[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H4926-H5006]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013
General Leave
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5856, and that I may
include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Reed). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 717 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5856.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1356
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5856) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Marchant in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This is the Defense appropriations bill for 2013. It has been done
with the cooperation of the Republicans and the Democrats on the
subcommittee, the Democrats led by Norm Dicks. I would say that Norm
and I have worked together for so many years in making sure that these
Defense appropriations bills were strictly nonpolitical--no politics in
Defense appropriations. And there should not be.
Our investment in our national defense should be based on what is the
real threat to the United States and what does it take to protect
against that threat and what does it take to protect the men and women
who provide for that national defense.
I want to compliment Mr. Dicks for having worked together with each
other so well, regardless of who was in the majority, for 35 years, Mr.
Dicks. And I just want to recognize that this will be the last Defense
appropriations bill that Mr. Dicks will preside over on the floor
because he is seeking retirement at the end of the term.
This committee will miss Mr. Dicks, the House will miss Mr. Dicks,
the Congress will miss Mr. Dicks, and I will say the country will miss
his service to the United States of America for so many years. So Mr.
Dicks, I extend to you my very, very best and my appreciation and
thanks for your friendship and your spirit of cooperation over the many
years.
The subcommittee held many hearings and many briefings on so many
subjects that it took most of the year leading up to this date in order
to do that. I will compliment the members of the subcommittee because
they were very attentive. The subcommittee hearings and meetings were
all very, very well attended. The members were very loyal and faithful
to their assignments and to their responsibilities.
During these hearings, we heard one word that bothered me a lot, that
was the word ``risk.'' As we got into the issue of the budget requests,
we were told that this might bring about a certain risk, or a prudent
risk, or an acceptable risk. We pursued the issue of what is an
acceptable risk when it comes to national defense or what is a prudent
risk. Let me explain briefly some of the things that we heard.
One, we were told that the United States is going to show much more
presence in the Pacific area. I certainly agree with that. That is a
very, very
[[Page H4927]]
important part of the world, and we have got to be present.
{time} 1400
The other point was that, as we did our hearings, we were told that
in the Mid East, in the Persian Gulf area, we need a buildup of naval
forces in order to do the job that has to be done, especially as we
watch what Iran is doing, what Iran is threatening to do, and the choke
point of the Strait of Hormuz where much of the world's oil transports.
Well, these risks, we think, have been met. But on the Navy buildup,
the budget request actually would reduce the naval capability, the
number of assets that we have. So we differed with the budget request
on that, and we added funding. And by the way, with the support of the
Secretary of the Navy, we added funding for an additional DDG-51
destroyer.
In addition, the Secretary of the Navy was really determined to build
a second Virginia-class submarine for 2014. And it was not in the
budget, but he convinced us that it was important to do; and so besides
the DDG-51, we provided the advance procurement to schedule that second
Virginia-class submarine for 2014.
In addition, there are three cruisers that were about to be
decommissioned; and for a lesser fee than decommissioning, we
determined to keep those cruisers in business and keep them capable and
keep them available for that naval buildup that our hearings told us
the Navy felt that they really needed.
One other issue that I would like to raise is the Air Force--and
we're not at war with the Air Force, by the way, but we have some
differences. The Air Force determined to take away aviation assets from
the Air National Guard in our States. And we heard from all of our
Governors. We heard from all of our TAGS, the adjutant generals, that
this would really be crippling to the mission of the Air National Guard
and the National Guard if those assets were lost.
So we recommended to the Air Force, we provided $850 million to do
what we call a ``pause,'' to let's get together and let's work with the
States, let's work with the Governors, let's work with the adjutant
generals to see what is the right thing to do here, and not deny the
States the assets that they need, the aviation assets that they need.
There's so much more to this bill. The bill has been available
online. The copies of the bill have been available. The lists of all of
the issues have been isolated in press releases, so the actual contents
of the bill have been available for weeks and so at this point I'm not
going to go further into the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H4928]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY12.001
[[Page H4929]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY12.002
[[Page H4930]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY12.003
[[Page H4931]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY12.004
[[Page H4932]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY12.005
[[Page H4933]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY12.006
[[Page H4934]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY12.007
[[Page H4935]]
Mr. DICKS. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2013 Department of
Defense bill.
I first want to thank Chairman Young for his very generous comments
about my service on the Defense Subcommittee. And he is absolutely
right, we have always, no matter who was chairman or which party was in
control, we've always, on a bipartisan basis, worked to take care of
the needs of our troops to make sure that we were properly funded in
equipment and to do it on the basis of what was right and what was
necessary. I appreciate his leadership of this subcommittee, and I wish
him well as we finish up this year.
This bill continues the Defense Subcommittee's long tradition, as I
mentioned, of bipartisanship and finding common ground as members work
together, under Mr. Young's leadership, to provide for the Department
of Defense. I'm pleased to report that the subcommittee has again
crafted a bill that places national security and the needs of U.S.
servicemembers above partisan politics.
I strongly support the priorities set in this bill. The bill supports
our troops. It includes funding for the third consecutive year to
replace inadequate schools owned by local educational authorities and
the Department of Education that are located on military installations.
It includes $40 million above the request for Impact Aid.
It includes $125 million above the request for traumatic brain injury
and psychological health, as well as an additional $20 million above
the request for suicide prevention and outreach.
And the bill has a total of $1.2 billion in Defense Health Program
research and development, $545 million above the request.
The bill continues the committee's longstanding support for peer-
reviewed breast cancer research, peer-reviewed prostate cancer
research, vision research, spinal cord research, and many other medical
research initiatives.
The bill supports the Guard and Reserve. It includes funding to pause
force structure reductions and aircraft retirements proposed by the Air
Force that would affect Air Guard and Reserve units across the country.
And the bill contains $2 billion for the National Guard and Reserve
Equipment Account.
The bill supports today's equipment needs and develops tomorrow's
technology. It supports Secretary Panetta's strategic focus on the
Asia-Pacific region by including robust funding for shipbuilding and
the Patriot missile defense system.
The bill supports DOD's intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
needs by providing the resources for Global Hawk UAVs.
The bill addresses the Navy's strike fighter shortfall by funding F-
18 Hornets and providing advance procurement for F-18G electronic
attack aircraft.
The bill provides for ground equipment such as the Abrams tank,
Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and HMMWV modernization. This funding
provides for Army equipment needs, including the Guard and Reserve, and
helps maintain a stable industrial base.
The bill includes $250 million for the Rapid Innovation Fund that
will continue the committee's efforts, started in 2011, to promote
innovative research and defense technologies among small businesses;
and the bill includes funding above the request for joint U.S.-Israeli
missile defense activities, including $680 million for Iron Dome.
The bill funds operations in Afghanistan consistent with the
President's plan to wind down our presence as agreed to in the Lisbon
Accord of 2010 and this year's NATO summit in Chicago.
The bill also includes important restrictions on DOD activities. The
bill prohibits permanent U.S. bases in Iraq or Afghanistan and
prohibits U.S. control over Iraqi oil resources. The bill prohibits the
torture of detainees. The bill prohibits training foreign military
forces if these forces are known to commit gross violations of human
rights. And the bill limits reimbursements to Pakistan until the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State,
certifies that Pakistan is working cooperatively with the U.S. against
terrorist activity.
While I support the funding level and priorities included in this
bill, I must also express my objection, not to Mr. Young, but to the
majority decision to renege on the bipartisan agreement reached less
than a year ago in the Budget Control Act. I believe the reduced
discretionary allocation in the Ryan budget threatens to stall economic
growth and job creation; and in the near term, it introduces
uncertainty in our appropriations process that imperils our ability to
produce these bills in a timely manner.
Accordingly, it is my belief that we could save a considerable amount
of time in the appropriations process if we simply returned to the
agreement reached last year in August, the $1.047 trillion allocation
level for this year, a level which even the Republican other body
leadership concedes is where we will eventually end up.
Despite this reservation, I want to congratulate Chairman Young for
producing a bill that meets the most pressing needs of the Department
of Defense, and for doing so in the best tradition of the
Appropriations Committee.
And I must say that I feel we have one of the best staffs on the
whole Hill. And I know Paul and Tom have worked together when Paul was
the clerk and Tom was representing Mr. Young as the ranking member. And
the cooperation of all the staff members has been extraordinary, and
they've worked very hard to prepare this bill for the floor, and I want
to congratulate them on their good efforts.
{time} 1410
Also, I want to thank Mr. Rogers for his efforts to restore regular
order. I think it's outstanding that we have had this bill in a
subcommittee markup, a full committee markup, now brought to the floor
under an open rule. This is the way this committee should operate, and
I appreciate his efforts to provide that leadership.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I rise in support of this essential bill.
It provides more than $519 billion in critical resources for a strong
national defense, supporting our warfighters and protecting the
American people. This is an increase of $1.1 billion over last year and
more than $3 billion more than what the President asked of us. It is
also more than $8 billion over what the Senate Democrats would like to
provide.
This Nation, with all the opportunities it provides and the rights it
grants, would not be the bastion of freedom without the greatest
defense system in the world. Freedom is not free. As we continue to
face threats to our safety and way of life, we must deal with the costs
of war, keep our military at the ready, and stay constantly vigilant.
This bill supports and takes care of our troops at the highest level
possible, providing a 1.7 percent pay raise. We have also increased the
critical health and benefits program that our troops deserve, providing
$35.1 billion for health and family programs, including funding for
traumatic brain injury research and suicide prevention outreach
programs.
This legislation keeps America at the forefront of defense
technologies by continuing research and development efforts. We boost
key training and readiness programs to prepare our troops for combat
and peacetime missions with an increase of $12.1 billion for operations
and maintenance. We also enhance our military arsenal with $102.5
billion for equipment and upgrades, and we continue fighting the global
war on terror by including $88.5 billion for overseas contingency
operations.
But, in this environment of fiscal austerity, the committee
recognized that even the Pentagon should not have carte blanche when it
comes to discretionary spending. We increased oversight and took a
balanced approach to budgeting. Commonsense decisions were made to save
tax dollars wherever possible, including rescinding unused, prior-year
funds and terminating unnecessary programs like the
[[Page H4936]]
Medium Extended Air Defense System; but we can guarantee that none of
these cuts will affect the safety or success of our troops and
missions.
The bill also prohibits funding for the transfers of Guantanamo
detainees to the U.S. or its territories, prohibits funding to modify
any facility in the U.S. to house detainees, and places strict
conditions on the release of detainees--all provisions that were
authorized under the National Defense Authorization Act.
I want to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to recognize the
Appropriations Committee's ranking member, Mr. Dicks, who also serves
as ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee. He has been a formidable
servant of the American people and a dedicated usher of appropriations
dollars for some 36 years, and we appreciate his service. As he moves
to another phase of his life, we wish him well and Godspeed. He has
been a great member of this committee and subcommittee and of this
Congress.
Also, I want to say a word of thanks to Jerry Lewis of California,
who has been a member and chairman of the Defense Subcommittee and the
full committee, for his many years of service to the appropriations
process and to this Congress.
We will be sorry to lose the expertise, the leadership, talent, and
friendship of these two gentlemen when they retire at the end of this
year, but we wish them well in their next pursuits in life. The
Appropriations Committee has been made stronger, more responsive,
responsible, and respectful thanks to these two outstanding and
upstanding legislators and appropriators.
I also want to say a word of congratulations and thanks to our
chairman, Bill Young, and to this great staff that Norm Dicks has
referred to as the greatest on the Hill, and I can't dispute that. They
worked long and hard on a very, very tough bill, under austere
circumstances, in order to put together a bill that is necessary for
our Nation's defense. These many hours and capable hands that have had
a touch on this bill, I think, have crafted a successful bipartisan
bill that all of us can be proud to support.
So congratulations, Chairman Young, for another great job. You bring
such expertise and experience to this chore, which is so much
appreciated by this body.
Mr. Chairman, this is a must-pass piece of legislation that is vital
to the security of our homeland and to the safety and health of our
troops and veterans. I urge my colleagues to support this great Nation
and to approve this necessary bill.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 3 minutes to a very senior member of the
Appropriations Committee and a member of the Defense Subcommittee, the
gentlewoman from Ohio, Congresswoman Kaptur.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Washington for yielding me this time.
I want to acknowledge the work of our full committee under the
chairmanship of Mr. Rogers, and obviously the wonderful work of our
chairman, Bill Young, and of our subcommittee ranking member, Mr.
Dicks. Their collegial work has made this bill possible, and it will
benefit our entire Nation, our men and women in uniform, our Armed
Forces, and all of those who are touched by this legislation.
I would like to add my voice to those who wish to recognize the
magnificent work that Congressman Dicks has done during his years of
service to our country back from the time when he first worked for
Senator Warren Magnuson. We would like to wish him, his wife, Suzie,
and their beautiful family many healthy and productive years ahead. We
thank him for his distinguished and honorable and intrepid service--
always dutiful, always enlightened. When he walks from these Halls
officially, he takes great knowledge and should take great satisfaction
with him for a job well done, indeed.
I want to extend to Congressman Jerry Lewis, as well, deep
appreciation from the people of our States and country for your
incredible service.
I would venture to say, when both of you gentlemen leave these
Chambers, nearly a century of knowledge will walk with you. You have
left America with her strongest defense globally, and you have been a
part of crafting every single line of these bills. America thanks you
and the free world thanks you.
This bill has been written in a bipartisan way by our subcommittee,
and I thank the members for working collaboratively together. It is a
model for our committee and Congress on how to do the work necessary to
meet the needs of the American people.
The bill includes $125 million above the President's request for
funding health research for traumatic brain injuries and posttraumatic
stress, which are the signature wounds of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Our bill includes an additional $246 million for cancer
research, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and
lung cancer.
The bill also includes necessary funding for the Iron Dome. During
the last decade of war, our National Guard and Reserve units have
proven themselves as the strategic reserve force for our Nation. The
Air Force, in submitting its FY13 budget, did not appear to
appropriately appreciate the importance of the Guard and Reserve
because they targeted those units for mission reductions and
cancellations. Our subcommittee has fixed this oversight by providing
the necessary funding to allow the Guard and Reserve to continue their
missions, which they do extremely well and at considerably less cost
than the Air Force does.
Our bill fixes a continuing issue from the executive branch and
maintains our Nation's industrial base by making sure we do not end the
domestic production capability for tanks for the first time since World
War II. The bill averts a plan to shut down the production line for 2
years. Shutting the lines would have cost the American taxpayers more
money than producing tanks over the same time and would dismantle the
critical, fragile supplier network.
The legislation also continues the military's commitment to lead our
Nation towards energy independence. The Pentagon, as the largest
petroleum user in the world, must lead our Nation toward energy
independence. No challenge could be more vital to our national security
and economic security interests. High fuel costs are an enormous burden
on America's families. It is also a severe and wasteful burden on our
service branches, and it diverts funds from important readiness and
modernization needs.
Thank you, Mr. Dicks, for this time. Godspeed to you and to your
family in the years ahead.
Thank you, Congressman Lewis. To you and to your wife, Arlene, may
you enjoy many wonderful years ahead.
Thank you, Chairman Young, for being a chairman who brings this
Congress together at the subcommittee level, and Chairman Rogers, at
the full committee level. Thank you for working with all of our Members
to meet the needs of our Nation and our Nation's defense.
{time} 1420
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), who is an
extremely important member of this subcommittee and also represents
this subcommittee with the Intelligence Committee.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding,
and for his leadership, and that of Mr. Dicks, as well.
In preparation for this debate, the subcommittee held a lengthy
series of hearings examining such varied issues as our operations in
Afghanistan, the so-called pivot to the Asia-Pacific region, Army
modernization, Navy shipbuilding, Marine end strength, and the Air
Force restructuring proposals.
Most of these issues relate, as the chairman has said, to mitigating
risk in the Defense budget in what is called the ``new strategic
guidance'' from the Department of Defense. It's what I would
characterize as protecting our gains in the Middle East and elsewhere,
as well as preparing for future and current threats, such as China's
growing military capacity, instability in the Korean peninsula, civil
war in Syria, Iran's pledge to close the Strait of Hormuz, and others.
As you'll hear during this debate, the committee weighed in with its
own options. As the chairman said, we pause the Air Force restructuring
decisions. In light of the tyranny of distance that characterizes the
Asia-Pacific region,
[[Page H4937]]
we bolster the Navy's shipbuilding accounts and add back in a Virginia-
class submarine and a Burke-class destroyer.
Our goal here, and throughout the bill, was to provide the resources
to support our warfighters now and in the future whenever the next
crisis arises. We clearly recognized the Nation's debt and deficit, and
found areas in programs where reductions were possible without
adversely impacting our Armed Forces and modernization readiness
efforts.
Exercising our mandate to adhere to sound budgeting, we reclaimed
funding for programs terminated or restructured since the budget was
released. We've achieved savings for favorable contract price
adjustments, such as multiyear procurements of complicated weapons
systems. We cut unjustified cost increases or funding requested ahead
of need. We also took recisions from surplus from prior year funds.
Frankly, it is important that we find savings without harming readiness
or increasing the risks incurred by our warfighters.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us includes funding for critical
national security needs and provides the necessary resources to
continue the Nation's vital military efforts abroad. In addition, the
bill provides essential funding for health and quality-of-life programs
for our men and women in uniform--all volunteers--and their families.
I want to thank Chairman Young, Ranking Member Dicks, Chairman
Rogers, and all the Members of the subcommittee for their work, and the
excellent staff we have, and our past leadership and our continued
leadership from Congressman Jerry Lewis of California. We were all able
to work together in a bipartisan manner to ensure that our men and
women in uniform--all volunteers--and their families have the support
they need. The years ahead will be challenging, but our defense bill
will meet those needs.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). He and I were in the same
class together and enjoyed many spirited debates on national security
issues. I consider him to be a good friend and someone who cares a
great deal about these issues.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Dicks and I started 36 years ago at the height of the Cold War,
with each country building more and more nuclear weapons, more and more
defense systems in an ever escalating war of nerves that kept both
countries and the whole world on edge.
In this Republican fantasy land, gold-plated nuclear weapons systems
budget, there are going to be programs that have long outlived their
usefulness that are lavished with canyons filled with cash. In this
fantasy land, the Cold War never ended. The Soviet menace lives on,
making it necessary to maintain vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons and
build new bombers to penetrate the Iron Curtain. In this fantasy land,
there are mountains of money for intercontinental ballistic missiles
towering over the landscape and providing shade and comfort to the
legions of defense contractors making nuclear weapons we no longer need
and we can no longer afford. In this fantasy land, the Republicans want
to retroactively re-fight the Cold War that we won. This makes no
sense.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to get real. Sequestration is coming. The
Republicans, in their budget, are ignoring the doomsday clock that has
nearly reached midnight for millions of hardworking Americans. We must
prepare for this reality. The bill the Republicans have brought to the
floor today provides the Pentagon with a billion more dollars than this
year's spending level, and $3 billion more than the Obama
administration requested. Despite sequestration, despite budget
pressures, despite the fragility of the economy, the Republicans still
want to increase defense spending. Why? To pay for more radioactive
relics of the past that no longer are needed in order to protect our
country.
But I have good news for my friends on the other side of the aisle:
the Cold War ended more than 20 years ago. The Soviet Union crumbled.
It's okay to stop funding nuclear weapons to perpetuate a Cold War
rivalry that has disappeared into the mists of history. We don't have
to buy into this insanity. That is why I plan to offer several sane
amendments to reduce Pentagon spending on unnecessary, outdated nuclear
weapons programs.
Here is the bottom line: beginning January 1 of next year, 5 months
from now, $55 billion has to be cut out of the defense budget and $55
billion has to be cut out of civilian social programs. That is $55
billion and $55 billion apiece. The Republicans are increasing defense
spending heading into that. Moreover, they're saying, Don't cut defense
at all, cut the social programs.
What does that mean? That means cutting the NIH, cutting CDC, cutting
the National Cancer Institute. They're already going to be cut under
sequestration. What the Republicans are proposing is to really create a
true doomsday machine, and that doomsday machine is the lack of a cure
for Alzheimer's, for Parkinson's, for all of the other diseases which
actually do pose a terrorist threat to families across the country when
they get the call that once more that disease has come through their
family because we--that is, the Republicans--have decided that they're
going to continue to cut the research for the cure for disease and
instead build more nuclear weapons to be aimed at targets that no
longer exist.
This is an important debate to have. It's a sequestration
anticipation debate where we begin to be forced to get real. We have to
have a debate about what the priorities in the 21st century are going
to be, and not some Dr. Strangelove smiling from his grave, being so
happy that we're still debating additional nuclear weapons.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I want to say to the House that we understand the importance of
sequestration, and we've got to stop sequestration. It's just not good,
especially for our national defense. This Congress, this committee has
not ignored the issue.
{time} 1430
Last year, last year alone, this committee recommended a bill that
reduced fiscal year '12, fiscal year '13, a total of $39 billion, but
we did it carefully. We did it by not just going across the board,
cutting muscle out of our national defense. We took money that wasn't
going to be spent anyway. We understand the importance of meeting
deadlines on funding reductions.
We don't want sequestration. It is not good for the military, it is
not good for the country, and it is not good for the economy.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), who
is one of our subcommittee chairmen on Appropriations.
Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in
strong support of this legislation.
Let me first say thank you to the chairman, Chairman Young, and
Congressman Dicks, the ranking member. Thank you not only for your
leadership in bringing this bill to the floor, but thank you for your
spirit of cooperation, your spirit of bipartisanship, which has
pervaded our subcommittee. As we bring this before the full House, I
think there is great agreement among those that serve on the
subcommittee.
When you stop and think about the fact that national security is
probably the number one responsibility of the Federal Government, the
only way to keep America safe is to keep America strong, and I think
this bill does that. Now, you'll hear people say, you just heard people
say, why do we need to spend so much money on defense, the Cold War is
over, we're pulling out of Afghanistan, we're no longer going to be in
Iraq; why don't we just kind of pay a peace dividend?
Well, as Chairman Young just pointed out, we are in the midst of a
program where we are reducing spending on national defense. We looked
at every agency. The Federal Government said you've got to do more with
less, you've got to tighten your belt, and the Defense Department is no
different.
We're in the middle of actually reducing spending $487 billion over
the next 10 years. Then, of course, we face this draconian cut of
sequestration. I think that we have got to keep in mind that it is the
number one responsibility. We ask our troops, ask our military to do
things. We certainly have the best trained and the best equipped
military in the history of this world.
[[Page H4938]]
But you look at our Navy, for instance. We have half as many ships as
we had 30 years ago, half as many, and yet we're asking them to do so
many things. Sure, the ships are more technologically advanced. Sure,
we've got better trained people. But stop and think about it. When you
ask the Navy to go out and interdict drug runners in the Caribbean, and
you say chase the pirates off the coast of Somalia and send a carrier
into the Mediterranean, guard the Strait of Hormuz when Iran rattles
its saber, conduct humanitarian missions down in Haiti, and, by the
way, keep an eye on the Pacific Rim, because that's where China is
flexing its muscle, remember, numbers matter. The world is no smaller.
We still haven't solved the problem of how do you have one ship in
two places at the same time. So it's important that we continue to
provide the resources that we need to have a strong national defense.
I think this bill does that. I think we should all support this.
Mr. DICKS. We have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a very important member of this
subcommittee.
Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, as I am the most junior
member of this subcommittee.
But I would be remiss not to echo the praise of my colleagues, both
for the chairman and the ranking member. They have worked together
extraordinarily well in a way that makes us all proud. Frankly, Mr.
Dicks, I am going to miss you greatly from this committee. You have
been a mentor and a friend. Thank goodness Mr. Young will be here, and
I will have somebody's knee to learn at.
This is a good bill. It does, as has been mentioned earlier, add
roughly a billion dollars from roughly $519 billion in the base defense
bill. What hasn't been mentioned, though, is that our overseas
contingency fund, 8, $8.5 billion, is actually down $27 billion, so we
are actually spending less overall on defense this year.
We reduced the number of personnel by over 21,000. We ought to
recognize, for those of our friends who think we're spending too much,
we are actually at the beginning of a long drawdown. If you look over
the next 5 years, sadly, we're going to reduce defense spending by $500
billion. That means less capability. That means 70,000 fewer soldiers,
20,000 fewer marines. That means 25 fewer combat vessels--288 instead
of 313. Seven fewer aircraft fighter wings. Real reduction in
capability.
