Out. I'm pleased to say,
for the majority side of the aisle, that we actually were able to
return the trophy back to our side. To my good friend, Mike Ross, I
want to say, nice try.
We had a great day raising money for the Congressional Sportsmen's
Foundation, a foundation that helps fund educational opportunities for
young people to learn about hunting and fishing and conservation. This
is one of the great bipartisan things that we do as a group.
And with that, Mike, I would also like to say we will miss your
enthusiasm, as you leave this body, for hunting and the outdoors.
I yield to my good friend, Mike Ross from Arkansas.
Mr. ROSS of Arkansas. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
Let me just say that the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus is one of
the largest bipartisan caucuses within the Congress. I think the work
we do together is very important, and at a time when there's so much
that divides us, this is something that so many of us are able to come
together and be united on. I want to thank everyone that participates
and helps make it one of the largest, if not the largest, bipartisan
caucuses in the Congress.
To my friend from Florida, now that he gave me a little kind jab, let
me just make the point that the Democrats have won the annual skeet,
trap, and sporting clays competition for the last 3 years, and we were
feeling bad about it, and so we decided that this year we would make
sure that all of our shotguns had a full choke and one arm tied behind
our back to try to make it more fair. And, obviously, maybe we
shouldn't have tied our arm behind our back.
We congratulate you on your victory this year, and we look forward to
next year as well for those that are returning.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the
top gun of the day, Duncan Hunter.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Lee of California
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will resume.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee) 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 113,
noes 303, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 264]
AYES--113
Amash
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McClintock
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rohrabacher
Rothman (NJ)
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sires
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--303
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Hochul
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--15
Amodei
Biggert
Cardoza
Costello
Filner
Holden
[[Page H3035]]
Kaptur
Lewis (CA)
Pascrell
Pence
Sanchez, Loretta
Slaughter
Sullivan
Wasserman Schultz
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1859
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 264, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 264 I inadvertently voted
``yea.'' My intention was to vote ``nay.''
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Connolly) 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 412,
noes 1, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 265]
AYES--412
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
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)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--1
Kucinich
NOT VOTING--18
Amodei
Biggert
Cardoza
Costello
Cravaack
Filner
Grimm
Hall
Holden
Miller, George
Pascrell
Pence
Sanchez, Loretta
Schilling
Schock
Slaughter
Walberg
Wasserman Schultz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1903
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 265, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Rooney
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Rooney) 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 249,
noes 171, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 266]
AYES--249
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
[[Page H3036]]
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Peters
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--171
Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Amodei
Biggert
Cardoza
Costello
Filner
Holden
Pascrell
Pence
Sanchez, Loretta
Slaughter
Wasserman Schultz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1908
Ms. HOCHUL and Mr. CARSON of Indiana changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 266, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Bartlett
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Bartlett) 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 211,
noes 209, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 267]
AYES--211
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
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)
Cole
Conaway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--209
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Sires
[[Page H3037]]
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--11
Amodei
Biggert
Cardoza
Costello
Filner
Holden
Pascrell
Pence
Sanchez, Loretta
Slaughter
Wasserman Schultz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1912
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 267, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I ben present, I would
have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Markey
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) 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 112,
noes 308, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 268]
AYES--112
Amash
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Braley (IA)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Chu
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gibson
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Keating
Kind
Kucinich
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Paul
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Rothman (NJ)
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schwartz
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Smith (NJ)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz (MN)
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--308
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Cicilline
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
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 (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hochul
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Watt
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--11
Amodei
Biggert
Cardoza
Costello
Filner
Holden
Pascrell
Pence
Sanchez, Loretta
Slaughter
Wasserman Schultz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1916
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 268, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Polis
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Polis) 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 165,
noes 252, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 269]
AYES--165
Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Labrador
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
[[Page H3038]]
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ribble
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--252
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--14
Amodei
Biggert
Cardoza
Costello
Filner
Holden
Landry
LaTourette
Pascrell
Pence
Roybal-Allard
Sanchez, Loretta
Slaughter
Wasserman Schultz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1919
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 269, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. McKEON. 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.
West) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, 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. 4310) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes, had
come to no resolution thereon.
____________________