A lot of our friends think we spend too much on defense. The reality
is we spend less and less as a percentage of our Federal budget and our
overall wealth every year. In the 1970s we were spending 40 percent
plus of the Federal budget. This year, it's less than 20. We were
spending 9 percent of GDP at the height of the Cold War, this year
barely 4.
For those of us that think that this investment hasn't made a
difference, I would just recommend in closing, please read Robert
Kagen's splendid book, ``The World America Made,'' and think how much
freedom and security we have enjoyed for a relatively small price and
think about the risk we have run as we go forward if we reduce too far
too fast.
I want to thank again the chairman, the ranking member, for making
sure that didn't happen. I look forward to working with him to make
sure sequestration does not occur. As he rightly points out, it would
be devastating.
We should pass this bill, and we then should get about the longer
term challenge of making sure sequestration does not occur.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Florida for the time and
for your leadership on this critically important bill.
Mr. Chairman, in the push and pull and give and take of the
congressional appropriations process we have had many important debates
on the proper role of the Federal Government in society. But despite
our differences and competing priorities, it is clear that Americans
believe in a Federal Government that provides a strong common defense
as a priority.
American military leadership is important for our own security but
also for global stability and global human rights. It is also important
for my home State of Nebraska. Over the past 10 years, Mr. Chairman,
15,000 Nebraskans in uniform have served overseas. Today, 17,000 men
and women stationed in Nebraska work tirelessly to strengthen our
national security. American troops are steadfast, selfless, and
undeterred in their service and deserve our unwavering support.
This bill, I believe, reflects responsibly the challenges of our
times. Further amendments may actually strengthen the bill creatively
in balance with our fiscal responsibility obligations, but moving
forward with our primary obligation to govern in defense of our Nation
should be our guiding principle here.
Let me add, Mr. Chairman, that I learned in this debate that this is
Mr. Dicks' retiring session, and I also want to add my thanks for your
many years of good service.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the
gentleman if he has further speakers on the general debate.
Mr. DICKS. I have no further speakers. Is the chairman going to
close?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes.
Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I want to take a minute to thank the staff who have worked tirelessly
on this bill, Mr. Dicks mentioned them earlier on. We have the
responsibility to appropriate for the authorization of the Intelligence
Committee and for the authorization legislation of the Armed Services
Committee. You can imagine that that is quite a responsibility. The
staffing is extremely important because our staff is limited in size to
the combined numbers of staff on those two committees that we do
appropriate for.
But I want to call special attention to, for example, the minority
staff who worked directly with Mr. Dicks, Paul Juola and Becky
Leggieri. Paul Juola actually worked in that capacity for the majority
staff when we were the majority. In fact, when I was chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, I hired Paul. So you can see, this is a very
nonpolitical subcommittee.
I would also like to recognize Brooke Boyer on the majority staff;
Walter Hearne; Tom McLemore, who is the chief clerk of the majority
staff; Jennifer Miller; Tim Prince; Adrienne Ramsay; Ann Reese; Megan
Rosenbusch; Paul Terry; BG Wright; and Sherry Young. They are quite a
team.
{time} 1440
They are able to analyze the budget requests, the budget
justifications, and keep the membership advised. So I want to thank
them very much for the good work that they do.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment who has
caused it to be printed in the designated place in the Congressional
Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5856
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2013, for military functions
administered by the Department of Defense and for other
purposes, namely:
TITLE I
MILITARY PERSONNEL
Military Personnel, Army
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence,
interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station
travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational
movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between
permanent duty stations, for members of the Army on active
duty, (except members of reserve components provided for
elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; for members of the
Reserve Officers' Training
[[Page H4939]]
Corps; and for payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law
97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to the
Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund,
$40,730,014,000.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. McCollum
Ms. McCOLLUM. I have an amendment at the desk printed in the
Congressional Record.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 2, line 22, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $96,950,000)''.
Page 3, line 9, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $25,550,000)''.
Page 3, line 20, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $23,710,000)''.
Page 4, line 8, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $23,900,000)''.
Page 8, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $10,100,000)''.
Page 8, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $1,360,000)''.
Page 8, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $2,230,000)''.
Page 8, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $3,970,000)''.
Page 153, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $187,770,000)''.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Before I do my prepared remarks, I would very much also
like to thank both Chairman Rogers and Chairman Young for the
courtesies and all the help that they and their staffs have given me
since being on the Appropriations Committee in the positions they are
in.
Mr. Dicks, I would especially like to thank you for being a mentor
and a guide star through this, not only on the Defense Appropriations
bill, but on the Interior bill and, just in general, working on health
care. Thank you so very much.
Over the past 4 years, the Department of Defense has spent a stunning
$1.55 billion on military bands, musical performances, and concert
tours around the world. That's right, $1.55 billion in taxpayer funds
for 4 years for military bands. This amendment reduces the Pentagon
spending for military bands and musical performances from the $388
million in this bill to $200 million for fiscal year 2013. The $188
million reduction is a transfer to the deficit reduction account. In
the National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 4310, the House included
language to limit the authorization for military musical units not to
exceed $200 million. This amendment conforms with the defense
authorization while cutting spending by $188 million.
Our Nation is in a fiscal crisis. The Pentagon is on pace to spend $4
billion over the next decade on military bands. Is the United States
really going to borrow money from China and other foreign countries so
the Defense Department can spend billions of dollars for its 140 bands
and more than 5,000 full-time professional musicians? How does this
enhance our national security?
Congress has a duty to provide the necessary resources for our Armed
Forces and to ensure our national defense. We also have an obligation
to ensure that every dollar in this bill is strengthening our national
security. Spending $388 million of taxpayers' money on military music
does not make our Nation more secure. It is a luxury the Pentagon and
the taxpayers can just no longer afford.
Before he retired last year, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates
said:
We must come to the realization that not every defense
program is necessary, not every defense dollar is sacred and
well spent, and that more of everything is simply not
sustainable.
Mr. Chairman, the defense dollars I want to cut from military musical
units is not necessary; it is not sacred and not well spent with so
many other pressing needs. In this fiscal environment it is simply not
sustainable.
I don't think anyone here today will tell the American people that
there is no waste or excess in the Pentagon's budget. This Congress
should not be protecting waste and excess in the Pentagon. It should
cut it.
There's a lot of talk, mostly from my Republican colleagues, about
protecting defense from the sequester and protecting millionaires and
billionaires from expiring tax cuts. Protecting every single defense
dollar means shifting the burden and the pain for billions of
additional budget cuts onto local communities, middle class families,
seniors, the poor, and vulnerable children.
Is this Congress going to really kick more kids off the school lunch
program or make deeper cuts to our first responders in order to justify
paying for more military music? Well, that will not be my choice. That
does not reflect my values, and it is not the legacy I want to leave
behind as a policymaker.
This amendment cuts a program that has grown out of control. It
reduces the deficit, and it does nothing to impact military readiness,
mission strength, or our troops' ability to defend our Nation. I urge
my colleagues to support the McCollum amendment and cut unnecessary
funding for military bands.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I'm reluctant to do that because I have the
privilege of working with Ms. McCollum on other subcommittee and on the
full committee, and she's always very sincere and very generous in the
way she treats the issues that she's working with, but I just don't
think that we want to eliminate military bands.
First, I must tell you that those who play in the band are trained as
basic combat troops and they are called upon in a time of emergency.
They are called upon to provide security for military headquarters,
wherever it may be located. So I don't think that we want to do away
with that capability.
Now, 91 percent of the money that goes to these military bands is to
pay the members and their allowances--their uniform, their food--and I
just don't think that we want to do that. Our military bands play for
the President, play for military functions; but many communities in our
country are constantly inviting military bands to come play patriotic
programs in our hometowns, and this is good for our community. This
lets us be part of our military. This doesn't put our military in a
barracks someplace and keep them isolated from the general population,
and I think the military should be part of our general population.
I just believe that this is not a good idea.
Ninety-one percent of this money will come out of the military
personnel account, which pays for very important things like salaries,
military expenses of feeding and caring for our military personnel. Why
should we have our military isolated in the community? They should be
part of our communities. It's an all-volunteer force, and this country
needs a good shot of patriotism because we've had too much negativism
coming at us from all different directions.
This is a positive country. This is a patriotic country. We ought to
allow our military to show off their talents not only on the
battlefield where they risk their lives, lose their lives, or are
terribly injured.
So I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota will be
postponed.
{time} 1450
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 2013
Defense appropriations bill.
First, I want to thank my chairman and friend, Chairman Young, and my
friend, Ranking Member Dicks, for their hard work, and their staffs,
both the majority and the minority, for an
[[Page H4940]]
extremely thoughtful and balanced bill.
In crafting this bill, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee held
countless hearings and ensured that strong congressional oversight was
alive and well. It's been an honor to serve on the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee, and I can attest to the hard work that's
gone into this bill.
Our Nation's first priority is the protection of our citizens and our
national interests around the world. This bill fulfills that duty. The
FY13 Defense appropriations bill also fulfills a promise to our U.S.
servicemembers that they will continue to receive the best training,
equipment, and health care. Likewise, the bill fulfills needed
requirements to ensure that our commanders have the tools they need to
accomplish U.S. missions around the world and support America's defense
industrial base.
I understand that many Members may have objections to the overall
funding level of the defense bill, and there's no doubt that every
aspect of government, including defense, must come under close fiscal
scrutiny. However, the short-term benefits of decimating defense will
only leave us in a more economically precarious position in the future.
This bill properly balances the need to make responsible cuts while
ensuring that America maintains its military superiority.
On a personal basis, I want to thank some friends that are leaving
the committee, Jerry Lewis and Norm Dicks, for their many years of
service. Not only are they colleagues, but they're good friends, and
we're going to miss their service here in this institution. So I thank
you for all your hard work.
Lastly, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, this year marks the 12th consecutive
appropriations season that the United States has been funding and
fighting the war in Afghanistan. Sometimes it's easy to forget that we
are still deep in war in Afghanistan. The threat of nuclear weapons in
Iran, drone strikes in Pakistan, and the nightmare of mass murder in
Syria garner the attention of the news media, but we currently have
more than 90,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan and about 110,000
contractors.
Some of these troops are slated to come home over this summer, but
many more, approximately 88,000, will remain. And the exact number of
troops that will remain in Afghanistan as the U.S. and allies
transition to local security forces through 2013 and 2014 is still
unclear. Neither the Pentagon nor the administration has publicly laid
out post-2014 plans, but they are clearly leaving open the possibility
of a significant military presence. This is the reality we face as we
open debate on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I am not convinced that there is any light at the end
of the tunnel. I am not convinced that this war is coming to an end,
and I do not believe we should continue sacrificing the dedication and
blood of our servicemen and -women for a deeply flawed and corrupt
government that is simply not ``fixable.'' Oh, we can change the names,
the programs, and the projects, but it's simply more of the same
problems over and over and over again.
It is regrettable that this war is not more of a priority in public
debate, and it is unconscionable that debating this war is not a top
priority for this Congress. The majority wouldn't even let us have a
full debate and vote on an amendment during the Defense authorizations
bill to make sure that the commitments made by the administration to
draw down our troops over the next 2 years are kept.
Congress is deeply complicit in maintaining and continuing this war.
We've allocated $634 billion for military operations in Afghanistan
since 2001, including the $85.6 billion in this bill. We're not just
spending those billions, Mr. Chairman, we're borrowing them. Every
single penny for the war in Afghanistan has been borrowed, put on the
national credit card, exploded our deficit and our debt--every single
penny.
Each week of the war in 2012 costs about $2 billion. If the
Pentagon's ``enduring presence'' means thousands of troops remaining in
Afghanistan after 2014 for who knows how long, then we are looking at a
trillion dollar war.
Meanwhile, we're cutting funds for our schools, preparing to slash
billions of dollars from the safety net that's supposed to keep our
people out of poverty. We're watching our roads and our bridges
crumble, water systems and infrastructure decay, and we're told there's
no money to invest in health care and scientific research.
And for what, Mr. Chairman, for what? Show me where our military
might has put a permanent end to instability, violence, or corruption.
Even though the media isn't focused on it, the violence in Afghanistan
goes on.
The U.S. death toll for Operation Enduring Freedom is over 2,000--
1,919 of those deaths happened in Afghanistan. Members of the Afghan
military and security forces continue to turn their guns on our troops
and murder them. According to the Pentagon, 154 Active Duty soldiers
committed suicide in the first 159 days of this year--that's almost one
per day. And as for our veterans, the VA estimates that a veteran dies
by suicide every 80 minutes.
How long will we ask our troops and their families to pay this price?
Because they're the only ones paying for this war, Mr. Chairman, the
only ones.
I don't believe we should abandon the people of Afghanistan, but I do
believe we must end this war sooner rather than later. And I'm not
convinced we're anywhere close to an end.
And it's the fault of Congress. We approve the money, and we remain
silent year after year after year. We need to stop. We aren't
supporting our troops; we're committing them to suffer lifelong trauma
from too many deployments for too long a time over too many years for a
war without end, for a war that always needs just a little more time
and just a few billion dollars more.
Enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to support amendments over the
next 3 days to reduce the funding for this war, bring it to an end, and
honor the sacrifice of our troops by bringing them and our tax dollars
back home.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I join my friend from Massachusetts and
anyone else, Republican or Democrat, who says it's time to bring our
troops home from Afghanistan.
I want to thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks for an
excellent bill. I agree with probably 80 percent of it, but I cannot
continue to support legislation that sends billions and billions and
billions of dollars to Afghanistan.
Mr. Chairman, I have a book here in my hand called ``Funding the
Enemy: How U.S. Taxpayers Bankroll the Taliban.'' And one of the
critiques I would like to read on the back of this book is from the
State Department Foreign Service Officer named Peter Van Buren:
Sober, sad, and important, ``Funding the Enemy'' peels back
the layers of American engagement in Afghanistan to reveal
its rotten core: that the United States dollars meant for
that country's future instead fund the insurgency and support
the Taliban. Paying for both sides of the war ensures
America's ultimate defeat.
Mr. Chairman, the reason I'm here today is because I have Camp
Lejeune Marine Base in my district. I have signed over 10,474 letters
to families who have lost loved ones since we were lied to in order to
go into Iraq.
And while we were continuing to support Karzai, I saw where Vice
President Cheney was on the Hill yesterday. I have seen my colleagues
today talking about sequestration. I didn't see Mr. Karzai here. No.
Why should he be here? He's got his money in this bill. He doesn't have
to worry about sequestration. All he's got to do is take care of his
corrupt government in Afghanistan.
It is time, Mr. Chairman, it is time that the Congress listen to 72
percent of the American people who say: Bring our troops home now, not
later. And I join my friend from Massachusetts, my concern about
cutting programs for children who need milk in the morning
[[Page H4941]]
and senior citizens who need sandwiches in the afternoon. We're going
to cut their money, but we're going to still continue to support the
Taliban who are killing American kids in Afghanistan because we have no
accountability where this $88 billion is going.
It is time for this Congress to come together and say, Yes, we will
support our military, but we will not support a corrupt government who
is not going to survive anyway. The enemy, the Taliban, will take over
Afghanistan when it's all said and done.
Please, America, bring pressure on the Congress to bring our troops
home from Afghanistan. God help our men and women in uniform.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, we'll be spending the next several days
debating the Department of Defense budget, a whopping $519.2 billion.
By anyone's accounting, that's a lot of money.
What we won't be debating is the future of our presence in
Afghanistan. You'd think a Congress obsessed with the deficit and
cutbacks would take a look at the costliest item on our books: the war
in Afghanistan.
Nope. No debate on that. Instead, a few of us are coming here to the
well to take a handful of 5-minute slots. This is for a war that has
cost our Nation in blood and treasure, in ways we may never be able to
add up.
And what are those costs?
{time} 1500
What are those costs? As of today, we've spent $548 billion on the
war. That's $10 billion a month. Actually, it's more than this year's
DOD budget.
This year, we face the 2,000th death in Operation Enduring Freedom.
More than 15,000 of our brave men and women in uniform have returned
home wounded. Every day we lose one more servicemember to suicide. And
the Afghan people, how many of them have died and been wounded?
So the other side of the aisle wants to talk about cost. Well, let's
do that. What has this misguided war cost us in international standing?
Is the U.S. more popular in the Middle East and Central Asia? No. Are
we any safer? Probably not. As a new generation of Afghan children grow
up in an occupied country, aren't they learning to hate the West? Yes.
What's the cost here at home? How many cops could we have put on the
beat? How many homes could have been saved from foreclosure? How many
farmers could get drought relief? How many small business jobs could
have been created? How many more patients could we have cared for at
our veterans hospitals? We'll never know. Because instead of having an
honest and open debate about our spending priorities, we have to grab 5
minutes here and 5 minutes there. That's not what the American people
want. They want transparency. They want more debate. Further than that,
they want this war to be over. They want our troops to come home.
So, yes, by all means, let's talk about cost; but let's not squeeze
it in among $500 billion worth of weapons, planes, and the rest of the
military industrial complex.
I urge the House leadership to have a real debate on the war in
Afghanistan, and let's shine some light on how much it costs.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to talk a little bit about the
appropriations that are going on, in particular, the appropriations for
the very, very long war in Afghanistan. Nobody knows when it's going to
end.
There's always a pretense. There's always a thought that tomorrow's
going to be a better day. I was in the military in the sixties, and
there was always this promise that we're just around the turn, and
we're going to have peace and prosperity and have perfect results.
Well, so far we have not had any perfect results in Afghanistan--there
is a lot of unknown--and here we are appropriating even more money to
continue this war.
When you talk about war power and the resolution on how we go to war,
it becomes very complex today. It was originally intended to be very
simple: you went to war when there was a declaration; and the people,
through their Congressman, voted up or down on whether you should have
a war. Today, we slip and slide and we fall into these traps. We go to
war under the U.N. banner and NATO. We never know why we go to war and
what the goals are and when the war is over. And they persist.
But there is one analysis made which bothers me a bit and, that is,
even if there isn't a declaration of war, if some of the Members come
along, as we have been for quite a few years, and say, you know, the
Congress never really declared war, the argument they make is, well, as
long as you fund a war, you give it credibility, and therefore you
indirectly support the war.
Of course, the argument is not so much on how we go to war, but if we
get into war, the whole thing is you can't vote against any money.
Well, then you don't care about the troops. Oh, you're un-American.
Don't do that. That carries the weight of the argument, and people shy
away and say, no, I don't like the war, we shouldn't have done it, but
I can't go against the troops.
Well, I've had a little experience in the last several years
traveling the country and talking about issues like this and looking
for support for a position which is quite a bit different than what we
have followed here recently. Let me tell you, guess what, the troops
give me strong support. They gave me a lot of support. It was huge. For
anybody to argue that you don't want to send troops carelessly into no-
win, endless wars, to think you're against the troops, it's nonsense.
When I was in the military--I was still in in '65, and that's when
the escalation came in Vietnam--the last thing I was wanting to say is,
oh, I want somebody in there that wants to expand the war. Why don't we
go into Cambodia and Laos. No, I didn't want that. Troops don't want to
go to war. I was in a Guard unit as well as Active Duty. People join
the Guard and Reserves because they want to defend the country. They
don't want to take six trips to the Middle East and endlessly see
what's happening.
I get stories all the time about their buddies being killed, the loss
of limbs. Then they say, well, we're fighting for freedom. Think about
it seriously. How in the world does going over there and fighting in
either Iraq or Afghanistan have anything to do with our freedom? Oh,
we're fighting to defend our Constitution. Well, we never had a
constitutional declaration of war. So that's all a facade. That's all
to make people feel guilty that if you don't keep the war going--in
Vietnam, it was we have to win, we have to win. So we lose 60,000
troops and we didn't win. So what does that mean?
After McNamara wrote his memoirs and was a bit apologetic about it,
he was asked: Does this mean you're apologizing for the kind of war
you're in in Vietnam? He said: No. What good is an apology if you don't
change policy? That is the thing. If this is not doing well and not
doing right, just to say either you're sorry, you're continuing it, we
have to have victory and pretend there is a victory around the corner,
I think we're fooling ourselves.
We shouldn't deceive ourselves. We should wake up. If we lived within
the Constitution and lived within our means, believe me, we would not
be in Afghanistan.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentlewoman from
Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I rise today to join my colleagues in
calling for an end to the war in Afghanistan and the removal of U.S.
troops and security contractors.
We face real and ongoing challenges from terrorist groups around the
world; but after 10 years of fighting, it is clear that an ongoing
military presence in Afghanistan is simply not the answer. The over-
$630 billion we've spent on this war over the past 10 years has not
brought us security, and we cannot bring stability to Afghanistan
through an ongoing troop presence.
I support the President's efforts to begin the withdrawal of U.S.
troops, and I applaud him for starting that important process. Yet we
need, in my
[[Page H4942]]
opinion, to act faster to end the war. We need an accelerated timetable
for troop withdrawal and a plan to ensure that all U.S. forces are
redeployed.
Madam Chairman, over 2,000 Americans have given their lives in
Afghanistan in service of their country. That includes almost 1,500
since January 2009 and an estimated 400 since the death of Osama bin
Laden. Another 12,000 have been wounded. Perhaps most staggering, more
soldiers have committed suicide than have died in combat in
Afghanistan. Our troops bear devastating physical and psychological
wounds of war.
The war in Afghanistan has placed a devastating strain on our
military, our troops, and their families. We've asked more and more
from them, with many soldiers serving multiple dangerous deployments,
taking them away from their homes and their families for long periods
of time.
{time} 1510
The suicide rate, again, is a stark reminder that we're not meeting
our obligations to these men and women.
Madam Chairman, keeping our troops in Afghanistan comes at great cost
to us. Not only does it cost some $8 billion a month, but it continues
to cost American lives. It is time for us to end this war. Instead of
more boots on the ground, we need to redirect funding toward diplomatic
and economic engagement with the Afghan people.
We need to invest in Afghan women, ensuring that they have basic
human rights protections, as well as educational and economic
opportunities, because Afghanistan will never be stable and prosperous
if half of its population is oppressed.
The bottom line is this: hundreds of billions of dollars, and over
2,000 American lives, have not brought us security. Keeping our troops
in Afghanistan will not end the threat of terrorism, nor will it bring
stability to the Afghan people. We need a new strategy, shifting from
military force to true engagement.
Madam Chairman, we are fighting a war that has no military solution.
In fact, far from making us safer, our ongoing troop presence actually
fuels the insurgency and breeds anti-American sentiment. Instead of
pouring another $88 billion into continuing this war for another year,
I strongly believe we need to end funding for military engagement in
Afghanistan and finally bring our troops home.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Mulvaney
Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 2, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $4,359,624,000)''.
Page 3, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,197,682,000)''.
Page 121, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $4,359,624,000)''.
Page 122, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,197,682,000)''.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, the amendment is subject to a
point of order, but I am going to reserve the point of order to allow
the gentleman to have his 5 minutes to explain what it is he wants to
do.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman and also the ranking
member for the opportunity to present this amendment.
Madam Chair, the amendment is something different for me. It is not
an amendment to reduce spending, and it's also not an amendment to
increase spending. In fact, this amendment is outlay neutral.
Similarly, consistent with what the chairman and the ranking member
discussed when introducing the bill, this amendment is not a partisan
amendment. I do not seek to lay blame on either party or on the
President or on the Congress for the circumstance in which we find
ourselves.
This amendment regards simply a policy, a policy that traditionally
has had bipartisan support in this House, and that policy is that we
keep separate spending on the base defense budget, and spending on the
Overseas Contingency Operations, or the war budget.
It has come to our attention, and both the CBO and the GAO have
confirmed, that there is $5.6 billion in the Overseas Contingency
Operation budget, in the war budget, that should be in the base budget.
We have taken things such as the base salaries for men and women in
uniform who are not deployed and are charging that spending this year
to the war budget.
Madam Chair, since 9/11 we have had a policy in this House of keeping
those two items separate so that we know the real cost of the war
against terror. We have taken the base defense spending and accounted
for it in one fashion, and accounted for the war budget in an entirely
separate system. This year, for the first time, Madam Chair, we are
blending those numbers. We take $5.6 billion of what should be in the
base budget and move it to the OCO budget.
Madam Chair, the committee itself recognizes that it is not good
policy. If you look at the bill, you will see that the committee itself
says let's make sure not to do this next year and the year after that
and the year after that. And indeed, we have not done it since 9/11.
But we do it this year, this year only in this particular bill, and I
think it's important that we continue to abide by the policy that
accounts correctly for the cost of the war overseas.
So, Madam Chair, what I say to you is, this amendment is not about
spending more money. It's not about spending less money. It is about
accounting accurately for the spending that we do so that we can tell
folks back home exactly what we spend on the base defense of this
Nation and what we spend in the wars overseas. And for that reason,
Madam Chair, I would ask for a ``yea'' vote on this particular
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against
the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed
a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2013 on May 22, 2012,
House Report 112-489.
The adoption of this amendment would cause the subcommittee general
purpose suballocation for budget authority made under section 302(b) to
be exceeded, and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act, and
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. MULVANEY. I ask to be heard on the point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Chair, it is true that a new point of order was
created under the Budget Control Act preventing any legislation from
being considered in the House that would cause discretionary spending
to exceed the caps established in the Budget Control Act. Under that
part of the act, Madam Chair, the entire bill is technically out of
order because the entire bill exceeds the BCA caps by $7.5 billion.
Ironically then, if this point of order is sustained, then we will
effectively keep within the shadows a nonpartisan policy, something
that everyone has supported in the past, a good governance issue, while
allowing the entire bill, which also violates the same point of order,
to proceed.
My amendment is outlay neutral. It does not increase spending, it
does not decrease spending. It simply moves spending from the war
budget to the base budget, and vice versa. If the amendment were agreed
to, the budget authority in the bill will be exactly the same as it is
if the amendment fails, $608,213,000,000.
Accordingly, the amendment does not violate section 302(f)(1) of the
Congressional Budget Act, and overruling the point of order gives us
the chance to abide by the precedent established long ago and embraced
by both parties.
I respectfully ask that the Chair overrule the point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
Under House Concurrent Resolution 112, as made applicable by House
Resolutions 614 and 643, the Subcommittee on Defense has both a General
Purposes allocation and an Overseas Contingency Operations allocation.
The accounts in the bill on pages 2 and 3 are under the General
Purposes Allocation. The accounts on pages 121 and 122 are under the
Overseas Contingency
[[Page H4943]]
Operations allocation. The amendment transfers funds from the latter to
the former.
The Chair is authoritatively guided under section 312 of the Budget
Act and clause 4 of Rule XXIX by an estimate of the chair of the
Committee on the Budget that an amendment providing any net increase in
new discretionary budget authority in either allocation would cause a
breach of that allocation.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina would
increase the level of new discretionary budget authority in the bill
under the General Purposes allocation. As such, the amendment violates
section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
Mr. WELCH. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WELCH. Madam Chair, the war in Afghanistan had a legitimate
purpose when it began. That was the grounds from which Osama Bin Laden
engineered the attack on the World Trade Center. Congress supported
going into Afghanistan to take out Osama Bin Laden and to deny a safe
haven to terrorists. At a certain point, the policy transformed from an
effort to protect us against a base of operations into a nation-
building mission.
{time} 1520
That was a grave mistake. Adopting nation-building will be seen
through the lens of history as being about as effective as trench
warfare in World War I.
Our military will do whatever is asked of them. Our job is to make
requests of them that are reasonable for them to do. It is not the job
of the men and women who serve in the U.S. military to build nation-
states in Afghanistan. That policy failed militarily. That policy is
unsustainable economically. That policy does not make us more secure.
Why?
One, it is not the job of the military to build nation-states. It is
the job of the military--and it is one they do very well--to protect
America from attack.
Two, if you are attempting a nation-building strategy, you need an
ally that is going to be a partner with you. The Karzai government is
corrupt. It is infected with corruption. It has exceeded our wildest
and most pessimistic expectations of what corruption can be. We do not
have a reliable partner.
So the question becomes: At what point do we step back when we have
the responsibility to set a policy that protects this Nation, to set a
policy that respects our taxpayer, to set a policy that acknowledges
the willingness of men and women to serve but that accepts our burden
of giving them a policy that is worthy of their unrelenting ability and
willingness to sacrifice?
As we know, the American people believe it is time to come home from
Afghanistan. They understand it. The President of the United States has
said that we will bring our troops home by the end of 2014. So the
policies have been changed. The war in Afghanistan, in fact, is over.
The question for Congress is: Will we end it?
We are giving it ever more money for a policy we know doesn't work.
We know the Karzai government is incapable and unwilling to be an
honest partner. We know that nation-building is a strategy that cannot
succeed. We know that the threat of terrorism, as persistent as it is,
is not a nation-state-centered threat. It is dispersed, and our
military response to that has likewise become dispersed.
So why are we pursuing this policy when we have renounced it,
acknowledged that it has failed?
The American people don't support it. It's inertia. It is the
unwillingness of Congress to take a definitive action where our policy
should match our deeds. We are bringing our troops home. We should have
as a policy that we bring those troops home as quickly--as quickly--as
we responsibly can.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I deeply appreciate the difficult job
that Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks have. This is important
legislation, difficult balancing. It is a time of strain in terms of
the budget, and it is a time of strain for the military. But I do think
that my colleagues who come to the floor and who are questioning
whether we need to continue the same policy, the same funding, the same
direction with Afghanistan are right on point. This Congress should be
spending more time actually engaging in a debate on our policy, our
practices, our future in Afghanistan.
We initially went to war to deal with the protection of the United
States. It was in Afghanistan that Osama bin Laden hatched the plot
that led to the 9/11 attacks. He was protected by his Taliban enablers,
and it was entirely appropriate for the Bush administration and this
Congress to go after him to end that threat and obtain justice.
Sadly, before the job was done in Afghanistan, before Osama bin Laden
was actually captured, we veered into a tragically misguided, flawed,
and expensive mission in Iraq. As were many of the colleagues who are
joining us today on the floor, I was strongly against it. It was a
mistake in terms of strategy; it was a horrible price paid by our
troops; and it was dramatically unsettling. It has limped along to an
unsatisfactory resolution, but it wasn't until 9 years later that we
finally finished the job with the death of Osama bin Laden.
I commend the President for being in charge of that operation. But
it's done. It's over. We killed Osama bin Laden. It is time for us to
stop the longest war in American history, whether it is formally
declared or not, and I strongly identify with many of the comments from
my friend Ron Paul on the floor here a moment ago.
It is time for the United States to stop spending more in a month in
Afghanistan than it would cost to hire every man and woman in
Afghanistan of working age. That's what we're spending. You could rent
the country for a year for what we are spending for a month, and the
resolution is going to be exactly the same. Whether it's 2013, 2014,
2015, whether it's another 100, another 1,000 American lives, whether
it's $10 billion or $100 billion, it is time for us to give the
military a break, to listen to the American public, to reposition and
deal with the challenges at hand.
Madam Chair, I am haunted by the notion that we have lost more men
and women to suicide than we have to hostile action. There are terrible
consequences for this operation that need go on no longer.
I suggest it's time to end--to save lives, to save money, to save the
strain on our military--and for this Congress to get to work on things
that will make a difference for international peace and security, for
restarting the American economy and for making our communities safer,
healthier, and more economically secure. If we do our job in
Afghanistan, in scaling it down and in getting the troops out as
quickly as we responsibly can, we will take an important step in that
direction.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, first of all, let me note that our
goal after the vicious terrorist attack on the United States on 9/11
was to eliminate Osama bin Laden and to clear Afghanistan, which had
been the staging area of the 9/11 attacks, of Osama bin Laden's allies,
who happened to have been the Taliban.
My fellow colleagues, Osama bin Laden is dead. The Taliban were
cleared from Afghanistan years ago. So it is time for us to declare
victory and to bring our troops home. It is not time for us to declare
that there is going to be an extension of the deployment of our troops
and to leave them there to expend their lives for a cause that has
already been decided. They have done their duty. We have accomplished
the mission. Let's have a victory parade, not an extension of
deployment.
Why are we in this predicament? Why are we even discussing $88
billion and perhaps hundreds, if not thousands, of more American lives
being sacrificed halfway around the world, in some canyon somewhere,
where some young
[[Page H4944]]
American loses his life or loses his legs? Why are we even discussing
the expenditure of the billions of dollars that we really need so much
here at home if, for nothing else, than to help bring down this level
of deficit spending?
{time} 1530
Why are we in this position now? Why are we not recognizing this?
First of all, let's just note that we are now in a situation where year
after year it is taking place after we've actually accomplished our
goals in Afghanistan, and our troops are still there losing their
lives. It's almost like a ``Twilight Zone'' episode. It is worse than
some of the situations that we saw in Vietnam that degenerated year
after year after year of America's deployment of forces there. We don't
need to spend this money. We don't need to lose their lives. We just
need to say we've done our job and come home. Who are we watching out
for?
The State Department ended up basically stealing victory out of the
jaws of defeat. We won this years ago. Years ago the Taliban were
cleared out of Afghanistan. Now we find the situation getting worse.
I've been in Afghanistan. I fought with the mujahadeen against the
Soviets there personally. Over the years, I was deeply involved with
Afghan policy, and people know that. The longer we stay there, the more
enemies we're going to make for the United States.
It's going to be harder for us to get out next year than it is for us
right now, and we will have made more enemies out of those people when
they see foreign troops. Who cares if there is someone in a canyon far
away screaming that he hates America? So what. Our guys are going out
there right now and investigating situations like that and putting
their lives on the line because someone was heard to say good things
about the Taliban in some desolate canyon somewhere. What a waste of
American lives. What a waste of our resources. On top of it, our State
Department has created a system of government--we created a system of
government--for the Afghan people, and we're shoving it down their
throats now, the most highly centralized and corrupt system of any
government in this world. Mr. Karzai is creating a kleptocracy in
Afghanistan. No matter how much we're trying to help, that money is
disappearing. We're not able to accomplish it, even though the money is
going out.
We should recognize that we cannot make history for the Afghan
people. They will have to make it for themselves. We have cleared
Afghanistan of the Taliban. We have eliminated Osama bin Laden. The
Afghan people will now have to shape their own destinies. It is not up
to us to expend more of the lives of our young people in order to get
the goal that we want, especially when we know now that our government
is allied with such a corrupt regime that it will never succeed.
It is time for us to cut the spending, get the troops home as soon as
we can, and not waste the lives of more of our people.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, first of all, let me just say
thank you to my colleagues, Representative Jones and Representative
McGovern, and to all of the Members today in calling for a real debate
on the war in Afghanistan, which really should have occurred when it
was authorized in 2001, which, of course, I could not support then
knowing it was a blank check. It was an overly broad resolution for war
without end. I have to thank my colleagues today for their leadership
in calling for a safe and swift end to this war in Afghanistan. We all
know the simple truth: there is no military solution in Afghanistan.
Earlier this summer, we passed the sad milestone of 2,000 American
lives lost in Afghanistan. Tens of thousands suffer more from wounds
both visible and invisible.
As we remember and honor our dead and our wounded and pray for their
families and their loved ones, we also have the duty and responsibility
and opportunity to act today to ensure that further losses are avoided
and that we accelerate the transition to Afghans ruling Afghanistan.
Later on today, I'm going to introduce an amendment to this Defense
appropriations bill to limit funding in Afghanistan to the responsible
and safe withdrawal of troops. We have the power of the purse strings
in this House. For those who believe enough is enough, we should vote
for this amendment.
I encourage all of my colleagues to support the Lee amendment, which
will save at least $21 billion and, most importantly, the lives of
countless Americans and Afghans. Quite frankly, as has been said
earlier, it is time to use these tax dollars to create jobs here at
home. It is time to rebuild America and also to provide for the
economic security of our brave troops. They have done a tremendous job.
They have done everything we have asked them to do. They have carried a
tremendous load over the past decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Asking them to stay in Afghanistan 2 more years when there is no
indication that circumstances on the ground will change is really
unconscionable.
Before we send our men and women in uniform into Afghanistan or ask
them to stay for another 2 years, we have an obligation to answer
simple questions like: What national security interest does the United
States currently have in Afghanistan? To what extent does the United
States presence in Afghanistan destabilize the country by antagonizing
local Afghans? How critical is the overall effort in Afghanistan
compared to other priorities in our own country?
Earlier this year, along with my colleagues Congressman Walter Jones
and Congresswoman Woolsey and Congressman McGovern, we held a hearing
on Afghanistan with Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis. This was an ad hoc
hearing, mind you, because we should have had the authority to hold
that hearing in the House Armed Services Committee or the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs, but quite frankly the leadership would
not let us have a formal hearing. So we had our own.
We had an ad hoc hearing with Colonel Daniel Davis, a brave,
outspoken whistleblower, who risked his career to tell the truth about
what he saw on the ground in Afghanistan. It was a hearing that every
Member of Congress should have heard before voting to spend tens of
billions of dollars and risking the lives and limbs of tens of
thousands of Americans in uniform.
Those of you who attended the hearing or read the witnesses'
testimony understand that the current strategy of propping up a corrupt
regime in Afghanistan will almost certainly fail. Instead of having a
full debate on the current strategy in Afghanistan, instead of having a
real debate about what we hope to gain with more years in Afghanistan,
we are limited to these brief opportunities on the floor to remind
Congress that the American people overwhelmingly want to bring the war
in Afghanistan to an end. People are war-weary, and they want this
over.
This Congress has the opportunity once again to stand with seven out
of 10 Americans who want to bring the war in Afghanistan to an end by
voting ``yes'' on several of the amendments that we're going to be
considering. My amendment I will introduce later in this debate will
limit the funding to the responsible and safe and orderly withdrawal of
United States troops and contractors from Afghanistan.
Madam Chair, let me thank once again our colleagues, Congressman
McGovern and Congressman Jones, for gathering us here this afternoon.
We have very limited opportunities to reflect the majority of the
American people's sentiment in terms of their weariness of this war.
It's time to end it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, we have now had combat troops in
Afghanistan for over 10 years. It has become the longest war in the
history of our Republic. Over 2,000 brave American men and women have
perished in this conflict.
Because of their sacrifice and the hard work, dedication, and
sacrifices of thousands more brave young men and women, al Qaeda has
been decimated and Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator of the September 11
attacks against Americans, has been brought to justice.
[[Page H4945]]
{time} 1540
Now, almost 11 years after we first arrived, it is time to bring our
military involvement in Afghanistan to an end. Afghanistan is its own
sovereign country, and its citizens need to take responsibility for
their destiny. As for us, we need to bring our troops home and to start
reinvesting in America again.
At the recent NATO summit in Chicago, President Obama and NATO
leaders announced an end to combat operations in Afghanistan in 2013
and a transition of lead responsibility for security to the Afghan
Government by the end of 2014. These are important steps, but the
President also recently signed an agreement in Kabul that could keep
American troops in the region until 2024. We need to bring our troops
home now, not 16 years from now.
This war is costing American taxpayers $130 billion a year.
Especially at a time when we are trying to cut the deficit, reduce
unnecessary spending, and reinvest in our own economic growth, this is
far too much. The entire GDP of Afghanistan is $30 billion, less than a
quarter of what we are spending year in and year out.
The nation and Government of Afghanistan face many tough challenges
ahead, including working to foster economic development in the
foundations of civil society, such as literacy, education, agricultural
development, and the empowerment of women. But these are not challenges
that are primarily military in nature. As such, it is time to let local
Afghans do local jobs and build their economy rather than rely on
government contractors.
I have visited in Afghanistan twice over the course of this conflict
and saw firsthand how our renewed attention to the region since 2009
and the counterinsurgency strategy developed by General Petraeus has
brought marked improvements in securing areas, in training security and
police, in establishing the rule of law, and in developing local
economies.
Perhaps, most importantly, on a trip last March, I felt a sense of
optimism in Afghanistan that was not there before, as well as an
understanding among our military that the Afghans must soon take over
and govern their own nation.
The time is now. For over a decade, our troops have accomplished the
mission that they were given. They have performed heroically. They,
including thousands of brave servicemembers from Connecticut, have been
operating in one of the most inhospitable environments one can imagine,
making sacrifices for their country by serving, as well as losing this
time with their families.
It is time to bring our troops home and for the people of Afghanistan
to forge their own destiny.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, after 11 years, over 2,000 Americans
killed, 16,000 Americans wounded, nearly $400 billion spent, and more
than 12,000 Afghan civilians dead since 2007, we have to question the
U.S. presence in Afghanistan.
Should we continue America's longest war? At what cost and for how
long?
The American people have questioned and continue to question time and
time again--or should we be there, and the answer has always been a
resounding no. It's not new news that the American public, Democrat,
Republican and everyone else has soured on the war. The national
security rationale has lost its resonance, and the economic and human
cost in Afghanistan are crippling our ability to recover from our own
deep recession.
According to The New York Times/CBS report, more than two-thirds of
those polled, 69 percent, thought the United States should not be at
war in Afghanistan. The U.S. war in Afghanistan is costing the U.S.
taxpayers nearly $2 billion per week, over $100 billion per year.
Meanwhile, in the wake of the worst economic crisis since the Great
Depression, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work,
struggle to pay their bills, and look to us for job creation and
support.
Americans who feel the sting of doing more with less are connecting
the dots between our Federal priorities and spending and the pain
they're feeling at home. Americans struggling to put their kids through
college without Pell Grants or running out of employment benefits with
no new job on the horizon cannot ignore the cost of the war.
Arizona families in my district have paid nearly $777 million for the
Afghan war since 2001. For that same amount of money, the State of
Arizona could have had 336,000 children receiving low-income health
care for 1 year; 15,000 elementary school teachers employed in our
schools for 1 year; 93,000 Head Start slots for children for 1 year;
over 100,000 military veterans receiving VA medical care for 1 year;
over 10,000 police officers and law enforcement officers securing our
communities and neighborhoods for 1 year; 113,000 scholarships for
university students for 1 year; 139,000 students receiving Pell Grants
of $5,550. These are just some of the bad trade-offs we are making with
our national resources, our treasure and our blood on a war instead of
fixing the problems here at home.
I would like to take a brief second to thank, to honor, and to
commemorate those warriors from my district, District 7, for your
ultimate sacrifice to our country: Sergeant First Class Todd Harris,
Sergeant Martin Lugo, Sergeant Justin Gallegos, Master Sergeant Joseph
Gonzales, Sergeant Charles Browning, First Lieutenant Alejo Thompson,
Sergeant First Class Jonathan McCain, Staff Sergeant Donald Stacy,
Private First Class Adam Hardt.
Our servicemen and -women have performed with incredible courage and
commitment in Afghanistan. They have done everything that has been
asked of them; but the truth is, they have been put in an impossible
position, a war with no foreseeable end and a war that is costing not
just them and their families, but our country, the ability to prosper
and to move forward.
It's time to say enough is enough. It's time to take the
responsibility to end this war in Afghanistan, be responsible, but end
it. The cost to America, the cost to our future is too enormous to
continue on the path that we're on, a path that has no end.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HIGGINS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HIGGINS. Madam Chair, the appropriations process and the budget
is not only a spending plan about future priorities, it's also a
statement about our values.
The United States in 2001 went into Afghanistan and took out the
Taliban government. We have also taken out Osama bin Laden.
The United States is proposing to spend $88.5 billion again this year
in Afghanistan. We're going into our 11th year of U.S. involvement in
Afghanistan. Eleven years ago, Afghanistan was among the poorest and
most corrupt countries on the face of the Earth. Today, it is still
among the most corrupt and poorest countries on the face of the Earth.
We've lost 2,000 American soldiers, 16,000 wounded. Last week the
U.S. Government decided to spend $105 billion rebuilding the
infrastructure of this country, less than $53 billion in each of the
next 2 years for a Nation of over 300 million.
You've just spent $78 billion rebuilding the roads and bridges of
Afghanistan, a nation of 30 million people. It's time that we do
nation-building right here at home.
Of the 34 provinces in Afghanistan, the spiritual and financial home
of the Taliban are Kandahar and Helmand provinces, because that is
disproportionately where the poppy fields are that finance the Taliban.
The literacy rate for women in Kandahar province is 1 percent. The
literacy rate for men is about 15 percent.
How do you build up an Afghan police force and Afghan national army
with people who are illiterate? We have to build schools and we have to
build roads to get them to those schools and electricity to power those
schools.
That, Madam Chairman, is nation-building in Afghanistan.
{time} 1550
We need to do nation-building right here at home. This $88.5 billion
should be directed immediately to rebuild the
[[Page H4946]]
roads and bridges of this Nation, in America.
According to Transportation for America, we have 69,000 structurally
deficient bridges. In New York State alone, we have over 2,000
structurally deficient bridges. In my home community of western New
York, we have 99 structurally deficient bridges, and no plan to address
that. Every second of every day, seven cars drive on a bridge that is
structurally deficient.
We need to get our priorities in order. We need to reaffirm our
values. We need to have a vision for rebuilding America. And the best
way to do that is start with this appropriation and reprogramming it
right back here at home for nation-building here in America.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I support the military 100 percent and I think
we ought to give them all the equipment and spend the funds that are
necessary to make sure they're prepared to fight a war anyplace. And I
think we need to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda and make sure that the
threats to America are eliminated, at least as much as is humanly
possibly.
The reason I took 5 minutes to speak today is not because I don't
support the military or the appropriation for the military, but because
I was shaving the other day before I came into work and I heard the
newsman talking about a young family and a young man that was in the
military. I came out while I was shaving and I looked at the
television. It was a beautiful family--young man and a woman and their
child. And they announced that he had just been hit with an IED and
lost both arms and both legs, and I was thinking what a tragedy for
this young man and for his family and the horrible things they're going
to have to endure throughout the rest of their lives.
And then I started thinking about all the technology we have. We have
satellites that can pinpoint a pack of cigarettes on the ground, and we
have drones that can fly over enemy territory and pick out a target and
hit somebody with a Hellfire missile and blow them to smithereens. And
somebody from a thousand miles away sitting at a computer with a
television screen can direct that drone and that Hellfire missile. And
I started wondering to myself: Why in the world don't we use more of
those instead of sending young American men and women into harm's way
day in and day out like we do? We have the technology to knock out
anybody anyplace in the world that we want to.
So I would just like to ask this question of my colleagues: We have
to have special forces. We have to go into certain spots and knock out
bad guys. We've got to do that. But when we don't have to, when we know
that the enemy is in a certain area, instead of sending our young men
and women in there, why don't we send a drone over to a site that we've
discovered from a satellite and blow the hell out of those people?
Don't send our young men and women into that kind of a situation where
they're going to lose their arms and their legs when we've spent all
the money on this technology to stop the enemy. And that's my biggest
concern. Why in the world don't we use that technology instead of young
men and women going into harm's way when it's not necessary?
I understand war is important. I know we have to defeat the Taliban
and those who would take away our freedoms. It's extremely important.
And we should support the military every way we can, give them all the
tools that are necessary. But let's use the tools that we have to stop
the enemy as much as possible without putting young men and women in
that situation. I don't want to turn on the television next week or
next month and see more young men and women who have suffered this way.
I've been out to Bethesda and Walter Reed and I've seen the damage that
war does. And so if we're going to go to war--and we have to go to war,
only when we have to. But if we do, let's use the technology we have
and defeat the enemy and minimize the loss of life that our young men
and women are experiencing.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I regret what I am about to say could have
been and was said a year ago. Not much has changed, but more lives have
been destroyed and more billions of dollars have been wasted, all to no
intelligent purpose.
The whole premise of the Afghanistan war is wrong. The rationale for
the war is to fight al Qaeda, but most of the day-to-day fighting is
against an entrenched Taliban insurgency that will outlast any foreign
fighters. Fighting in Afghanistan does not enhance the security of the
United States in any way.
In 2001, we were attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had bases in
Afghanistan, and at that time it made sense to go in and destroy those
bases--and we did. But that took about 3 weeks. We should have
withdrawn after those 3 weeks.
The CIA told us a couple of years ago that there are fewer than 100
al Qaeda personnel in all of Afghanistan. So why do we still have
70,000 troops there, troops who will continue to risk their lives every
day in a war that has already claimed far too many lives? And why
should we continue pouring billions of dollars into an intractable mess
when we should be devoting those funds to our own economy, our own
jobs, our own schools, our own bridges and roads and highways, our own
housing, social programs, and education?
Afghanistan is in the middle of what is, so far, a 35-year civil war.
We do not have either the need or the ability to determine the winner
in that war, which is what we're trying to do. If we continue on this
course, in 2 years there will be hundreds more dead American soldiers,
several hundred billion more dollars wasted, and two or three more
provinces labeled ``pacified.'' But as soon as we leave, now or in 2014
or 2016 or 2024 or whenever, those provinces will become
``unpacified,'' the Taliban and the warlords will step up the fighting
again, and the Afghan civil war will continue its normal, natural
course.
Our troops are fighting valiantly, but we are there on the wrong
mission. We should recognize that rebuilding Afghanistan in our own
image, that setting up a stable government that will last is both
beyond our ability and beyond our mandate to prevent terrorists from
attacking the United States.
We fulfilled the mission in protecting America from terrorists based
in Afghanistan over 10 years ago. We should have withdrawn our troops
10 years ago. We should withdraw them now. We shouldn't wait until
2014. We shouldn't have several thousands advisers or troops helping
the Afghanis for another 10 years. They have their own civil war they
have been fighting for 35 years.
I wish we could have waved a magic wand and ended it, but we can't.
We should not participate in an Afghan civil war. We do not need to
pick the winner in that civil war. We do not have the ability to pick
that winner in that civil war. All we are doing is wasting lives,
wasting limbs, wasting people, and wasting dollars. We ought to end our
involvement in Afghanistan as rapidly as we can physically remove our
troops.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Military Personnel, Navy
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence,
interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station
travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational
movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between
permanent duty stations, for members of the Navy on active
duty (except members of the Reserve provided for elsewhere),
midshipmen, and aviation cadets; for members of the Reserve
Officers' Training Corps; and for payments pursuant to
section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402
note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement
Fund, $27,075,933,000.
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence,
interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station
travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational
movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between
permanent duty stations, for members of the Marine Corps on
active duty (except members of the Reserve provided for
elsewhere); and for payments pursuant to
[[Page H4947]]
section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402
note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement
Fund, $12,560,999,000.
Military Personnel, Air Force
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence,
interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station
travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational
movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between
permanent duty stations, for members of the Air Force on
active duty (except members of reserve components provided
for elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; for members of
the Reserve Officers' Training Corps; and for payments
pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42
U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military
Retirement Fund, $28,124,109,000.
Reserve Personnel, Army
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army
Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10302, and 3038
of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active
duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code,
in connection with performing duty specified in section
12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing
reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent
duty or other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131
of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the
Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund,
$4,456,823,000.
Reserve Personnel, Navy
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Navy
Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10,
United States Code, or while serving on active duty under
section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in
connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a)
of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve
training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and
expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United
States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense
Military Retirement Fund, $1,871,688,000.
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Marine
Corps Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10,
United States Code, or while serving on active duty under
section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in
connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a)
of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve
training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and
for members of the Marine Corps platoon leaders class, and
expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United
States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense
Military Retirement Fund, $651,861,000.
Reserve Personnel, Air Force
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air Force
Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10305, and 8038
of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active
duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code,
in connection with performing duty specified in section
12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing
reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent
duty or other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131
of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the
Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund,
$1,743,875,000.
National Guard Personnel, Army
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army
National Guard while on duty under section 10211, 10302, or
12402 of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States
Code, or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of
title 10 or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code,
in connection with performing duty specified in section
12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing
training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or
other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title
10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of
Defense Military Retirement Fund, $8,089,477,000.
National Guard Personnel, Air Force
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air
National Guard on duty under section 10211, 10305, or 12402
of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States Code,
or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of title 10
or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in
connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a)
of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing
training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or
other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title
10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of
Defense Military Retirement Fund, $3,158,015,000.
TITLE II
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and Maintenance, Army
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance of the Army, as authorized by law;
and not to exceed $12,478,000 can be used for emergencies and
extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or
authority of the Secretary of the Army, and payments may be
made on his certificate of necessity for confidential
military purposes, $36,422,738,000.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kingston
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam 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 8, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $4,100,000)''.
Page 8, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $4,200,000)''.
Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $2,300,000)''.
Page 8, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,900,000)''.
Page 10, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.
Page 11, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $700,000)''.
Page 12, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $53,900,000)''.
Page 13, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,200,000)''.
Page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $72,300,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I offer this amendment with Ms. McCollum
from Minnesota today. In fact, it was her amendment from last year that
got me involved in this. Basically, what this does is stops the Defense
Department from using major sports sponsorships, such as NASCAR motor
sports and bass fishing, for a recruitment tool, which is no longer
necessary.
{time} 1600
There are a number of reasons for this:
Number one, it's not effective. On May 18, 2012, Major Brian Creech
said in the USA Today that the National Guard's spending $26.5 million
dollars to sponsor NASCAR got 24,800 inquiries. Of those, they got 20
potential recruits. Of those, what did they get for the $26 million?
Not one single recruit. I want to say again, $26 million, 24,000
inquiries, zero--zero--recruits. It's not effective.
Now, the National Guard support group has been going around with this
document saying, Oh, yes, but look at all the images that we get. Well,
again, out of this, according to their own document, they got 40
recruits. So for the money, if you do the math, that's $72,000 per
recruit.
And why is that? Well, perhaps because the demographic of NASCAR is
that 69 percent of the people are over 35. So when they go and they're
pushing their brand or advertising at NASCAR, nearly 70 percent of the
people aren't eligible. That's not their target group.
The RAND Corporation, in its 2007 study of recruitment, said that if
you want to increase recruitment, then you have to increase the number
of recruiters, period. That was the number one thing. That's why on
July 10, the Army dropped out of it, and they said:
Although it is a beneficial endeavor for us, it's also
rather expensive, and we decided we could repurpose that
investment into other programs.
So when Ms. McCollum actually originally offered this, it was an $80
million reduction into the savings account, but since the Army dropped
it, now we're offering $72 million.
Secondly, very, very important for us to remember is that the
military is reducing its size now, not because of sequestration, before
sequestration. They're dropping the number of troops in the Army and
the Marines by 103,000, alone. The Defense Department's recruiter has
said that the recruitment is high right now because of the economy.
Now, number 3, this program has no accountability. In February, our
office, as a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, we
asked the Pentagon: What are your hard numbers? If you're spending $72
million sponsoring major sports programs, what are you getting out of
it? And they couldn't come up with it. Now, that disturbs me as a
fiscal conservative, because I want to believe that if the Pentagon is
spending that much money on something, they're able to defend it.
The Miller Beer Company actually put it this way. They said it this
way. They said, on exposure:
I don't care how much exposure we get, what that is
supposed to be worth, or what our awareness is versus the
competition. I need to be able to tell our CEO and our
shareholders how many additional cases of beer that I sold.
In short, the Army can't tell us how many recruiters they really do
get from this.
And, number four, we've got sequestration facing us, on top of a $487
billion defense cut over the next 10 years,
[[Page H4948]]
plus a troop reduction of over 100,000 already. We may have additional
cuts. And Secretary Panetta has said that we need to work together to
find better ways to spend the money and stretch our dollars.
I'm as pro military as they get. I'm proud to say I believe the First
District of Georgia has as much military as any district in the
country. I have four major military installations and two guard
facilities. We have every branch of the military, and we have a bombing
range in there. The only thing that has a bigger population than my
military are my NASCAR fans. And yet they're saying to me, We're pro
NASCAR, but we realize the situation in America today is that for every
dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed. We can spend this money a lot
better than we are today.
Again, look what we're spending per recruit. According to the
National Guard document which they provided our office--at least they
did provide us with a document which we did not get from the Pentagon--
it is still costing us over $700,000 per recruit, from their own
documentation.
We can do better than this, and that's why Ms. McCollum and I have
worked together and reached across the aisle to say we can spend this
money elsewhere more effectively.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I certainly appreciate my colleagues, Ms.
McCollum and Mr. Kingston, and what they're trying to achieve, and I
certainly support paring down the budget where it is appropriate and
where it actually saves money.
My colleague references some numbers that come from the Army. The
Army is getting out of this type of sponsorship. The numbers that I
want to give you are from the National Guard that intends to stay in
this form of advertising for recruiting purposes and also for building
goodwill among the American people.
This sponsorship program that the National Guard has, in one form,
one very specific form of sponsorship that they have, as well as a
number of others, but this one form of sponsorship for NASCAR, the
National Guard saw a nearly 300 percent return on their investment.
Now, that comes from $68 million in media exposure. It comes from 5.5
million pieces of merchandise and apparel that has ``National Guard''
on it, which has a value of roughly $70 million. This is a huge return
for the buck. This is why Fortune 500 companies actually advertise
through NASCAR--not because it feels good, but because it delivers
results.
And the fact is that no matter the size of the military, you're going
to still need recruits. And the fact remains, if we look at the example
of 2005 where the Army didn't meet their recruiting goals, what we had
to do is increase the budget for retention. So the fact of cutting one
area of recruiting means that in a couple of years we'll have to
actually pay more for retention in order to keep the same folks in the
National Guard that we currently need.
Furthermore, back to this one particular form of advertising, I think
it's highly inappropriate for this Congress to get into the business of
specifying how best the National Guard, or whatever branch, should
spend their dollars on recruiting.
The Appropriations Committee has done a yeoman's task of making sure
that we scrub the Department of Defense budget from top to bottom. I
think this is a very strong and good appropriations bill. It does have
bipartisan support. But let's face it, when we start micromanaging
advertising programs to try to recruit National Guard members, we've
sort of slipped into the absurd.
The National Guard, from the experience that they've had in NASCAR
advertising in particular, they generated 54,000 leads. I wish my
colleague had referenced that other than these other numbers that you
referenced before, which I think are a good reason why the Army is not
continuing with that program. They didn't design it appropriately,
apparently. But the National Guard has got a huge bang for the buck and
has actually gotten recruits because of this form of advertising.
I would encourage my colleagues, if they voted ``no'' on the McCollum
amendments last year--there were two different amendments that deal
with this very same issue. If they voted ``no'' on those two
amendments, they need to vote ``no'' again.
Madam Chairman, I would say this again. If you voted ``no'' on those
two amendments that are structurally the same, vote ``no'' again. I
would encourage my colleagues to do that, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Well, we just heard from the last speaker that part of
what all this money is being spent on is branding and goodwill and that
the Congress, and we today, should not be making any changes and
micromanaging what the National Guard is doing.
{time} 1610
I would call to our colleagues' attention legislation, Public Law
106-398, in the 106th Congress. The Legislative Information System,
which is available to all of us, directs us as to what really took
place in the 106th Congress.
We directed the Secretary of the Army, during a period beginning on
October 1, 2000, and ending December 1, 2005, to carry out a pilot
program to test various recruiting approaches. One of them was to be an
outreach that the Army was going to do with motor sports. It doesn't
work, and that's why the Army has dropped it.
The National Guard, through what Mr. Kingston had, didn't come to us
directly. We were provided some sponsorship information through NASCAR
of all the contacts and all the hits. Everybody who walked through the
gate was counted as being part of branding. Folks, this was not
supposed to be about branding; it was supposed to be about recruiting.
That's why the Army spokesman on CNN said, when they announced that
they were ending their 10-year, multidollar, taxpayer-funded
relationship with NASCAR, ``It was not a great investment.
The Navy pulled out. The Marine Corps pulled out of NASCAR years ago.
But yet the Pentagon has paid one racing team--Mr. Earnhardt's team--
$136 million in taxpayer funds for the National Guard logo on his car
in the name of recruitment. This year, they're paying Mr. Earnhardt
again $26.5 million, to which the National Guard has reported--this is
what the Guard told me--20 qualified candidates expressing interest,
zero actual recruits.
For the past 2 years, the National Guard has spent more than $20
million in taxpayer funds on professional bass fishing tournaments.
Folks, we're in a fiscal crisis here. Bass fishing is not a national
security priority. This Congress is cutting services to communities and
needy families because we're in a fiscal crisis, yet the Pentagon is
spending in excess of $80 million on NASCAR racing sponsorships,
professional bass fishing, ultimate cage fighting, and other sports
sponsorships. The program is a waste of taxpayer money; it doesn't
work.
Over the past few days, the professional sports lobby has come out in
full force to protect their taxpayer-funded subsidy. For the purposes
of the 2013 Defense appropriation bill, those pro teams are military
contractors who have failed to deliver on their contract in the past
for the taxpayers for recruits.
I want to thank Representative Kingston for his leadership on this
and joining me to cut a Pentagon program that's just not effective.
This committee, in which we're having this bill discussed right now,
has been bipartisan in the way the bill has been put together and
bipartisan in the way this amendment has been offered. If the private
sector wants to pool their money to sponsor military race car teams to
demonstrate their patriotism, I say fantastic and go for it. But it is
my job to be a steward of taxpayer funds.
I want to be clear about something else this amendment does not do.
This amendment in no way, shape, or form prohibits or limits military
recruiters from recruiting at NASCAR races or any other sports event. I
just want the military recruiters to attend those
[[Page H4949]]
races and community events where there are potential recruits.
We need, as Mr. Kingston pointed out, more recruiters doing their job
in the right way. They have ideas, folks, on how they can do this
better. We need to listen to the recruiters.
So, I think it will be just irresponsible and outrageous that
Congress would go ahead and continue to borrow money from China to pay
one race car driver's team $26 million for delivering zero recruits.
Our Nation is facing a fiscal crisis. Communities and families and
seniors and vulnerable children are bearing the brunt of deep and
painful budget cuts. Congress needs to get its priorities in order and
stop protecting military spending that doesn't work.
I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Kingston's amendment. It's an
honor to be a partner to it. We need to cut the wasteful spending in
programs and reduce this deficit.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Hon. Betty McCollum.
CRS Response: DoD Spending on NASCAR Sponsorship
In response to your request for U.S. Department of Defense
spending on NASCAR sponsorships, we are providing the
following information.
Budget:
Each of the Military Services use a variety of marketing
and advertising strategies to meet their annual recruiting
targets. For example, the U.S. Army has sponsored NHRA and
NASCAR vehicles and events, as well as the Golden Knights
Parachute Team and other activities. The different
advertising strategies and approaches are designed for
maximum impact upon the target population and derived from
annual youth surveys.
U.S. Military recruiting advertising for each of the
branches is budgeted under ``Operations and Maintenance.'' At
this level, we only have visibility of the Service's overall
budget for advertising, not the specific sub programs.
Authority:
Each of the U.S. Military branches receive authority to
conduct ``marketing/advertising'' under the auspices of
recruiting requirements. Please see the attached document 10
USCS Sec. 3013 for the Department of the Army.
An article published on the U.S. Army web site states ``The
U.S. Army Motorsports Program began in September 2000 when
Congress directed the secretary of the Army to conduct a
five-year motorsports outreach test. In 2003, building upon
the success of the NHRA program, NASCAR was added.'' For the
full article, please: http://www.army.mil/article/30553/armv-
to-continue-nhra-nascar-sponsorships/
Legislation Public Law No: 106-398 [106th]
The Legislative Information System (LIS) summary states the
following: ``Subtitle F: Matters Relating to Recruiting--
Directs the Secretary of the Army, during the period
beginning on October 1, 2000, and ending on December 31,
2005, to carry out pilot programs to test various recruiting
approaches. Requires one program to be a program: (1) of
public outreach that associates the Army with motor sports
competition; (2) under which Army recruiters are assigned at
postsecondary vocational institutions and community colleges
to recruit such students and graduates; and (3) that expands
the scope of the Army's current recruiting initiatives.
Authorizes such Secretary to expand or extend a pilot program
after notification of the defense committees. Requires a
report on the above programs.''
For more information see House Report 106-945, Subtitle F--
Matters Relating to Recruiting. This report is available at:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-106hrpt945/pdf/CRPT-
106hrpt945.pdf
We hope that you find this information helpful.
Nese F. DeBruyne,
Information Research Specialist; Foreign Affairs, Defense
and Trade Section; Knowledge Services Group; Congressional
Research Service.
Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. MYRICK. Like my colleague, Mr. McHenry, I also am rising because
I do oppose this amendment, saying that the Department of Defense has
to limit what they do and decide how they can recruit. And mainly, it's
micromanaging.
The biggest issue here is this approach is not going to save a dime
in the long run because when recruitment goals aren't met--and that is
a challenge--the military pays out nearly $1 billion a year in extra
recruitment bonuses to maintain needed recruitment numbers. We're
talking, of course, about the National Guard, who did have a 4-1 return
on investment in motor sports.
But we've got to be aware that we've got to recruit men and women
where they are. We need the best men and women that we can in our
military service. Of course, we owe all of those who are currently
serving a great debt of gratitude, but I don't believe that we need to
tell them how to best do their recruiting.
I'm also a conservative, and I believe strongly in rooting out
government waste, but that's not what this amendment does because in
the long run we end up spending more money on recruitment.
As my colleague said before, the House has twice voted down this
amendment--it's the same vote--and I urge them to do so again.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Just this past weekend, I had the great honor and privilege to send
over 150 young men and women off to Fort Bliss to prepare for their
final training to go overseas. This is the 857th Engineering Company.
Their mission is horizontal construction, which is pretty much they're
going to be clearing roads. As we know, that's one of the most
dangerous missions in Afghanistan.
Now, I was too busy shaking hands and talking to families and others
to notice what I would probably have seen in the parking lot, and that
would have been a lot of bumper stickers. On those bumper stickers,
there wouldn't be faces or political advertisements--of course, I wish
there would be some--but it was more numbers: number 3, number 11,
number 24, number 14. Most likely, there would have been a few number
88s out there, which is the car Dale Earnhardt drives for NASCAR. So
with that, right now there is absolutely no reason this Congress should
be telling the Department of Defense how and where to spend money on
recruitment.
Sport sponsorships have continually been a major source of
recruitment and provided a great deal of return on investment. The only
other option is to spend more on recruitment and retention bonuses. As
my colleague just mentioned, when they fall below a certain number,
they spend billions of dollars, and we're not talking about billions of
dollars. So this actually saves taxpayers' money so we can continue to
find the young men and women to serve in our Nation's military.
As it currently stands, the National Guard cannot advertise on
television, which significantly limits their opportunities to reach the
audience that they want to reach. This is an effective program that
remains a key tool for our National Guard and other branches of our
military services.
This bill is already taking serious cuts from advertising and
marketing budgets for the Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and National
Guard accounts. They have all been cut significantly already before
this amendment. There is no reason why we should continue to tie their
hands by cutting more funds from the budget.
These sponsorships provide the ability to market and create branding
opportunities and familiarity with the service branches in areas where
market research shows that the target audience spends its time. For
example, data shows that NASCAR fans are very large, up to 70 million--
I think that's a low number--very patriotic, very pro-military fan
base, and are extremely loyal to sponsors of teams and drivers. This is
exactly who we want joining our U.S. military.
Madam Chair, we are currently dealing with very serious cut to our
military because of sequestration. This is not the time or the place to
be cutting the tools that our military is using to recruit the very
best, patriotic young people who want to serve our Nation in the
military.
The military is maximizing their resources to fulfill their mission
at home and abroad. If this wasn't successful, they wouldn't be doing
it. I ask that my colleagues oppose the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
[[Page H4950]]
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I'd like to voice my opposition
to the amendment sponsored by Mr. Kingston and Ms. McCollum, aimed at
banning pro-sports sponsorship by the Department of Defense.
Truly, we are in an era where the people's government should take
proactive efforts to trim excesses from the budget wherever possible.
This measure, Madam Chair, does not attack an excess of government. If
accepted, the U.S. Government would be cutting out a proven successful
investment in our Nation's military personnel.
The Army, the National Guard, and the National Guard Association
strongly oppose this amendment. Last year, over 280 Members, in a
bipartisan vote, opposed this amendment.
{time} 1620
Appropriations Committee Chairman Rogers and Defense Subcommittee
Chairman Young have both been opposed to this measure in committee
votes and floor votes. Chairman Young has repeatedly said in 2012 that
he opposes it.
Our military deserves access to the most qualified potential recruits
available. A vote in favor of this amendment would handicap our
military's recruiting efforts.
Starting in 1999, marketing the military through sports opened the
door for the DOD's efforts to brand and to showcase their services to a
specific target audience. The National Guard cannot advertise on
broadcast television, so professional sports sponsorships become an
efficient, effective means of reaching target markets for recruiting
and retention of citizen soldiers and airmen.
Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are athletes. It only makes
sense to advertise and market to professional sports venues. Athletes
share common values with the military such as honor, integrity,
individual responsibility, teamwork, and self-sacrifice.
Additionally, athletes are a key demographic in the men and women we
want to serve. With the DOD's strict requirements for a recruit to
qualify, only one in every four young people is even eligible to join.
The DOD's success rate in recruiting stems from their direct access to
potential recruits and influencers of men and women, like-minded about
their interest in joining the military, often found at sporting events.
Pro sports sponsorships increase the DOD's visibility, generate
recruitment opportunities at events, and provide a national platform to
promote each branch's image.
In addition to recruitment and a recognizable national profile,
military sponsorships in motorsports spotlight a good return on
investment, dollar for dollar. In 2011 alone, the Army National Guard
spent $44 million on motorsports sponsorships. But based on market
value, the total media exposure the Guard received totaled over $150
million, a 336 percent return on investment.
If less is spent on advertising, history proves that DOD will have to
increase dollars for bonuses to retain current military personnel and
increase dollars for recruiting bonuses.
DOD motorsports partnerships have resulted in key transfers of
technology. For example, the first Humvee sent to Iraq had canvas
doors. Additional armor added created challenges to the Humvee's
suspension systems. The marines turned to NASCAR engineers to help
solve the problem.
An additional project developed by the marines is the mine roller.
Pushed in front of trucks, the roller can detonate explosive devices,
while protecting the marines in the vehicle. One of the first rollers
in Iraq took a blast and saved the three marines inside. The mine
roller uses new suspension technology developed by the Joe Gibbs NASCAR
racing team. Base commanders say that cooperation between base workers
and businesses across the country is saving troops' lives.
Beyond the direct investment, DOD pro sponsorships positively
influence communities surrounding our Nation's personnel. For example,
the National Guard works together with their partners in Panther racing
and IndyCar to address unemployment affecting servicemembers and their
families by sponsoring hiring fairs, outreach efforts, and employer
education.
This amendment would likely limit the military from participating in
the Olympics, flyovers over games, sponsoring marathons such as the
Marine Corps Marathon, as well as the Blue Angels, the Thunderbirds,
and the Golden Knights.
Cutting all funding towards DOD pro sports sponsorships hinders
military recruitment of qualified candidates, impairs employment
resources for our Nation's military families, and severely damages a
positive financial investment for our military.
To directly quote the DOD:
To ensure the Nation fields a military fully capable of
performing any assigned mission, we must recruit highly
qualified men and women from across America. This amendment
will directly impact the recruiting quality and overall
mission requirements, increasing costs, and forcing
reductions in the standards for accessions.
A vote for this amendment is a vote against the effectiveness of our
military. Please join me in opposing this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KISSELL. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. KISSELL. I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I'm not
going to repeat what my colleague from Georgia just said. He covered
the facts well.
I think it's important here that we recognize that relationships
matter; and the relationship that we have seen with the military and
especially NASCAR seems to be getting the brunt of the attention here,
a long-time relationship, an important relationship.
NASCAR grew up in North Carolina. Its home is in my district in
central North Carolina. While NASCAR has spread out throughout the
Nation, which we're excited about, still the roots are here at home and
in kind of rural America.
I don't think it's any coincidence that when we look at our military
forces, about 41 percent of our military is from what we describe as
rural America, which is only 17 percent of our population. And that
relationship between the military and rural America is very important.
The relationship between NASCAR and rural America--and all America--is
very important. We don't need to interfere with that relationship.
I don't think it's any surprise that the most popular driver in
NASCAR drives the National Guard car, No. 88, Dale Earnhardt, Jr. This
brings kind of the relationship and the viewing that cannot be done in
many other ways, and so we don't need to strike that relationship. We
need to build upon that.
And when you start looking at the ramifications, as my colleague
talked about earlier, other ways that this money can be used to help
build this relationship, we look at NASCAR, the Special Forces working
with NASCAR to develop equipment for our military.
I'm cochair of Invisible Wounds, the idea of how we can absorb the
energy to help our soldiers that are in combat situations. NASCAR works
on this.
The tickets that are given to our military families, to the military
themselves, this is all part of that relationship. It works. We need
for it to work.
I oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to also oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POSEY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POSEY. We were at home watching NASCAR on television a couple of
years ago, and my wife said, What are the armed services doing
sponsoring NASCAR cars? Don't they have a better use to spend their
money than to spend those big bucks on NASCAR?
And I said, Well, Katie, I can understand why you would think that.
But, you know, we have a volunteer military, and they have to advertise
for recruits somewhere. Where would you think the money would be better
spent?
Do you think they should advertise at the philharmonic? Or maybe you
think they should advertise at the ballet. We could surely get some
burly,
[[Page H4951]]
mean paratroopers if we advertised at the ballet. I think that NASCAR
is a very appropriate place to advertise for recruits, just like boxing
rings might be, cage fights might be.
So I made some inquiries about it to our armed services, and they
said, you're exactly right on point. As our good friend, Mr. McHenry,
from North Carolina shared with you a little while ago, the statistics
are overwhelmingly in favor of expenditures where you get the greatest
return. And the NASCAR sponsorship seems to have the greatest return,
which results in the greatest savings for our taxpayers back home.
Now, I wish we were spending this time right now, rather than trying
to micromanage how our military most efficiently advertises for
recruits, discussing the $14 billion our government overpaid to people
who were not entitled to unemployment compensation, but got it anyway.
I wish right now we were discussing the $4 billion in refunds in the
form of tax credits our government has given to bogus dependents of
people who are here illegally.
I wish we were talking about the millions of dollars we've wasted in
the GAO.
I wish we were talking about the millions of dollars we've wasted in
crony capitalism investment in Solyndra and the like, and so-called
green energy enterprises.
{time} 1630
But no, we're not. We are sitting here today. Some people are trying
to micromanage how our military gets recruits for its all-volunteer
Army, and they are telling the people who are best at managing our
military how to do their jobs. It's an old adage. It's an old cliche.
It seems like everybody knows how to make a baby stop crying except the
person holding it. I think, in this case, that applies, and I think we
should yield to the best judgment of our armed services in how they
feel they need to recruit.
I have seen Democratic Presidential candidates advertise on NASCAR. I
saw a Democratic gubernatorial candidate advertise on race cars. As far
as Okeechobee Speedway, I was at Okeechobee Speedway once, and I ran
into somebody from the other side of the aisle whom I never expected to
see at a racetrack.
I said, What are you doing here?
She said, Well, when person ``blank,'' who was running for Governor,
decided we needed to focus on middle America, she decided she wanted to
sponsor a race car at Okeechobee Speedway.
Before that, I didn't even know there was an Okeechobee Speedway.
She said, Do you know what? It was the best investment of campaign
money we've ever spent.
These are from the other side of the aisle. I'm sure I could talk a
lot about my friends on this side of the aisle and about how they've
made good and wise investments, too.
Again, in this case, I'd like for you to rely upon and reflect upon
the comments made by Mr. McHenry, who talked about the very pure and
simple results and accountability that has been achieved by letting the
military--the people we trust the most with protecting our country and
our freedoms--do the job that they are entitled to do.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Much of the debate that I would have on this
amendment would be very similar to the one I'd had earlier when the
issue was of the military bans, so I won't repeat those again.
I would mention the fact that this amendment was defeated by this
same House several times last year on the Defense appropriations bill.
We have an interesting situation here, though, today. This amendment is
very similar to language later on in the bill that is subject to a
point of order. It has been skillfully rewritten so that this one is
not subject to a point of order, but it is basically the same issue.
Now, understand the United States of America does not have the
largest military in the world. We do have, by far, the best--but not
the largest--and our military is all volunteer. Members of the military
serve because they want to. Yet, as the all-volunteer force rotates and
changes, members are leaving--they retire; their time is up; they get
out; they have to constantly be replaced. There has to be a constant
flow of recruits coming in as the older members leave. The military has
been running recruiting programs for years and years and years and
very, very successfully. They know a little bit about what it takes to
encourage recruiting.
The amendment, itself, does more than just strike out the sports--
NASCAR--and all of these issues. It actually cuts $30 million more than
is spent on these issues. I don't know why they won't take that extra
$30 million. Anyway, we should not pass this amendment. It is, like I
said, very similar to one that is already in the bill that is subject
to a point of order.
I say let the military run the recruiting as they have done
successfully for all of these years in order to maintain an all-
volunteer force--a powerful message to the young Americans or the older
Americans who want to serve. Men and women want to serve their country
in the military, and these recruiting programs get their attention and
direct them where they need to be directed. So I think this just isn't
a good idea to pass this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PENCE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered
by my colleagues, Rep. McCollum and Rep. Kingston. And let me say that
while I wholeheartedly agree to the notion that this body must take the
lead in putting our nation back on the path towards fiscal
responsibility, the move to prohibit our military services from
advancing recruitment and retention goals through various athletic
sponsorships is unwise.
At a time when the men and women of our Armed Forces are undertaking
operations around the world, we must not move to end the successful
platforms used by the Department of Defense to recruit able men and
women into their ranks.
Contrary to popular belief, these sponsorships also go far beyond
driver appearances, commercials and decals on race cars. In fact, the
National Guard's sponsorship of the Panther Racing IndyCar team has not
only been successful in raising the Guard's profile and getting it in
front of potential recruits, but also technology transfers between
these entities will allow for our service members to be better
protected when downrange.
J.R. Hildebrand, who drives the National Guard IndyCar, wears ear
sensors that measure the G-forces he experiences during a crash on the
racetrack. Those sensors, known as an Integrated Blast Effects Sensor
System, are now worn by troops in harm's way. The information gathered
can be very useful to neurosurgeons who treat soldiers suffering from
Traumatic Brain Injury, often the result of roadside bomb attacks.
Understanding the nature and effects of Traumatic Brain Injury
advances the ways in which we protect and treat our fighting men and
women, and those same sensors worn by J.R. Hildebrand have a direct
benefit to our troops in Afghanistan. Furthermore, helmet technologies
developed in IndyCar and the National Football League have been adapted
for military use. And these represent just a few of the results from
the military's sponsorships, or partnerships with professional sports.
As our service members return to civilian life, they are often faced
with a continuing unemployment crisis. In partnership with the National
Guard, Panther Racing continues to work with the Employer Support of
the National Guard (ESGR) program, an agency within the Department of
Defense designed to connect citizen soldiers with employers. Panther
Racing continues to work with the Chamber of Commerce to support the
Hiring our Heroes program. At race events across the country, the
National Guard partnership with Panther Racing brings military members
and their spouses together with CEO's of local businesses and
ultimately helping get our nation's veterans back to work.
Madam Chair, utilizing military partnerships with professional sports
can be a vital tool in improving the lives and care of our service men
and women. The results of these programs speak for themselves.
Amendments similar to the one currently before this body have been
rejected by wide margins and I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the
aisle, to stand with those who wear the uniform and oppose the
Kingston/McCollum amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by
[[Page H4952]]
the gentleman from Georgia will be postponed.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, after more than a decade of war, it is
time to accelerate our drawdown of troops in Afghanistan and bring this
war to a close.
We've sent our brave servicemen and -women to Afghanistan to
eliminate the international terrorists who would do us harm. They have
successfully executed this mission with phenomenal dedication and
capacity: they have driven al Qaeda from Afghanistan, destroyed their
training facilities, killed or captured most of their top leaders.
Under President Obama's decisive leadership and thanks to the courage
and competency of our special forces, the 9/11 mastermind--Osama bin
Laden--has met his just end.
The President has outlined a plan for winding down this war, and I
support drawing down our military presence in Afghanistan even more
quickly than the President has suggested. We should welcome our troops
back as heroes and ensure they receive the support and care that is due
when they return.
Our military servicemembers and their families have borne and
continue to bear far more than their share of the burden of this war. I
am a member of the House Armed Services Committee, and I represent the
10th District of California, which is home to Travis Air Force Base--
the largest Air Mobility Command unit in the Air Force. Nearby in
Marysville, California, is Beale Air Force Base, which is the leader in
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Together, 16,000
servicemembers across the active duty National Guard and Reserves, as
well as over 75,000 veterans, live in my district and in the
surrounding area. These are the people who are disproportionately
bearing the cost of this war.
As their Representative, I owe it to them to make sure that we do not
ask of them any more than is absolutely necessary in order to ensure
America's national security. But the majority here in this House is
determined to prevent even a serious debate about ending the war in
Afghanistan. They have inserted language into the National Defense
Authorization Act that would actually slow down the withdrawal of U.S.
forces and keep nearly 70,000 troops in Afghanistan until at least
2015.
When the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee tried
to offer an amendment to replace this provision, the majority said it
was out of order. When a bipartisan group of Members of Congress joined
together on an amendment replacing this provision, the majority blocked
that amendment. This is the longest war in America's history, claiming
thousands of lives and costing hundreds of billions of dollars, and the
majority simply doesn't want to talk about it.
We must talk about this war. We must take time to think deeply about
the sacrifices of those who are serving and who have served. To date,
1,875 of our military servicemembers have been killed in Afghanistan,
leaving thousands more to endure the unimaginable grief of the loss of
a loved one. 15,322 of our troops have been wounded seriously,
suffering life-altering injuries. Not included in that number are those
with psychological wounds--invisible but no less devastating. We have
spent a half a trillion taxpayer dollars on the war in Afghanistan, and
this legislation would allocate $88 billion more to be spent in this
year alone.
There are some who would continue this war indefinitely. They oppose
the fixed timeline for ending combat operations and for bringing our
troops home. They oppose any concrete plans for transitioning full
responsibility for Afghanistan's security as quickly as possible. Even
worse, they would have American troops continuing to fight against a
domestic insurgency in Afghanistan, and they think it's America's job
to defeat those armed factions that threaten the Karzai Government,
which is, perhaps, the most corrupt government in this world. In fact,
they have inserted language into this bill that says the U.S. objective
in Afghanistan is to defend the Karzai Government against the Taliban.
They also have an interest in American troops defeating the Haqqani
Network and any other faction that is taking on the Karzai Government,
involving us in a multisided civil war.
{time} 1640
It was never the American mission in Afghanistan, nor should it be.
As President Obama clearly said last week, ``Our goal is to destroy Al
Qaeda.'' We began a military operation in Afghanistan with a very clear
reason. It's time for us to end this war and bring our troops home.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance of the Navy and the Marine Corps,
as authorized by law; and not to exceed $14,804,000 can be
used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be
expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the
Navy, and payments may be made on his certificate of
necessity for confidential military purposes,
$41,463,773,000.
Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, I want to have a colloquy between myself, the
chairman, and the gentleman from Washington on an issue regarding costs
associated with the security clearance process.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I would be happy to discuss the costs of the security
clearance process.
Mr. FARR. As the gentleman knows, security clearances are necessary
to protect our national security and are required for thousands of
jobs. This process is also expensive.
DOD pays billions of dollars to the Office of Personnel Management,
OPM, to manage the DOD security clearance program. OPM has made some
improvements in their investigation process so the program is no longer
on GAO's high-risk list, but the problem remains that OPM relies on
manual labor to process DOD security clearances.
The research scientists at Personnel Security Research Center,
PERSEREC, under the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness, have developed a suite of automated tools. Those tools
could save millions of dollars without sacrificing quality if these
tools were incorporated into the security reinvestigation process. I
greatly appreciate that the chairman and ranking member of the Defense
Subcommittee have included report language encouraging DOD to
investigate more in automated tools for the security clearance process.
Would my colleagues agree that DOD needs to leverage the resources of
PERSEREC to integrate their research, called ACES, into the DOD
security reinvestigation process?
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. To my good friend from California, I appreciate the
attention that you bring to this issue. It seems that this is a
commonsense thing that the Department can do to save millions of
dollars with no negative impact to the security clearance process.
Requiring DOD security reinvestigators to use the Automated Continuing
Evaluation System, ACES, tool will preserve national security despite
the tight budget constraints that the DOD is facing.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for his
response.
I had hoped to attach to the bill language directing DOD to conduct a
review, but in the interest of the House rules and jurisdictional
matters, I chose not to.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman from California yield?
Mr. FARR. I yield to the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I am aware of the gentleman's deep interest and
appreciate his flexibility in finding ways to address this issue. Like
my good friend from Washington (Mr. Dicks), I agree that we should work
with our good friend, Mr. Farr, to ensure that
[[Page H4953]]
DOD is leveraging the security clearance research of the PERSEREC to
improve the DOD security reinvestigation process.
Mr. FARR. I thank both of you for your friendship, leadership, and
cooperation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance of the Marine Corps, as authorized
by law, $6,075,667,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for
the operation and maintenance of the Air Force, as authorized
by law; and not to exceed $7,699,000 can be used for
emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the
approval or authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, and
payments may be made on his certificate of necessity for
confidential military purposes, $35,408,795,000.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gallegly
Mr. GALLEGLY. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 8, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $24,000,000)''.
Page 13, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $8,000,000)''.
Page 27, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $16,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Madam Chairwoman, my amendment will provide funding to
the Air National Guard so it can obtain much-needed firefighting
equipment so they can more effectively combat the devastating wildfires
that destroy millions of acres of land and homes every year in the
western United States.
The likelihood of calling upon MAFFS-equipped Air National Guard and
Air Force Reserve C-130s has increased significantly. MAFFS are modular
air firefighting systems that drop retardant to create firebreaks.
In 2003, the U.S. Forest Service had 44 fixed-wing aerial
firefighting aircraft. By 2004, the number had dwindled to 19. And as
of June 3 of this year, that number stands at only eight. An additional
aircraft, on interim contract with the Forest Service, and air tankers
borrowed from Canada and Alaska are being utilized to try to fill the
shortfall.
While the Forest Service firefighting fleet has gotten significantly
smaller, the number of wildfires have been increasing. In fact, in
2011, 74,000 fires burned 8.7 million acres. The most recent 10-year
average indicates that the fires burned an average of 7.4 million acres
a year.
As the fleet diminishes, stress on remaining aircraft increases.
Further, the distance between fires and available aircraft have been
increasing. The result is more fires burning out of control.
Additionally, an increase of flight time and cycles contributes to an
earlier demise of the remaining aircraft.
Only eight C-130s equipped with MAFFS units are equipped to
supplement the Forest Service fleet. Even when all eight are called
upon, the number of heavy air tanker aircraft is less than half that
existed in 2003. We clearly need more aircraft, and the Forest Service
is not likely to produce aircraft capable of meeting the need for the
next 2 or 3 years, or probably longer.
My amendment will provide an interim solution to this problem by
providing $8 million to the Air National Guard so they can make two
existing Guard wings capable of operating and flying two legacy MAFFS,
one unit each. That will give us four additional tanker aircraft to
fight wildfires that have been ravaging the western United States.
My amendment will also appropriate $16 million for the Air Force to
procure two new aerial dispersal units for use by the Air National
Guard. Activating the legacy MAFFS units will help get more planes
fighting fires this next year while these new aerial dispersal units
are being produced and hopefully available for use within 2 years.
Our Nation desperately needs our aircraft to fight wildfires, and the
Air Guard is ready to go to work. The U.S. needs more aircraft
available to fight the wildfires that have ravaged Colorado, New
Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah this season alone. I urge the support
of my colleagues.
With that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. This amendment seeks to add more funding to purchase
equipment vital to the disaster mission of the Air National Guard.
Recently, forest fires have been devastating Colorado, and the Air
National Guard has been fighting alongside the Forest Service. The
Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System, or MAFFS, provides emergency
capability to supplement existing commercial tanker support on wildland
fires. This system aids the Forest Service. When all other air tankers
are activated but further assistance is needed, the Forest Service can
request help from the Air Force's MAFFS unit, who can be ready in a few
hours notice with this modular system.
When the Air National Guard adds the Modular Airborne Fire Fighting
System to their C-130 aircraft, they are adding another capability to
their aircraft. Creating a dual-mission aircraft without major
modifications to an existing piece of equipment is efficient and cost
effective.
Quite frankly, we need to get new C-130Js for the Guard. I hope that
we can do that. That's been a problem we've had with OMB over the
scoring on this, whether you can lease them or buy them. This is an
interim step, which is a good one, and I think we should accept the
gentleman's amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1650
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide
(including transfer of funds)
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance of activities and agencies of the
Department of Defense (other than the military departments),
as authorized by law, $31,780,813,000: Provided, That not
more than $30,000,000 may be used for the Combatant Commander
Initiative Fund authorized under section 166a of title 10,
United States Code: Provided further, That not to exceed
$36,000,000 can be used for emergencies and extraordinary
expenses, to be expended on the approval or authority of the
Secretary of Defense, and payments may be made on his
certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes:
Provided further, That of the funds provided under this
heading, not less than $35,897,000 shall be made available
for the Procurement Technical Assistance Cooperative
Agreement Program, of which not less than $3,600,000 shall be
available for centers defined in 10 U.S.C. 2411(1)(D):
Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act may be used to plan or
implement the consolidation of a budget or appropriations
liaison office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
office of the Secretary of a military department, or the
service headquarters of one of the Armed Forces into a
legislative affairs or legislative liaison office: Provided
further, That $8,563,000, to remain available until expended,
is available only for expenses relating to certain classified
activities, and may be transferred as necessary by the
Secretary of Defense to operation and maintenance
appropriations or research, development, test and evaluation
appropriations, to be merged with and to be available for the
same time period as the appropriations to which transferred:
Provided further, That any ceiling on the investment item
unit cost of items that may be purchased with operation and
maintenance funds shall not apply to the funds described in
the preceding proviso: Provided further, That the transfer
authority provided under this heading is in addition to any
other transfer authority provided elsewhere in this Act.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam 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 9, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $88,952,000)''.
Page 16, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $88,952,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
[[Page H4954]]
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, we take great pride in the American
military, trained fighting force. We work hard to make sure they are
properly equipped, but decades of military training has left dangerous
explosives and harmful chemicals on millions of acres of United States
land.
This contaminated real estate now serves as housing, schools, parks
and playgrounds in every congressional district in the country. In
fact, you may have read in the morning paper down at what is called The
Yards near Nationals stadium, the development that is being done there,
they discovered a thousand-pound bomb less than 1 kilometer from where
we're debating today.
To help the Department of Defense become a better partner for our
communities and our constituents, I strongly urge that my colleagues
support an amendment that would preserve the Department of Defense
efforts to employ skilled labor and high-tech companies to clean up
these dangerous liabilities and create economic development
opportunities on these dangerous properties.
Congress established the Defense Environmental Restoration Program-
Formerly Used Defense Site Program, DERP-FUDS, in 1986 to remove
hazardous material from former Department of Defense properties and
allow for safe reuse. Over two decades later, 2,600 properties
nationwide require cleanup at an estimated cost of over $18 billion;
and I will tell you, my colleagues, after having worked in this area
for over a dozen years, that probably understates it.
The current funding for the program is less than $300 million, one-
half of 1 percent of base defense spending. At this rate, the
Department estimates, at this low-ball figure of $18 billion, we will
not finish cleaning up the sites we know about for the next 250 years.
My amendment would simply restore funding to the current level to
ensure that we continue work removing these dangerous burdens from our
communities within our lifetime, to say nothing of our great, great
grandchildren's.
At a time when total military spending amounts to more in 1 day than
what we spend in an entire year, I strongly urge my colleagues to
reprioritize our investments. These sites are decades--in some cases
they are hundreds of years old.
Now, the Defense Department has an obligation to clean up after
itself, and they have made great progress. They have made critical
technological breakthroughs in removing unexploded ordnance, making it
less expensive, and some of the investments that we have made have
actually saved lives overseas, because the same technology that will
help us figure out whether it's a hubcap or a 105 millimeter shell can
make a difference in IEDs overseas in Afghanistan or Iran.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It has
operational impacts today for our military. It has economic development
impact, which will help us return millions of acres to productive use;
and it's the right thing to do.
I don't want a situation where we shortchange what the Department of
Defense does. Remember, in prior debates--Mr. Dicks, Mr. Young may
remember--I brought to the floor Larry the Lizard coloring books that
we were distributing to school children to warn them of the hazards
because we hadn't invested enough to clean up, or the children that
were killed in a former defense operation in San Diego because they
found a bomb when they were playing.
I strongly urge that you approve this amendment and simply return the
funding to the level that we have today. It will make a difference for
the military now and for generations to come.
I appreciate your consideration and yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment,
what he wants to do. But a lot of these sites, there is no disposition.
We don't know what's going to happen to them.
Will they stay as owned by the Federal Government, will they go to
communities? We don't know the answer to that. We don't know the
disposition. But they do need cleaning up, and there is no doubt about
that.
Here's my problem with this amendment. He takes the funds from the
defense-wide readiness fund, the operations and maintenance fund, which
provides for our readiness, which provides for training. It provides
for our Special Forces; it provides for the support, safety and
quality-of-life programs for our troops and their families, including
programs to assist spouses of servicemembers with employment and job
training, which is a key initiative of the First Lady.
As much as I agree that this needs to be done, we do not want to take
it out of the defense operations and maintenance, which is our defense-
wide operations and maintenance funding.
I oppose the amendment. While I would like to help him in some other
way to accomplish this, not from this fund that is so important.
Readiness is readiness is readiness; and our troops have to be trained,
they have to be equipped, they have to be ready, and I oppose the
amendment.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate your understanding of the importance and
your concern about prioritization. If we don't prolong it in debate and
recorded vote and all of this sort of thing, would it be possible to
work with you and the ranking member as we move forward to see if there
is an opportunity for us to plus-up this fund a little further in other
areas?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for the question, and I
say absolutely yes. I would very much like to do this, because I
believe we need to do what it is you want to do.
But I just can't support taking it from an account that provides for
readiness of our troops.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DICKS. I would also support the gentleman in efforts to find
another less objectionable source for the funding.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $10,000,000)''.
Page 35, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 35, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chair, today I, along with my colleague Bob
Filner, am offering an amendment to restore an overall loss of $10
million in research funding dedicated to finding a cure for gulf war
illness, an illness that directly affects over one-fourth of veterans
from the first gulf war.
This amendment has the support of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. It
has the support of the Vietnam Veterans of America, and the support of
the National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition.
{time} 1700
According to the Congressional Budget Office, it will reduce total
outlays by $7 million.
Veterans of the first Gulf War suffer from persistent symptoms,
including chronic headache, widespread pain, cognitive difficulties,
debilitating fatigue, gastrointestinal problems, respiratory symptoms,
and other abnormalities that are not explained by traditional medicines
or psychiatric diagnosis. Research shows that as these brave veterans
age, they're at double the risk for ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease, as
their non-deployed peers. There may also be connections to multiple
sclerosis and Parkinson's disease. Sadly, there are no known treatments
for the lifelong pain these veterans endure.
Gulf War Illness research was slated to receive a total of $25
million in fiscal year '12: $15 million at the VA and
[[Page H4955]]
$10 million at the DOD's Gulf War Illness Research Program. We've
learned that the VA cut $10 million from its FY '13 program, which more
or less supports allegations that VA officials, whose views on Gulf War
illness have been discredited by the Institute of Medicine and the
scientific community, are obstructing the research. The veterans of the
first Gulf War who remain without a cure should not have to pay the
price for this controversy. That's why this amendment would restore $10
million into a research program that has proven itself: The Defense
Department's Gulf War Illness Research Program.
Last year, researchers funded by this program completed the first
successful pilot study of a medication to treat one of the major
symptoms of Gulf War Illness. The critical increase in funding from
this amendment was built on progress that's already been made,
including a followup clinical trial, as well as other promising studies
which have been waiting for funding. The offset for this amendment
comes from the $32 billion Operations and Maintenance Defense-Wide
Account in title II.
Congress has a responsibility to ensure that these Gulf War veterans
who put it all on the line and who are paying with a lifetime of pain
and a potentially shortened life--it's our responsibility to make sure
they're not left behind. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment
to fully fund research into Gulf War Veterans Illness.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I'm happy that I'm finally given an opportunity
to be supportive of an amendment offered by my friend, Mr. Kucinich,
because so often I have to oppose his amendments.
This bill already includes $10 million for the program. He's
concerned that the Veterans Affairs and Military Construction
Subcommittee did not include an additional $5 million. And I understand
that. And that's okay. But medical research on Gulf War Illness, or
whatever it is, is important. What we learned from this program could
help us in other programs on diseases coming from Iraq and Afghanistan.
We're seeing, if you get a chance to visit at Walter Reed Bethesda
Hospital, some very strange bacteria and viruses and mold and funguses
that are coming from places that we never expected to see. But we're
seeing them now.
So this research program could help another research program to deal
with these deadly diseases that are affecting our troops in large
numbers. And so while we've already done $10 million in this bill, I'm
going to agree with Mr. Kucinich and agree to his amendment to add the
additional money.
Mr. DICKS. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DICKS. I agree with the chairman. This Gulf War Illness has been
something that bothered me a great deal. This was a very difficult
diagnosis, what was causing this. But I think an additional investment
here is worthy, and I think we should accept the amendment. I'm glad
the chairman accepts it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for those comments, and I
thank Mr. Kucinich for offering the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $7,800,000)''.
Page 35, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $6,000,000)''.
Page 35, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $6,000,000)''.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the chairman. I also want to let the
chairman of the full committee and the ranking member know that I
appreciate their support for the Gulf War veterans in the previous
amendment. I also submit that this particular amendment addresses
another area that is receiving attention in the media but needs some
money behind it to make sure that it receives attention from the
Department.
This amendment to the Defense appropriations bill will increase
funding for suicide prevention among our soldiers by $6 million. Now I
happen to know there are members on this committee who are very
concerned about the increased level of suicide among those who serve.
And it's a bipartisan concern. We know the heartbreak that's out there
when someone who serves this country finds that the conditions that
they're in either during service or just afterwards are so horrendous
that they take their own life.
Far too many troops coming home from war have sustained numerous
mental insults, including post-traumatic stress order and traumatic
brain injury. The mental anguish for them is so unbearable that they're
stripped of hope and they just feel that they have to take their own
lives. And sometimes they take not only their lives but the lives of
loved ones as well.
There was a New York Times article in June of 2012, which said:
The suicide rate among the Nation's active duty military
personnel has spiked this year, eclipsing the number of
troops dying in battle and on pace to set a record annual
high since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan more
than a decade ago.
There's almost one troop suicide per day. Women face additional
difficulties and have a higher rate of attempted suicide. Being a
victim of sexual assault, for example, is a known risk factor for
suicide. The disincentives to simply reporting such an assault are many
and strong, which means getting help is even harder.
The epidemic of veteran or active duty military suicides is not only
a reason to increase funding for prevention of suicides, it's a reason
to end the wars. It's one of the hundreds of reasons that are
independently sufficient to end the wars. But until we end these wars,
the very least we can do is to summon a good faith effort to do
everything we can to prevent soldier suicides.
The amendment's offsets come from the Pentagon Channel.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DICKS. With all due respect, we have accepted the gentleman's
previous amendment. On this one we have already added $20 million to
the budget for this purpose, and we will, if necessary, go higher in
conference because of the gentleman's concern, the chairman's concern,
and my concern. But to totally eliminate funding for the Pentagon
Channel, I think, is a mistake. There's very valuable information that
is received by the military, by the Congress, by everybody who watches
this thing.
It's the source of the amendment. So I would ask the gentleman if he
would withdraw the amendment and then work with us and we will do the
best we can to get to a higher level in conference.
Mr. KUCINICH. The short answer is yes.
Mr. DICKS. This has become the issue of this war, when more people
are dying of suicide than are in combat. We don't want to lose any
lives. It means that there is a serious problem. And we want to work
with you to address that.
Mr. KUCINICH. Can I ask the chairman of the full committee if he
would enter into a colloquy for this?
First of all, I want to acknowledge my friend from Washington for his
commitment. This isn't the first time you and I have talked about this
long commitment to address this suicide prevention.
I would ask the chairman of the full committee, would you be willing
to support such an endeavor to plus-up the funds for suicide prevention
in the conference?
{time} 1710
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. This issue is extremely important to all of us.
At every one--well, almost every one--of our hearings, we insisted on
getting good answers from the military as to what they could do, what
would they
[[Page H4956]]
do, what did they plan to do to prevent the suicides. We have supported
so many programs and added the additional money that Mr. Dicks has
talked about.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Ohio has expired.
Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the chairman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. We have also funded money for the Yellow Ribbon
Foundation, which is actually to help servicemen and -women return to
society to avoid their desire to commit suicide.
Just putting money here is not going to solve the problem. It's going
to take a lot of work on the part the military, on the part of the
social workers who deal with these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines coming out of the services. Just money is not going to solve
this problem. It is a bigger issue than money. But we have provided a
lot of money, and we continue to keep pressure on the military
organizations to do everything they can.
Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time just for the moment, the point is we
have also added money for traumatic brain injury, for posttraumatic
stress disorder. Our subcommittee has been at the forefront of
providing additional resources beyond the administration's request for
a number of years, since this has become a major issue. But I would
just ask the gentleman to try to work with us on this one because of
the source issue, and we'll work together and do the best we can.
Mr. KUCINICH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KUCINICH. I have confidence in the good faith of the chairman and
the ranking member. I know that you're both concerned about this,
you've said so now, but I also know that you've demonstrated this at
other times. So what I would ask is that we could work together to look
at the amount that is in there programatically right now, find a way to
plus it up so that we can make sure that the people on Active Duty and
those that just left Active Duty know about programs, have access to
programs, and have access to the kind of treatment that would be
necessary to cut down the number of suicides.
In view of this colloquy, I will withdraw the amendment. Again, I
thank both gentlemen.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hanna
Mr. HANNA. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $30,000,000)''.
Page 32, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $30,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. HANNA. Mr. Chair, I would first like to thank the chairman and
the ranking member for their good work on this bill. I'm inclined to
support the underlying bill but believe it can be, and should be,
strengthened through this amendment.
The Department of Defense faces more than 10 million cyberattacks
every day. The damage and frequency of these attacks have been rapidly
increasing over recent years. Attacks against our networks cost our
businesses more than $1 trillion per year in lost intellectual property
and other damages, resulting in theft of innovation and real damage to
our economy and American jobs.
For example, a cyberattack in March of 2011 against the military
contractor resulted in the loss of 24,000 Department of Defense files.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has stated that 60,000 new software
programs are identified every day which threaten our security, our
economy, our citizens, and our military.
High-tech threats require high-tech defenses to combat the attacks
that face our armed services on the front lines and our businesses here
at home. Proper funding for our cybersecurity defenses and advanced
research projects is critical to our national security in today's high-
threat environment.
The Air Force has always taken the lead in cyberspace defenses, yet
over $1 billion is proposed to be cut from their research, development,
test and evaluation programs under this bill. These cuts are not
justified based on the frequency and magnitude of the threats.
These cuts would further expose our networks and adversely affect our
service departments and agencies such as Strategic Command, the Defense
Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency.
Secretary Panetta has stated:
The next Pearl Harbor we confront could very well be a cyberattack
that cripples our systems.
We simply need to protect our networks by providing the funding
levels necessary to do just that.
My amendment would restore $30 million to the Air Force's Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation programs and reduce Operations and
Maintenance by the same amount to support research and development of
cyberdefense, advanced communication and information technology
programs.
Recognizing the need for fiscal restraint, if adopted, my amendment
would still fund the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation account
by $1.6 billion, or 6 percent, below this year's level; and overall,
Operations and Maintenance would still receive $12.1 billion above the
enacted levels.
Now is simply not the time to cut back on high-tech research and
development without justification. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment to restore funding for these programs which are vital to our
21st century defenses.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I reluctantly have to oppose this amendment for
much of the same arguments I used earlier by taking the money out of
O&M defense-wide accounts, which is where we provide for our readiness.
And we just cannot continue to take money out of this fund and use it
as a slush fund. Readiness, we have got to maintain. We can't take a
chance on not being ready in the event a situation develops.
Now, on the issue of cyber, there's no doubt that this is a growing
threat. It's even a larger threat than most people realize today. And
members of this committee understand that threat because we have spent
a lot of time dealing with cyber. But there are other places in this
bill where the gentleman could offer his amendment that would, I think,
apply better.
If we're dealing with a nonmilitary cyber program, it should be done
through the Homeland Security bill, and they do have money in that
bill. If it has to do with the FBI's law enforcement work on cyber, it
should be in the Commerce-State-Justice bill where there is money there
for that.
I'm afraid this gets a little close to being an earmark that is not
an earmark. For example, there are those in the media suggesting that
Members are increasing program amounts just so that that program would
favor something in their own district. This gets very close because of
a particular laboratory in Mr. Hanna's district. I'm not opposed to his
supporting his laboratory, but I think it does get to the point that
maybe this is a program increase that could be directed to a specific
district or a specific project.
We've already funded a lot in cyber, and we will continue to fund
cyber. Every year it grows, we grow with it. But we can't do this at
the expense of our defense-wide Operation and Maintenance accounts that
provide for our readiness.
{time} 1720
I'm not going to produce a bill or support a bill that cuts into the
readiness of our Nation, the ability to defend our Nation. We're not
going to do it. The cyber accounts have their own place in the
legislation, and they are being taken care of properly.
So I'm opposed to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Langevin
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
[[Page H4957]]
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $15,000,000)''.
Page 35, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $15,000,000)''.
Page 35, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $15,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment proposes to add $15 million
to the RDT&E in the Defense Health Program for the purpose of
augmenting the Spinal Cord Injury Research Program within the
Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program.
Spinal cord injuries are a serious combat-related condition affecting
many of our servicemen and -women. In response, Congress established
the Spinal Cord Injury Research Program in 2009 to support research
into regenerating and repairing damaged spinal cords and improving
rehabilitative therapies.
More than 30 years ago, when I was first injured with a spinal cord
injury, I was told that I'd never walk again and that you just can't
repair the spinal cord. Well, now, some 30 years later, we know that
that is not accurate. In fact, it is no longer a question of if we can
repair spinal cords, but when. This offers great hope to our men and
women in uniform who have been the victims of a spinal cord injury in
combat. In fact, recent research promises to make the repair of spinal
cord injuries a reachable goal in the very near future.
In one study released earlier this year, in fact, rats with severe
spinal injuries were able, following a groundbreaking new treatment, to
walk, run, and even climb stairs. Scientists in charge of the trial
said a similar approach could be used on human patients with spinal
injuries, with a clinical trial possible within 1 or 2 years.
This and other research provides real hope to our military
servicemembers and veterans who have suffered severe nervous system
damage while defending our freedom, as well as the 1.275 million
Americans estimated to be paralyzed as a result of a spinal cord
injury. But without sufficient funding, these therapies will not be
able to undergo further development or clinical trials.
The research is real and shows incredible promise. There is a genuine
and exciting possibility that we can soon repair these debilitating
injuries that affect so many. I believe that we must make sure that
momentum is not lost and that the benefit of decades of research into
spinal cord injuries is realized.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank my good friends,
Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks, and the committee staff for
working very closely with me on crafting this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
I commend my friend from Rhode Island for his efforts in this regard,
and I just hope that this research will be successful. I know with his
leadership, it will be.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman, the sponsor of the amendment,
has discussed this with us at length for quite some time. This is an
immediate problem and a growing problem and one that we have to face up
to.
We do not oppose this amendment. We agree with the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sessions
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $10,000,000)''.
Page 35, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 35, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, first, I'd like to recognize both of the
gentlemen that are here on behalf of the committee today, the
gentleman, Mr. Dicks, and the gentleman, Mr. Young, for their
outstanding service not only to our country, but to this Congress, on
behalf of making sure that we have freedom and that the men and women
who protect this country are properly taken care of. I express my
gratitude to both of them.
Also, I want to thank Hal Rogers, and certainly the gentleman from
New Jersey who is sitting in for the committee today. I want to thank
him also.
Mr. Chairman, today, I stand up in support of the dedication and hard
work this Congress has done for work on something on known as TBI,
traumatic brain injury, and posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD. This
Congress, as you may know, Mr. Chairman, has continued increasing
funding for TBI and PTSD overall, and by this bill by $125 million.
On May 18, 2012, during the National Defense Authorization Act
debate, the House unanimously adopted my amendment to create a pilot
program administered by the Department of Defense that would strengthen
treatment for our troops coming home with TBI and PTSD. Today, Congress
has the opportunity to appropriate funds for this program.
My amendment, offered with my dear friend from California, the
gentleman, Mike Thompson, specifically moves $10 million from more than
$31 billion in the Operation and Maintenance Defense-Wide budget to
increase the Defense Health Program by $10 million. This money will
directly assist these soldiers who have TBI-related injuries by
allowing them to be reimbursed for attending private sector facilities
that perform cutting-edge treatments.
One in four recent combat veterans treated by the Veterans Health
Administration from 2004 to 2009 had a diagnosis of PTSD, and about 7
percent have been diagnosed with TBI. According to the U.S. Army, the
number of soldiers leaving Active Duty service has increased by 64
percent from 2005 to 2009 due to brain health, whether it was TBI,
PTSD, or a mental illness. These soldiers leave at a rapid rate.
A 2009 RAND study estimates that costs related to depression, PTSD,
and TBI in our soldiers ranges from $4 billion to $6.2 billion over a
2-year period of time.
Today, health care providers all over the country are working to
provide treatment to brain injury patients with new and innovative
treatments, with remarkable results. One such treatment utilizes
hyperbaric oxygen to reduce or eliminate chronic symptoms of TBI, such
as headaches, memory loss, and mood swings.
While the Department of Defense has made many, many strides in
research under the direction of Colonel Scott Miller, many innovative
treatments, unfortunately, are not available within the military
facilities. So, this amendment that I offer today would allow these men
and women who seek treatment to be able to do so at our leading-edge
facilities that are private around the United States of America. My
amendment will provide for treatment and recovery that is desperately
needed.
I urge my amendment to be approved, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the chair
and the ranking member for the good work they're doing on this bill.
I rise in strong support of this amendment.
The Department of Defense estimates that more than 230,000
servicemembers have sustained a traumatic brain injury between 2000 and
2011. During that time, as the gentleman from Texas, my good friend,
Mr. Sessions, pointed out,
[[Page H4958]]
Congress has dedicated an unprecedented level of funding for TBI
treatment and research, which has allowed DOD to make great strides in
identifying and treating brain injuries. But despite the increased
funding, servicemembers and veterans suffering from posttraumatic
stress and TBI are still limited as to where and when they can be
treated. Sometimes the very best treatment for their injuries can be
found outside of the traditional DOD/VA networks. There are some
outstanding programs providing first-class, effective treatment to our
returning soldiers, yet those programs are not eligible for payment.
{time} 1730
I had a chance to visit one of these facilities, the Pathway Home
program, run out of the California Veterans Home. It's just an
outstanding program providing great service to some very deserving
heroes, and they should be reimbursed.
Our troops and veterans have earned--they've earned the very best
treatment and care that we can provide. But sometimes, as I said, the
best treatments aren't available at military and veteran medical
facilities.
The Sessions-Thompson amendment will make sure that our heroes who
return from combat with TBI or PTS have access to the highest quality
care our Nation has to offer. We have a responsibility to help those
who have sacrificed so much in defense of our great Nation.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we're pleased to accept the
gentlemen from Texas and California's amendment. We know what happens
to those who suffer from traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic
stress syndrome.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the ranking member.
Mr. DICKS. I just want to concur. I think this is a deserving
amendment. We cannot do enough on these issues because this is going to
have a lifetime effect on these people; and the more we do, as they
come home, and even before they go to find out who is susceptible, this
is critically important and will save us a lot of money.
We will accept the amendment on our side.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the ranking member of the
Defense Subcommittee for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. Ranking Member, I recently wrote a letter to the Secretary of
Defense to ask for his assistance in documenting the annual cost to the
military of treating servicemembers and veterans who are living with
hydrocephalus.
Hydrocephalus is a medical condition characterized by the abnormal
accumulation of fluid within the brain. Experts suspect that two-thirds
of the 41,000 servicemembers diagnosed with moderate to severe
traumatic brain injuries over the past decade also suffer from
hydrocephalus.
The primary treatment for hydrocephalus, a shunt implanted in the
brain, was developed decades ago and has the highest failure rate of
any implanted medical device. Veterans living with this condition will
face a lifetime of medical uncertainties and incur costly brain
surgeries, unless a better treatment is found.
Would the ranking member, the gentleman, be willing to work with us
to help gain a better understanding of the incidence and cost of
hydrocephalus among our injured servicemembers and veterans so we can
focus the appropriate amount of DOD research dollars on finding a
better treatment?
I yield to the ranking member.
Mr. DICKS. The committee recognizes the serious trouble of traumatic
brain injury, as you just noted, and related conditions; and I'm happy
to work with the gentleman from New Jersey to improve understanding of
this important issue as we confer with the other body and work with our
majority Members here who are deeply concerned, as we are, about this
amendment.
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Walz of Minnesota
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 35, line 15, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $5,00,000)''.
Page 35, line 23, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask to
dispense with the reading of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I would like to thank the chairman and the
ranking member for the great work they're doing on this. I'd also like
to thank them for their commitment, not just to the defense of this
Nation, but to the care of those warriors who so dearly pay for that
defense.
What this amendment does is it increases the appropriation in the
Sensory Injury Defense Research programmatic request from $5 million to
$10 million for core vision and eye research. This important research
will be paid for by redirecting funds from Operations and Management
Budget.
You've heard it on the last several speakers talking about traumatic
brain injury, the issues that come from that. One of the core
indicators and one of the first indicators of traumatic brain injury or
mild traumatic brain injury is eye injury.
The brave warriors that sustain these, whether they're puncture
injuries or whether they're from concussive blast injuries, start to
manifest themselves in loss of vision and eye injuries. Of all of the
TBIs that happen in the war zone, 70 percent suffer some type of vision
loss. The research to deal with this has long-term benefits.
It is, as I said, one of the first indicators of brain injury. We
could start to get early treatment on that, and all the research seems
to show that cognitive ability is affected positively the sooner we get
on top of that.
There is $600 million and I know tough decisions are made in this
bill towards research and battlefield injuries; 15 percent of all those
injuries are eye injuries. The $10 million number that we're requesting
gives us basic adequate numbers, a floor number, if you will, to start
getting that research done.
So I am very appreciative of the tough decisions that get made in
this. I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to beef
up the eye injury research, and I would argue it's morally the right
thing to do. We've been trying to work on this with a combination of VA
and DOD to get that going.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We're pleased to accept the gentleman from
Minnesota's amendment, and we salute him for his advocacy.
I could tell you from a personal visit from a soldier who lost his
sight, Tim Fallon from Long Valley, New Jersey, who came into my office
to advocate, that these are dollars well spent. We need to spend more
on these types of investments because too many soldiers are coming home
with, I think, things that could be potentially benefited from this
type of investment in terms of having the potential.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H4959]]
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DICKS. I concur with the chairman and want to say to the
gentleman from Minnesota, we appreciate his service to the country. You
know a lot more about this than some of us who were not in the service,
and we appreciate your leadership on this issue.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of the time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Higgins
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
Page 32, line 18, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense oversees
important research into the varied threats that face our Nation. This
research is essential to safeguarding our communities and empowering
research institutions and universities to come up with the creative
solutions to detect, confront, and neutralize weapons of mass
destruction.
My amendment is very straightforward. It would increase funding by
$10 million for the defense-wide research, development, test and
evaluation account. It is offset by reducing funding for the operation
and maintenance defense-wide account.
The intent of this amendment is to support the ongoing work that is
being performed through basic research programs at the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency, which is the Department of Defense's official Combat
Support Agency for countering weapons of mass destruction.
The grants provided by this funding support 160 research projects
across the Nation. Twenty-one universities participate in competitive
research projects that help to define, detect, and mitigate the
proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction. This important
work is providing us with a better understanding of the threats we face
and creating new innovative solutions to the security risks posed by a
chemical, biological, or nuclear attack on the United States homeland.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and the important
lifesaving research being performed at important institutions across
the country.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1740
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly object to the arbitrary
reductions to the Operations and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
appropriations account.
The Operations and Maintenance appropriations account funding, as Mr.
Young stated a few minutes ago, is critical to the readiness, safety,
and quality of life for our brave men and women who volunteer to serve
each and every day. Cutting this account would hurt our readiness, and
that is something we cannot do at this point in time.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance, including training, organization,
and administration, of the Army Reserve; repair of facilities
and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and
transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of
services, supplies, and equipment; and communications,
$3,199,423,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance, including training, organization,
and administration, of the Navy Reserve; repair of facilities
and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and
transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of
services, supplies, and equipment; and communications,
$1,256,347,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance, including training, organization,
and administration, of the Marine Corps Reserve; repair of
facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles;
travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting;
procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and
communications, $277,377,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance, including training, organization,
and administration, of the Air Force Reserve; repair of
facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles;
travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting;
procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and
communications, $3,362,041,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the
Army National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment
and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance,
operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; hire of
passenger motor vehicles; personnel services in the National
Guard Bureau; travel expenses (other than mileage), as
authorized by law for Army personnel on active duty, for Army
National Guard division, regimental, and battalion commanders
while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard
Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief,
National Guard Bureau; supplying and equipping the Army
National Guard as authorized by law; and expenses of repair,
modification, maintenance, and issue of supplies and
equipment (including aircraft), $7,187,731,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the
Air National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment
and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance,
operation, and repairs to structures and facilities;
transportation of things, hire of passenger motor vehicles;
supplying and equipping the Air National Guard, as authorized
by law; expenses for repair, modification, maintenance, and
issue of supplies and equipment, including those furnished
from stocks under the control of agencies of the Department
of Defense; travel expenses (other than mileage) on the same
basis as authorized by law for Air National Guard personnel
on active Federal duty, for Air National Guard commanders
while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard
Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief,
National Guard Bureau, $6,608,826,000.
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
For salaries and expenses necessary for the United States
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, $13,516,000, of which
not to exceed $5,000 may be used for official representation
purposes.
Environmental Restoration, Army
(including transfer of funds)
For the Department of the Army, $335,921,000, to remain
available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of
the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required
for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of
hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of
the Department of the Army, or for similar purposes, transfer
the funds made available by this appropriation to other
appropriations made available to the Department of the Army,
to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes
and for the same time period as the appropriations to which
transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that
all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation
are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such
amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation:
Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under
this heading is in addition to any other transfer authority
provided elsewhere in this Act.
Environmental Restoration, Navy
(including transfer of funds)
For the Department of the Navy, $310,594,000, to remain
available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of
the Navy shall, upon determining that such funds are required
for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of
hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of
the Department of the Navy, or for similar purposes, transfer
the funds made available by this appropriation to other
appropriations made available to the Department of the Navy,
to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes
and for the same time period as the appropriations to which
transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that
all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation
are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such
amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation:
Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under
this heading is in addition to any other transfer authority
provided elsewhere in this Act.
[[Page H4960]]
Environmental Restoration, Air Force
(including transfer of funds)
For the Department of the Air Force, $529,263,000, to
remain available until transferred: Provided, That the
Secretary of the Air Force shall, upon determining that such
funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction
and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings
and debris of the Department of the Air Force, or for similar
purposes, transfer the funds made available by this
appropriation to other appropriations made available to the
Department of the Air Force, to be merged with and to be
available for the same purposes and for the same time period
as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided further,
That upon a determination that all or part of the funds
transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the
purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred
back to this appropriation: Provided further, That the
transfer authority provided under this heading is in addition
to any other transfer authority provided elsewhere in this
Act.
Environmental Restoration, Defense-wide
(including transfer of funds)
For the Department of Defense, $11,133,000, to remain
available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of
Defense shall, upon determining that such funds are required
for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of
hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of
the Department of Defense, or for similar purposes, transfer
the funds made available by this appropriation to other
appropriations made available to the Department of Defense,
to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes
and for the same time period as the appropriations to which
transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that
all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation
are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such
amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation:
Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under
this heading is in addition to any other transfer authority
provided elsewhere in this Act.
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites
(including transfer of funds)
For the Department of the Army, $237,543,000, to remain
available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of
the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required
for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of
hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris at
sites formerly used by the Department of Defense, transfer
the funds made available by this appropriation to other
appropriations made available to the Department of the Army,
to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes
and for the same time period as the appropriations to which
transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that
all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation
are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such
amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation:
Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under
this heading is in addition to any other transfer authority
provided elsewhere in this Act.
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid
For expenses relating to the Overseas Humanitarian,
Disaster, and Civic Aid programs of the Department of Defense
(consisting of the programs provided under sections 401, 402,
404, 407, 2557, and 2561 of title 10, United States Code),
$108,759,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014.
Cooperative Threat Reduction Account
For assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union
and, with appropriate authorization by the Department of
Defense and Department of State, to countries outside of the
former Soviet Union, including assistance provided by
contract or by grants, for facilitating the elimination and
the safe and secure transportation and storage of nuclear,
chemical and other weapons; for establishing programs to
prevent the proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and
weapon-related technology and expertise; for programs
relating to the training and support of defense and military
personnel for demilitarization and protection of weapons,
weapons components and weapons technology and expertise, and
for defense and military contacts, $519,111,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2015.
Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund
For the Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce
Development Fund, $50,198,000.
TITLE III
PROCUREMENT
Aircraft Procurement, Army
For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance,
ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories
therefor; specialized equipment and training devices;
expansion of public and private plants, including the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$6,115,226,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2015.
Missile Procurement, Army
For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of missiles, equipment, including ordnance,
ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories
therefor; specialized equipment and training devices;
expansion of public and private plants, including the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$1,602,689,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2015.
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of weapons and tracked combat vehicles, equipment, including
ordnance, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized
equipment and training devices; expansion of public and
private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for
the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein,
may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to
approval of title; and procurement and installation of
equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and
private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the
foregoing purposes, $1,884,706,000, to remain available for
obligation until September 30, 2015.
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized
equipment and training devices; expansion of public and
private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized
by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$1,576,768,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2015.
Other Procurement, Army
For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of vehicles, including tactical, support, and non-tracked
combat vehicles; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only; communications and electronic equipment;
other support equipment; spare parts, ordnance, and
accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training
devices; expansion of public and private plants, including
the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and
such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$6,488,045,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2015.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Bonamici
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 22, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1) (increased by $1)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
commonsense amendment I am offering for Ms. Buerkle and me to help
State National Guard units across the country better perform their
missions. This amendment requires the National Guard to complete a
capability assessment of the medical equipment its domestic Humvee
ambulances should be required to carry in Federal and State missions.
Right now, these ambulances have no requirement to carry cardiac
monitoring and resuscitation equipment, limiting their capability to
adequately treat a wide range of injuries in emergency situations. MRAP
ambulances, used by the Army and National Guard in overseas contingency
operations, do, however, carry cardiac monitoring and resuscitation
equipment. This capability assessment would determine whether or not
Guard Humvee ambulances used domestically should carry cardiac
monitoring and resuscitation equipment comparable to MRAP ambulances
currently fielded in overseas contingency operations.
The National Guard's missions include responding to terrorist
attacks, homeland security emergencies, natural disasters, and
providing defense
[[Page H4961]]
support to civil authorities. How can the Guard carry out its required
missions if it does not have the proper equipment necessary to deal
with severe injuries?
As these Humvee ambulances are currently equipped, medical personnel
are extremely limited in the available treatment they can provide to an
injured person. Essentially, an ambulance in this configuration can
only provide very basic care and the simple transportation of a patient
from one place to another. For example, I understand that medical
personnel would be unable to treat a patient experiencing cardiac
arrest. This is a serious problem.
State National Guard units across the country want this equipment and
have indicated that it could make the difference between life and death
in emergency situations. The Adjutants General in eight different
States, including Washington, Montana, North Dakota, Hawaii, New York,
Arizona, and my home State of Oregon, have submitted resolutions for
the emergency procurement of cardiac monitoring equipment to be used by
their individual State Guard units, but because the National Guard
Bureau does not view this equipment as ``required,'' it has backed out
of a plan to purchase it despite the support of multiple States.
This amendment will require the National Guard Bureau to reexamine
whether or not cardiac monitoring and resuscitation equipment is
required and necessary for the Guard to fulfill its homeland security,
terrorist attack, national disaster response, and defense support to
civil authorities responsibilities. Should the capability assessment
find that the equipment is necessary, under this amendment, the Army
may use funds from this section to retrofit and install the equipment
in domestic Humvee ambulances currently in use by the National Guard.
This is a commonsense issue. The Guardsmen and -women who operate
ambulances should be provided the best capability available to save
lives across this country in the event of an emergency.
I urge my colleagues' support of this bipartisan amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I want to thank the gentlewoman for bringing this
issue to our attention. I have no objection to it. I accept it. I think
its assessment would be valuable to be made.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentlewoman for her amendment. I
think it's well-thought-out, and I hope it has the desired effect. I
congratulate her on offering it.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance,
spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment;
expansion of public and private plants, including the land
necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may
be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to
approval of title; and procurement and installation of
equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and
private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
owned equipment layaway, $17,518,324,000, to remain available
for obligation until September 30, 2015.
Weapons Procurement, Navy
For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of missiles, torpedoes, other weapons, and
related support equipment including spare parts, and
accessories therefor; expansion of public and private plants,
including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and
interests therein, may be acquired, and construction
prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and
procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and
machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and
Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway,
$3,072,112,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2015.
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized
equipment and training devices; expansion of public and
private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized
by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$677,243,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2015.
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition,
or conversion of vessels as authorized by law, including
armor and armament thereof, plant equipment, appliances, and
machine tools and installation thereof in public and private
plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned
equipment layaway; procurement of critical, long lead time
components and designs for vessels to be constructed or
converted in the future; and expansion of public and private
plants, including land necessary therefor, and such lands and
interests therein, may be acquired, and construction
prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title,
Carrier Replacement Program, $578,295,000;
Virginia Class Submarine, $3,217,601,000;
Virginia Class Submarine (AP), $1,597,878,000;
CVN Refuelings,$1,613,392,000;
CVN Refuelings (AP), $70,010,000;
DDG-1000 Program, $669,222,000;
DDG-51 Destroyer, $4,036,628,000;
DDG-51 Destroyer (AP), $466,283,000;
Littoral Combat Ship, $1,784,959,000;
Joint High Speed Vessel, $189,196,000;
Moored Training Ship, $307,300,000;
LCAC Service Life Extension Program, $47,930,000; and
For outfitting, post delivery, conversions, and first
destination transportation, $284,859,000.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Quigley
Mr. QUIGLEY. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 24, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $988,000,000)''.
Page 25, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $988,000,000)''.
Page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $988,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
{time} 1750
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague from Illinois to offer
a bipartisan commonsense amendment to the Department of Defense
appropriations bill.
Our amendment cuts $988 million from the bill, which the committee
added but the Navy did not request, for a 10th DDG-51 destroyer. It
also puts the savings toward deficit reduction.
Let's back up for a minute and explain how we got here. As part of
the Department of Defense's new strategy, they are realigning force
structure by reducing ground forces and making new investments in more
agile sea and air forces. Toward this end, the Navy has entered into a
multiyear procurement--or MYP--arrangement to purchase nine DDG-51
destroyers over the next 5 years. In order to fulfill one year of this
MYP arrangement, the Navy requested just over $3 billion in the FY13
budget, yet the committee took it upon itself to give the Navy an extra
billion dollars it didn't request and likely doesn't need for a 10th
destroyer.
To be fair, there was talk of purchasing a 10th destroyer, but on
March 29, 2012, Sean Stackley, the Navy's acquisition executive,
testified before a House Armed Services Subcommittee that he thought
through competition he could get 10 ships for the price of 9. He notes
in his testimony that the Navy has ``competition on this program--two
builders building the 51s, and the competition has been healthy.'' He
goes on to explain how he hopes to get a 10th ship out of the multiyear
arrangement, saying ``our top line allowed for nine ships to be
budgeted, but when we go out with this procurement, we're going to go
out with a procurement that enables the procurement of 10 ships if
we're going to achieve the savings that we're targeting across this
multiyear arrangement.''
Mr. Stackley ends by explaining that the Navy can use leverage and
competition to get 10 ships for the price of
[[Page H4962]]
nine, and he thinks they have a pretty good shot. But rather than
letting the Navy do its job, and letting the competition acquisition
process work by putting the billion dollars on the table up front, the
committee cut the legs out from underneath the competitive process. The
addition of the extra billion dollars for another ship by the committee
ends competition and negotiation, and puts a billion dollars on the
table that we don't have to spend.
Why not let the acquisition process take its course, and see what
happens? I don't think we need the 10th ship, and I'm not completely
convinced we need the other nine either. But even for those who do
support a 10th destroyer, cutting this funding now does not preclude
them from adding it later if it's needed.
Unfortunately, this is one of the many examples of Congress
supplanting its own parochial interests for that of the military and
what's best for the country as a whole. This defense bill and all those
before it are riddled with funding for weapons, bases, and projects we
don't need to keep America safe. Rather, these bills include projects
that support special Member interests back home. We can no longer
afford to allow the desire to stimulate local economies to drive our
defense and foreign policy. As we emerge from a deep recession and face
a deficit topping $1 trillion for the fourth straight year, we must
right-size our budget.
Mr. Chairman, in terms of the ability to let Mr. Dold speak, I yield
1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois may not yield blocks of
time. He may yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DOLD. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. QUIGLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DOLD. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we're focused on finding savings in every area of
government spending. Without a doubt, the Defense Department has made
significant and painful contributions to our efforts to reduce the
debt, and I want to make sure that we recognize that.
The Defense budget actually accounts for roughly 17 percent of all
Federal spending, yet it has contributed over 50 percent of the deficit
reduction. I do want to recognize that we're already cutting a
significant amount of money, Mr. Chairman, out of the Department of
Defense. We need to be looking at commonsense ways for us to be able to
save money.
This amendment is about promoting efficiency in the Department of
Defense and achieving valued savings wherever possible. The amount of
funds provided in this bill for these ships is $1 billion above the
Navy's own budget request. In the spirit of seeking to achieve cost
savings throughout this government, I believe it's appropriate for us
to act consistent with the Navy's view of allowing the competitive
bidding process to play out, which, as the Navy acquisition executive
has testified, may very well allow the Navy to acquire its 10th ship at
lesser amounts included in the Navy's budget request. If these bids
come back and a 10th ship cannot be realized this year, I'm certainly
supportive of providing additional resources next year for the 10th
ship. But I do believe we should allow the Navy to operate and try to
maintain at lower costs while achieving our Nation's security.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, all throughout this last year, we
have heard from the administration and we have heard from the Navy that
it is important to be able to have a large presence in the Pacific
area. This is something that we're going to do that is new. We're going
to have an increased presence in the Pacific. That is the
administration's statement.
During our many hearings, all of those hearings that we did on the
Central Command area in the Mideast, the Persian Gulf, the Strait of
Hormuz, the threats from Iran, we were told by the military leadership
who fight those wars there that they needed a larger naval presence in
order to counter any threat from Iran and similar threats, and to keep
open the Persian Gulf, and especially the Strait of Hormuz.
Today, we don't really have as much naval capability as they suggest
that we need. So the committee added this DDG-51 for this year. The
Navy actually asked for advanced procurement for the DDG-51 so they can
build it next year. We were able to find the funds to actually build it
this year so that we can begin to prepare for the presence that the
Navy and the President have all said that we have to maintain. That's
the DDG-51.
In addition, in order to try to accomplish the coverage that the Navy
said they need, we have taken three cruisers that would have been taken
out of service, and we reconfigured those cruisers. We provided funding
to reconfigure the cruisers to add to this effort, to add to the effort
to have more naval presence in the Mideast, and to cover the Pacific.
As everyone in the military and in the White House has said, we've got
to have that presence.
We have to oppose this amendment. We need this DDG-51 in order to
meet our obligations.
It is interesting that we understand that some of these programs are
costing more than was anticipated. The CBO just issued a report saying
that in order to do the President's budget request, it will cost $123
billion more than they estimated that it would cost. We do have a
problem with numbers, and with dollars.
Covering the Pacific region, covering the Mideast region, the Persian
Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, that is important to our national security
interests, and that's important to our allies, and to our troops
overseas in that region.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. It is not a good amendment. It
is not good for our national defense.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. QUIGLEY. 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 Illinois
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Completion of Prior Year Shipbuilding Programs,
$372,573,000.
In all: $15,236,126,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2017: Provided, That additional
obligations may be incurred after September 30, 2017, for
engineering services, tests, evaluations, and other such
budgeted work that must be performed in the final stage of
ship construction: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided under this heading for the construction or
conversion of any naval vessel to be constructed in shipyards
in the United States shall be expended in foreign facilities
for the construction of major components of such vessel:
Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this
heading shall be used for the construction of any naval
vessel in foreign shipyards.
Other Procurement, Navy
For procurement, production, and modernization of support
equipment and materials not otherwise provided for, Navy
ordnance (except ordnance for new aircraft, new ships, and
ships authorized for conversion); the purchase of passenger
motor vehicles for replacement only; expansion of public and
private plants, including the land necessary therefor, and
such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway,
$6,364,191,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2015.
{time} 1800
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen
Mr. COHEN. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 26, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $506,660,000)''.
Page 35, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $235,000,000)''.
Page 35, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $235,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment we should be able to
come together on. The administration requested $101 million for the
operation
[[Page H4963]]
and upgrading cruiser ships used by the United States Navy. That's what
the Pentagon and the administration requested, $101 million.
However, what's been recommended is $607 million. That $607 million
is an increase of over $500 million from what the Pentagon asked for,
five times what the Pentagon asked for. At a time when so many of my
colleagues are calling for a decrease in the spending on the Federal
Government side, it seems that they should heed the requests of their
constituents, the budget, and the advice of Congress and will refrain
from throwing $500 million at this program that the Department of
Defense is trying to phase out.
Now, my amendment would allocate $235 million of that 506 excess to
defense health programs. The rest would be toward deficit reduction.
Americans would be better served if that $235 million didn't go to a
program of buying cruiser ships that the Department of Defense doesn't
want, and rather have this money go to health care research, which the
Department of Defense does in the area of cancer research, breast
cancer research, prostate cancer research, and other cancer research.
The Department of Defense has a strong cancer research program and
can always use more money to save lives. I have been a strong supporter
all my life of putting money into research in the National Institutes
of Health and joining with Senator Specter in getting an additional $10
billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the National
Institutes of Health.
One day, through research dollars, we will have a cure for cancer, a
headline we want to see, a headline that cancer scientists find the
cure for cancer. It may come because of an appropriation like this and
not Congress passes five times the amount of money the Department of
Defense wants for cruiser ships.
My goal in offering this amendment is to see that the cancer research
programs are benefited, that they are doubled; and this investment in
health care research is an investment in our Nation's future and an
investment in every human being here as a potential victim of cancer.
There are other diseases which the National Institutes of Health look
at. Whether it's Alzheimer's, diabetes, heart disease and others, cures
need to be found and government should be investing monies in those
places.
This is one place where the Department of Defense emphasizes cancer
research. Even with the doubling of investment of cancer research, this
amendment does reduce the overall cost of the appropriations bill. At a
time when we have seen cuts to other research programs like the
National Institutes of Health, it's important to identify every single
dollar that can be used to further research efforts.
A vote for this amendment is a vote in favor of furthering our
country's cancer research and protecting all citizens out there who are
potential victims of this awful disease and reduce the overall cost of
this legislation as well.
I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that cancer research
is already funded in this bill at a $246 million level.
I also want to say that Mr. Young, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Dicks, and Mr.
Lewis have had a long tradition of leadership on cancer research in the
Defense Appropriations Committee. We have always been very supportive
of it and will continue so. The bill is already at $246 million.
Secondly, why did we put the money into the cruiser program? We did
so because at a time when we are pivoting much of our Navy fleet into
the Pacific area, we believe we needed to have as many of these ships
capable of missile defense, or the Aegis system, as possible because
the world is so unstable.
Many of these ships will probably go to the Pacific. There are six of
them that we are re-outfitting for this system, and then some of them
may go to the Middle East.
Now, I just got back from spending a night on a carrier that was part
of the Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf, and our trip also included
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Djibouti. I wish that some of the
Members of Congress could get some of the briefings that we got in
terms of the missile threat in the Middle East alone, because it is an
unstable part of the globe right now, and we have to have our best
technology out there and our best sailors and our best airmen ready at
all times in case there is a missile attack, and that's what the
Defense Committee on a bipartisan basis recognized with this $506
million.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Procurement, Marine Corps
For expenses necessary for the procurement, manufacture,
and modification of missiles, armament, military equipment,
spare parts, and accessories therefor; plant equipment,
appliances, and machine tools, and installation thereof in
public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and
contractor-owned equipment layaway; vehicles for the Marine
Corps, including the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only; and expansion of public and private plants,
including land necessary therefor, and such lands and
interests therein, may be acquired, and construction
prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title,
$1,482,081,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2015.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
For construction, procurement, and modification of aircraft
and equipment, including armor and armament, specialized
ground handling equipment, and training devices, spare parts,
and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; expansion of
public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and
installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures,
and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment
layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing
purposes including rents and transportation of things,
$11,304,899,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2015.
Missile Procurement, Air Force
For construction, procurement, and modification of
missiles, spacecraft, rockets, and related equipment,
including spare parts and accessories therefor, ground
handling equipment, and training devices; expansion of public
and private plants, Government-owned equipment and
installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures,
and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment
layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing
purposes including rents and transportation of things,
$5,449,146,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2015.
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
For construction, procurement, production, and
modification of ammunition, and accessories therefor;
specialized equipment and training devices; expansion of
public and private plants, including ammunition facilities,
authorized by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code,
and the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes,
and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$599,194,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2015.
Other Procurement, Air Force
For procurement and modification of equipment (including
ground guidance and electronic control equipment, and ground
electronic and communication equipment), and supplies,
materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise provided
for; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement
only; lease of passenger motor vehicles; and expansion of
public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and
installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures,
and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon, prior to approval of
[[Page H4964]]
title; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned
equipment layaway, $16,632,575,000, to remain available for
obligation until September 30, 2015.
Procurement, Defense-wide
For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department
of Defense (other than the military departments) necessary
for procurement, production, and modification of equipment,
supplies, materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise
provided for; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only; expansion of public and private plants,
equipment, and installation thereof in such plants, erection
of structures, and acquisition of land for the foregoing
purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be
acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to
approval of title; reserve plant and Government and
contractor-owned equipment layaway, $4,429,335,000, to remain
available for obligation until September 30, 2015.
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
For procurement of aircraft, missiles, tracked combat
vehicles, ammunition, other weapons and other procurement for
the reserve components of the Armed Forces, $2,000,000,000,
to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2015:
Provided, That the Chiefs of National Guard and Reserve
components shall, not later than 30 days after the enactment
of this Act, individually submit to the congressional defense
committees the modernization priority assessment for their
respective National Guard or Reserve component: Provided
further, That during fiscal year 2013, the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau and each Reserve Component Chief, may
each use not more than 3 percent of the funds made available
to the National Guard or such reserve component, as the case
may be, under this heading to carry out research,
development, test, and evaluation activities related to
adding technological capability to platforms or to modernize
existing systems.
Defense Production Act Purchases
For activities by the Department of Defense pursuant to
sections 108, 301, 302, and 303 of the Defense Production Act
of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2078, 2091, 2092, and 2093),
$63,531,000, to remain available until expended.
TITLE IV
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army
For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific
research, development, test and evaluation, including
maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of
facilities and equipment, $8,593,055,000 to remain available
for obligation until September 30, 2014.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific
research, development, test and evaluation, including
maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of
facilities and equipment, $16,987,768,000, to remain
available for obligation until September 30, 2014: Provided,
That funds appropriated in this paragraph which are available
for the V-22 may be used to meet unique operational
requirements of the Special Operations Forces: Provided
further, That funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be
available for the Cobra Judy program.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force
For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific
research, development, test and evaluation, including
maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of
facilities and equipment, $25,117,692,000, to remain
available for obligation until September 30, 2014.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide
(including transfer of funds)
For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department
of Defense (other than the military departments), necessary
for basic and applied scientific research, development, test
and evaluation; advanced research projects as may be
designated and determined by the Secretary of Defense,
pursuant to law; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and
operation of facilities and equipment, $19,100,362,000, to
remain available for obligation until September 30, 2014:
Provided, That of the funds made available in this paragraph,
$250,000,000 for the Defense Rapid Innovation Program shall
only be available for expenses, not otherwise provided for,
to include program management and oversight, to conduct
research, development, test and evaluation to include proof
of concept demonstration; engineering, testing, and
validation; and transition to full-scale production: Provided
further, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer funds
provided herein for the Defense Rapid Innovation Program to
appropriations for research, development, test and evaluation
to accomplish the purpose provided herein: Provided further,
That this transfer authority is in addition to any other
transfer authority available to the Department of Defense:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not
fewer than 30 days prior to making transfers from this
appropriation, notify the congressional defense committees in
writing of the details of any such transfer.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Pompeo
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 32, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $250,000,000)''.
Page 32, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $250,000,000)''.
Page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $250,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the Rapid Innovation Fund
and save the taxpayers over $250 million. As a veteran, I know how
important it is that we use every single dollar that goes to our
Department of Defense in an intelligent way.
This fund, this Rapid Innovation Fund, has never been requested by
the Pentagon. This is money that the Pentagon doesn't say that it
wants. It was created in the FY 2011 Defense bill in response, frankly,
to the loss of earmarks here in the House of Representatives. So far
the Appropriations Committee has put over $700 million in 2 years into
this fund, and yet to date the Department of Defense has spent only
$32.5 million of the $700 million already appropriate and provided.
But instead of waiting to see if the fund is working and if it could
be successful and of any value to the warfighter, this year the
committee is pushing for another $250 million of taxpayer money to go
into the so-called Rapid Innovation Fund.
{time} 1810
I urge my colleagues to reject this effort. First of all, the
Pentagon, as I said, never asked for this money. Four DOD agencies
declined an invitation to even participate in the fund. There is
clearly no one in the military clamoring for what is essentially a
slush fund. With sequestration looming, now is the time to make tough
choices, not to add $250 million of wasteful spending. We must focus
our very scarce resources on validated military requirements.
Second, this Rapid Innovation Fund is neither rapid, nor innovative.
The fund allows the Department of Federal Acquisition Regulations
Procedures to move forward--just as they do for any other procurement
process. The first contracts took over a year to be signed. I don't
find anything rapid about that. In addition, this fund simply doles out
money to projects that are similar to those previously supported by the
now-discredited earmark system. There's nothing innovative about that
either.
Let me be clear: this fund was created by Congress because Congress
ended earmarks, and some have wanted a way to have earmark-type
projects continue to receive government money.
This fund is, third, wasteful and unnecessary. The DOD base budget is
well over $500 billion--built through a time-honored and trusted
process to ensure the needs of our warfighters. This fund, however, is
completely outside of this process and therefore advances projects that
have not been validated and are not proven in this same manner.
Finally, the fund itself is unproven. Only $30 million and change has
been spent on this fund and there is no data demonstrating that this
fund holds any value to our military or to our taxpayers. But even if
it does, there's still $670 million sitting in the fund today. Why not
just wait? At the current spending rate, there's over 10 years' worth
of funds still available. Why put $250 million more of taxpayer money
at risk?
As a Congress, we have to be willing to make tough choices--certainly
in our DOD budget. But this one isn't even tough. We can't just throw
good money in the hole and hope it helps our Nation's defense.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The Rapid
Innovation Fund was authorized and appropriated by Congress in 2011 to
allow innovative small businesses to compete for funding within the
Department of
[[Page H4965]]
Defense. It is a competitive, merit-based program designed to
accelerate the fielding of innovative technologies into military
systems.
Last fall, each service and the OSBP issued broad agency
announcements to solicit proposals for the first round of funding worth
$500 million. Of the 3,554 white papers received, 514 received high
priority or strong evaluations, valued at about $700 million.
This bill provides an additional $250 million for this successful
program for small businesses that are interested in working with the
Department of Defense. Also, this money can be used for joint urgent
operational needs. This is when the commanders in the field say that
they need something in an urgent way, and this money is available for
that kind of requirement.
So, again, the gentleman raises a lot of insinuations that this was
done because of doing away with the earmarks. It was done because we
feel that small businesses in this country have a lot to offer the
Defense Department. Not all of the innovations come from Lockheed and
Boeing and General Dynamics. A lot of the innovation comes from smaller
businesses who are, in essence, going to be cut out. We already have an
existing program, the SBIR program, which we wanted to enhance so that
small businesses would have a place to go so they could compete, where
we would be doing this on a merits basis, that we would be doing it on
the services saying these are areas where we need additional work.
So I'm somewhat surprised that the gentleman would oppose something
like this, knowing, I'm certain, he's an advocate for small businesses
in our country. I think this is a good program and one that should be
supported on a bipartisan basis.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. I want to say this. While we all acknowledge there was
a numerical explosion and a substantive explosion or a questionable, in
substance, on earmarks and that's why earmarks are banned, one of the
advantages of earmarks is that it did let the small mom-and-pop
innovative small businesses have a crack at the bat at the Pentagon
budget. And most of us who are familiar with the Pentagon budget would
say it's broken or at least it needs lots of improvement. What the
earmarking did do is let small companies have a bite at the apple. So
in the interest of banning earmarks, we set up this program to allow
small businesses.
I want to give you a graphic example. I had a man come to me one time
and said, I used to work with a large defense contractor. He named the
contractor and I don't want to name them. But he said, This is a
circuit panel. In fact, it's a memory panel. It's about the size of
this notebook in my hand. And he said, This is for a nuclear submarine,
and it costs about $10 million. I know because I invented it when I was
with the large defense contractor. And all nuclear submarines now buy
this kind of memory board. But your cell phone--pulling out the
BlackBerry--now has more memory in it than that big, awkward panel. But
the only way I'm going to get a crack at the business with the U.S.
Navy would be through the earmarking process.
Now, I can replace this $10 million circuit memory board for probably
hundreds of thousands of dollars, but I can't do that now. You've
thrown away that tool for both of us.
So we set up this board to try to let those small businesses have a
crack at the bat. And I agree with you there's money in the account
that maybe it should be spent down. We need to be looking at it before
plussing-up. I think you have raised some good points, but I believe
the reason why the program is out there is very important in order to
keep the large defense contractors honest, if you will, and provide a
path for the small innovators.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DICKS. I really appreciate what the gentleman just said. Another
thing here, the gentleman is saying they should just rush out and spend
this money. I don't mind a thorough, professional way of going about
this, and to take some time to make sure they've got this right is what
we want them to do.
Mr. POMPEO. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. POMPEO. I just say to the chairman, I'm not urging anyone to rush
out and spend this money. I'm urging this money to stay in the pockets
of the taxpayers because the Department of Defense has not asked for
it. All of the things that have been spoken to, these good ideas, I was
a small business owner. I made airplane parts for 10 years. I don't
want anybody to rush out and spend the money. I want to leave it in the
taxpayers' pockets, where the Department of Defense believes it should
be.
Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, as an airplane parts manufacturer,
I can promise you that you know how difficult it was to sell your
products to the United States Air Force. And this program would allow a
small innovator to do that and therefore reduce the cost to the
taxpayers of parts for airplanes.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will remind Members to refrain from
traffickng the well while another Member is under recognition.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Pompeo).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POMPEO. 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 Kansas will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 32, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $75,000,000)''.
Page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $75,000,000)''.
{time} 1820
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, in this bill, not only do the Republicans
claim there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to cut in the defense
budget, they are actually increasing spending beyond what the Pentagon
is asking for. The Republicans have put an additional $75 million for
missile defense in this bill--75 million additional dollars that the
generals have not asked for.
So my amendment today is simple: It would reduce funding for the
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense program by $75 million to bring the 2013
funding level back to the administration's request.
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense is Star Wars, and it's a system that
hopes to one day shoot down an incoming nuclear warhead by launching
our own missiles from Alaska and California.
But here we have a situation where basically the Republicans are
saying that they want to give the Pentagon $75 million more than what
the military says it needs right now. And if we can't decide just to
take what the Pentagon is asking and rubber stamp it and give it to
them, and even that is not enough in a period of fiscal austerity, then
how in the world are we going to be successful next year when $55
billion has to be cut?
So, let's start here. St. Augustine's prayer, I think, is applicable
here, where he said, O Lord, make me chaste, but not just yet. The
Republicans are saying, O Lord, let us reduce the deficit, but not just
yet. When it comes to defense spending, we want to give the Pentagon
even more than they are asking for. Let's get all of our sinning done
before next January. Let's really clear the deck on all the gold-plated
planning that--I don't know if it's defense firms because it's not the
Pentagon. The Pentagon is saying that the money that's in the bill as
the President proposed it is sufficient in order to provide for the
development of this missile defense technology.
[[Page H4966]]
The bill already funds this program to the tune of $900 million, and
the Pentagon is saying ``enough.'' So I know you're talking about
canceling sequestration when it comes to defense spending, but this
isn't a good sign. This isn't a good sign that we're ever going to be
able to reconcile the tension that exists between the need not to cut
NIH funding, the need not to cut National Cancer Institute funding, the
need not to cut programs that deal with Grandma on Medicaid and nursing
homes and all the way down the line. This just goes beyond anything
that's even remotely reasonable.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Markey amendment, and I hope that it is
adopted by the full House.
I yield back the balance of his time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. I want to say, most importantly, this was authorized in
the National Defense Authorization this year which was passed on an
overwhelming basis, on a bipartisan vote, and their authorization
actually was a lot more than our $75 billion. And the reason why this
money is in there and it affects Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg
Air Force Base in California is that there are some changes that are
going on in the missile silos, so rather than close down the shop and
hope that the bad guys give us a pass until we're ready to defend
ourselves, we're having to move these missiles and keep them current,
keep them active, and keep them capable while this construction is
going on, and then we finish the construction and put them back, and
that's why the authorizing committee, on a bipartisan basis, authorized
it, and that's why our subcommittee has also supported it, although at
a lower number.
With that, I recommend a ``no'' vote and 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. Chair, 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.
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the earlier amendment of
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley). The gentleman from Illinois
had an amendment to cut $988 million from the Navy's DDG-51 program.
The members of the House Armed Services Committee have carefully
considered this shipbuilding program. We have met for months in the
Seapower Subcommittee and discussed it thoroughly with Navy leadership.
The DDG-51 is the Navy's preeminent surface combatant. It can conduct
multiple missions, including ballistic missile defense, and it has
proven itself in almost every theater in which it has operated.
This ship has been authorized with a multiyear procurement strategy
for DDG-51s, which is an important, cost-saving measure that the Navy
has used in multiple situations to save money for the taxpayer.
This is one of the most successful shipbuilding programs ever in the
United States Navy because it is one of the best built and best values
for the taxpayer and requires a fair and open competition for
contracting.
Right now, our Navy has the lowest shipbuilding totals in
generations, and many predictions are that the number is only going to
shrink further. As we pivot to the Pacific, we cannot afford to be
cutting additional ships from our budget.
It is extremely important not only to our economic security, but also
our national security. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
independent activities of the Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation, in the direction and supervision of operational
test and evaluation, including initial operational test and
evaluation which is conducted prior to, and in support of,
production decisions; joint operational testing and
evaluation; and administrative expenses in connection
therewith, $185,268,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2014.
TITLE V
REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS
Defense Working Capital Funds
For the Defense Working Capital Funds, $1,516,184,000.
National Defense Sealift Fund
For National Defense Sealift Fund programs, projects, and
activities, and for expenses of the National Defense Reserve
Fleet, as established by section 11 of the Merchant Ship
Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. App. 1744), and for the
necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a U.S.-flag
merchant fleet to serve the national security needs of the
United States, $564,636,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That none of the funds provided in this
paragraph shall be used to award a new contract that provides
for the acquisition of any of the following major components
unless such components are manufactured in the United States:
auxiliary equipment, including pumps, for all shipboard
services; propulsion system components (engines, reduction
gears, and propellers); shipboard cranes; and spreaders for
shipboard cranes: Provided further, That the exercise of an
option in a contract awarded through the obligation of
previously appropriated funds shall not be considered to be
the award of a new contract: Provided further, That the
Secretary of the military department responsible for such
procurement may waive the restrictions in the first proviso
on a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate that adequate domestic supplies are not
available to meet Department of Defense requirements on a
timely basis and that such an acquisition must be made in
order to acquire capability for national security purposes.
TITLE VI
OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
Defense Health Program
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, for medical and
health care programs of the Department of Defense as
authorized by law, $32,862,234,000; of which $31,122,095,000
shall be for operation and maintenance, of which not to
exceed one percent shall remain available until September 30,
2014, and of which up to $16,105,245,000 may be available for
contracts entered into under the TRICARE program; of which
$521,762,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2015, shall be for procurement; and of which
$1,218,377,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2014 , shall be for research, development, test
and evaluation: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, of the amount made available under this
heading for research, development, test and evaluation, not
less than $8,000,000 shall be available for HIV prevention
educational activities undertaken in connection with United
States military training, exercises, and humanitarian
assistance activities conducted primarily in African nations:
Provided further, That of the funds provided to develop an
integrated Department of Defense -Department of Veterans
Affairs (DOD-VA) integrated health record, not more than
twenty-five percent shall be available for obligation until
the DOD-VA Interagency Program Office submits to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a
completed fiscal year 2013 execution and spending plan and a
long-term roadmap for the life of the project that includes,
but is not limited to, the following: a) annual and total
spending for each Department; b) a quarterly schedule of
milestones for each Department over the life of the project;
c) detailed cost-sharing business rules; and d) data
standardization schedules between the Departments.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
destruction of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical
agents and munitions in accordance with the provisions of
section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act,
1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the destruction of other
chemical warfare materials that are not in the chemical
weapon stockpile, $1,301,786,000, of which $635,843,000 shall
be for operation and maintenance, of which no less than
$53,948,000 shall be for the Chemical Stockpile Emergency
Preparedness Program, consisting of $22,214,000 for
activities on military installations and $31,734,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2014, to assist State
and local governments; $18,592,000 shall be for procurement,
to remain available until September 30, 2015, of which
$1,823,000 shall be for the Chemical Stockpile Emergency
Preparedness Program to assist State and local governments;
and $647,351,000, to remain available until September 30,
2014, shall be for research, development, test and
evaluation, of which $627,705,000 shall only be for the
Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) program.
[[Page H4967]]
Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, Defense
(including transfer of funds)
For drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the
Department of Defense, for transfer to appropriations
available to the Department of Defense for military personnel
of the reserve components serving under the provisions of
title 10 and title 32, United States Code; for operation and
maintenance; for procurement; and for research, development,
test and evaluation, $1,133,363,000: Provided, That the funds
appropriated under this heading shall be available for
obligation for the same time period and for the same purpose
as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further,
That upon a determination that all or part of the funds
transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the
purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred
back to this appropriation: Provided further, That the
transfer authority provided under this heading is in addition
to any other transfer authority contained elsewhere in this
Act.
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
(including transfer of funds)
For the ``Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund,''
$217,414,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015,
for Staff and Infrastructure: Provided, That such funds shall
be available to the Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, for the purpose of allowing the
Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Organization to investigate, develop and provide equipment,
supplies, services, training, facilities, personnel and funds
to assist United States forces in the defeat of improvised
explosive devices: Provided further, That, within 60 days of
the enactment of this Act, a plan for the intended management
and use of the amounts provided under this heading shall be
submitted to the congressional defense committees: Provided
further, That the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report
not later than 60 days after the end of each fiscal quarter
to the congressional defense committees providing assessments
of the evolving threats, individual service requirements to
counter the threats, the current strategy for predeployment
training of members of the Armed Forces on improvised
explosive devices, and details on the execution of the Fund:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer
funds provided herein to appropriations for operation and
maintenance; procurement; research, development, test and
evaluation; and defense working capital funds to accomplish
the purpose provided herein: Provided further, That amounts
transferred shall be merged with and available for the same
purposes and time period as the appropriations to which
transferred: Provided further, That this transfer authority
is in addition to any other transfer authority available to
the Department of Defense: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Defense shall, not fewer than 15 days prior to
making transfers from this appropriation, notify the
congressional defense committees in writing of the details of
any such transfer.
Office of the Inspector General
For expenses and activities of the Office of the Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, $350,321,000, of which
$347,621,000 shall be for operation and maintenance, of which
not to exceed $700,000 is available for emergencies and
extraordinary expenses to be expended on the approval or
authority of the Inspector General, and payments may be made
on the Inspector General's certificate of necessity for
confidential military purposes; and of which $2,700,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2015, shall be for
procurement.
TITLE VII
RELATED AGENCIES
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund
For payment to the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement
and Disability System Fund, to maintain the proper funding
level for continuing the operation of the Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System,
$514,000,000.
Intelligence Community Management Account
For necessary expenses of the Intelligence Community
Management Account, $511,476,000.
TITLE VIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 8001. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not
authorized by the Congress.
Sec. 8002. During the current fiscal year, provisions of
law prohibiting the payment of compensation to, or employment
of, any person not a citizen of the United States shall not
apply to personnel of the Department of Defense: Provided,
That salary increases granted to direct and indirect hire
foreign national employees of the Department of Defense
funded by this Act shall not be at a rate in excess of the
percentage increase authorized by law for civilian employees
of the Department of Defense whose pay is computed under the
provisions of section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, or
at a rate in excess of the percentage increase provided by
the appropriate host nation to its own employees, whichever
is higher: Provided further, That this section shall not
apply to Department of Defense foreign service national
employees serving at United States diplomatic missions whose
pay is set by the Department of State under the Foreign
Service Act of 1980: Provided further, That the limitations
of this provision shall not apply to foreign national
employees of the Department of Defense in the Republic of
Turkey.
Sec. 8003. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year, unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 8004. No more than 20 percent of the appropriations
in this Act which are limited for obligation during the
current fiscal year shall be obligated during the last 2
months of the fiscal year: Provided, That this section shall
not apply to obligations for support of active duty training
of reserve components or summer camp training of the Reserve
Officers' Training Corps.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 8005. Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense
that such action is necessary in the national interest, he
may, with the approval of the Office of Management and
Budget, transfer not to exceed $3,000,000,000 of working
capital funds of the Department of Defense or funds made
available in this Act to the Department of Defense for
military functions (except military construction) between
such appropriations or funds or any subdivision thereof, to
be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, and
for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to
which transferred: Provided, That such authority to transfer
may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on
unforeseen military requirements, than those for which
originally appropriated and in no case where the item for
which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify
the Congress promptly of all transfers made pursuant to this
authority or any other authority in this Act: Provided
further, That no part of the funds in this Act shall be
available to prepare or present a request to the Committees
on Appropriations for reprogramming of funds, unless for
higher priority items, based on unforeseen military
requirements, than those for which originally appropriated
and in no case where the item for which reprogramming is
requested has been denied by the Congress: Provided further,
That a request for multiple reprogrammings of funds using
authority provided in this section shall be made prior to
June 30, 2013: Provided further, That transfers among
military personnel appropriations shall not be taken into
account for purposes of the limitation on the amount of funds
that may be transferred under this section.
Sec. 8006. (a) With regard to the list of specific
programs, projects, and activities (and the dollar amounts
and adjustments to budget activities corresponding to such
programs, projects, and activities) contained in the tables
titled ``Explanation of Project Level Adjustments'' in the
explanatory statement regarding this Act, the obligation and
expenditure of amounts appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act for those programs, projects, and
activities for which the amounts appropriated exceed the
amounts requested are hereby required by law to be carried
out in the manner provided by such tables to the same extent
as if the tables were included in the text of this Act.
(b) Amounts specified in the referenced tables described in
subsection (a) shall not be treated as subdivisions of
appropriations for purposes of section 8005 of this Act:
Provided, That section 8005 shall apply when transfers of the
amounts described in subsection (a) occur between
appropriation accounts.
Sec. 8007. (a) Not later than 60 days after enactment of
this Act, the Department of Defense shall submit a report to
the congressional defense committees to establish the
baseline for application of reprogramming and transfer
authorities for fiscal year 2013: Provided, That the report
shall include--
(1) a table for each appropriation with a separate column
to display the President's budget request, adjustments made
by Congress, adjustments due to enacted rescissions, if
appropriate, and the fiscal year enacted level;
(2) a delineation in the table for each appropriation both
by budget activity and program, project, and activity as
detailed in the Budget Appendix; and
(3) an identification of items of special congressional
interest.
(b) Notwithstanding section 8005 of this Act, none of the
funds provided in this Act shall be available for
reprogramming or transfer until the report identified in
subsection (a) is submitted to the congressional defense
committees, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies in
writing to the congressional defense committees that such
reprogramming or transfer is necessary as an emergency
requirement.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 8008. During the current fiscal year, cash balances
in working capital funds of the Department of Defense
established pursuant to section 2208 of title 10, United
States Code, may be maintained in only such amounts as are
necessary at any time for cash disbursements to be made from
such funds: Provided, That transfers may be made between such
funds: Provided further, That transfers may be made between
working capital funds and the ``Foreign Currency
Fluctuations, Defense'' appropriation and the
[[Page H4968]]
``Operation and Maintenance'' appropriation accounts in such
amounts as may be determined by the Secretary of Defense,
with the approval of the Office of Management and Budget,
except that such transfers may not be made unless the
Secretary of Defense has notified the Congress of the
proposed transfer. Except in amounts equal to the amounts
appropriated to working capital funds in this Act, no
obligations may be made against a working capital fund to
procure or increase the value of war reserve material
inventory, unless the Secretary of Defense has notified the
Congress prior to any such obligation.
Sec. 8009. Funds appropriated by this Act may not be used
to initiate a special access program without prior
notification 30 calendar days in advance to the congressional
defense committees.
Sec. 8010. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
available to initiate: (1) a multiyear contract that employs
economic order quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000
in any one year of the contract or that includes an unfunded
contingent liability in excess of $20,000,000; or (2) a
contract for advance procurement leading to a multiyear
contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in
excess of $20,000,000 in any one year, unless the
congressional defense committees have been notified at least
30 days in advance of the proposed contract award: Provided,
That no part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall
be available to initiate a multiyear contract for which the
economic order quantity advance procurement is not funded at
least to the limits of the Government's liability: Provided
further, That no part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available to initiate multiyear procurement
contracts for any systems or component thereof if the value
of the multiyear contract would exceed $500,000,000 unless
specifically provided in this Act: Provided further, That no
multiyear procurement contract can be terminated without 10-
day prior notification to the congressional defense
committees: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated by this Act shall be available for a contract
that incrementally funds an end item purchased under multi-
year procurement authority: Provided further, That the
preceding limitation shall not apply to advance procurement
funding and economic order quantity funding associated with a
multi-year procurement: Provided further, That the execution
of multiyear authority shall require the use of a present
value analysis to determine lowest cost compared to an annual
procurement: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided in this Act may be used for a multiyear contract
executed after the date of the enactment of this Act unless
in the case of any such contract--
(1) the Secretary of Defense has submitted to Congress a
budget request for full funding of units to be procured
through the contract and, in the case of a contract for
procurement of aircraft, that includes, for any aircraft unit
to be procured through the contract for which procurement
funds are requested in that budget request for production
beyond advance procurement activities in the fiscal year
covered by the budget, full funding of procurement of such
unit in that fiscal year;
(2) cancellation provisions in the contract do not include
consideration of recurring manufacturing costs of the
contractor associated with the production of unfunded units
to be delivered under the contract;
(3) the contract provides that payments to the contractor
under the contract shall not be made in advance of incurred
costs on funded units; and
(4) the contract does not provide for a price adjustment
based on a failure to award a follow-on contract.
Funds appropriated in title III of this Act may be used
for a multiyear procurement contract as follows:
F/A-18E, F/A-18F, and EA-18G aircraft; DDG-51 Arleigh
Burke class destroyer and associated systems; SSN-774
Virginia class submarine and government-furnished equipment;
CH-47 Chinook helicopter; and V-22 Osprey aircraft variants.
Sec. 8011. Within the funds appropriated for the operation
and maintenance of the Armed Forces, funds are hereby
appropriated pursuant to section 401 of title 10, United
States Code, for humanitarian and civic assistance costs
under chapter 20 of title 10, United States Code. Such funds
may also be obligated for humanitarian and civic assistance
costs incidental to authorized operations and pursuant to
authority granted in section 401 of chapter 20 of title 10,
United States Code, and these obligations shall be reported
as required by section 401(d) of title 10, United States
Code: Provided, That funds available for operation and
maintenance shall be available for providing humanitarian and
similar assistance by using Civic Action Teams in the Trust
Territories of the Pacific Islands and freely associated
states of Micronesia, pursuant to the Compact of Free
Association as authorized by Public Law 99-239: Provided
further, That upon a determination by the Secretary of the
Army that such action is beneficial for graduate medical
education programs conducted at Army medical facilities
located in Hawaii, the Secretary of the Army may authorize
the provision of medical services at such facilities and
transportation to such facilities, on a nonreimbursable
basis, for civilian patients from American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Marshall
Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and Guam.
Sec. 8012. (a) During fiscal year 2013, the civilian
personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on
the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such
personnel during that fiscal year shall not be subject to any
constraint or limitation (known as an end-strength) on the
number of such personnel who may be employed on the last day
of such fiscal year.
(b) The fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Department
of Defense as well as all justification material and other
documentation supporting the fiscal year 2014 Department of
Defense budget request shall be prepared and submitted to the
Congress as if subsections (a) and (b) of this provision were
effective with regard to fiscal year 2014.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to
military (civilian) technicians.
Sec. 8013. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to
influence congressional action on any legislation or
appropriation matters pending before the Congress.
Sec. 8014. None of the funds appropriated by this Act
shall be available for the basic pay and allowances of any
member of the Army participating as a full-time student and
receiving benefits paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
from the Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund when
time spent as a full-time student is credited toward
completion of a service commitment: Provided, That this
section shall not apply to those members who have reenlisted
with this option prior to October 1, 1987: Provided further,
That this section applies only to active components of the
Army.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 8015. Funds appropriated in title III of this Act for
the Department of Defense Pilot Mentor-Protege Program may be
transferred to any other appropriation contained in this Act
solely for the purpose of implementing a Mentor-Protege
Program developmental assistance agreement pursuant to
section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2302 note),
as amended, under the authority of this provision or any
other transfer authority contained in this Act.
Sec. 8016. None of the funds in this Act may be available
for the purchase by the Department of Defense (and its
departments and agencies) of welded shipboard anchor and
mooring chain 4 inches in diameter and under unless the
anchor and mooring chain are manufactured in the United
States from components which are substantially manufactured
in the United States: Provided, That for the purpose of this
section, the term ``manufactured'' shall include cutting,
heat treating, quality control, testing of chain and welding
(including the forging and shot blasting process): Provided
further, That for the purpose of this section substantially
all of the components of anchor and mooring chain shall be
considered to be produced or manufactured in the United
States if the aggregate cost of the components produced or
manufactured in the United States exceeds the aggregate cost
of the components produced or manufactured outside the United
States: Provided further, That when adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis, the Secretary of the service
responsible for the procurement may waive this restriction on
a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to the
Committees on Appropriations that such an acquisition must be
made in order to acquire capability for national security
purposes.
Sec. 8017. None of the funds available to the Department
of Defense, herein and hereafter, may be used to demilitarize
or dispose of M-1 Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles,
.22 caliber rifles, .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols, or
to demilitarize or destroy small arms ammunition or
ammunition components that are not otherwise prohibited from
commercial sale under Federal law, unless the small arms
ammunition or ammunition components are certified by the
Secretary of the Army or designee as unserviceable or unsafe
for further use.
Sec. 8018. No more than $500,000 of the funds appropriated
or made available in this Act shall be used during a single
fiscal year for any single relocation of an organization,
unit, activity or function of the Department of Defense into
or within the National Capital Region: Provided, That the
Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
case basis by certifying in writing to the congressional
defense committees that such a relocation is required in the
best interest of the Government.
Sec. 8019. In addition to the funds provided elsewhere in
this Act, $15,000,000 is appropriated only for incentive
payments authorized by section 504 of the Indian Financing
Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544): Provided, That a prime
contractor or a subcontractor at any tier that makes a
subcontract award to any subcontractor or supplier as defined
in section 1544 of title 25, United States Code, or a small
business owned and controlled by an individual or individuals
defined under section 4221(9) of title 25, United States
Code, shall be considered a contractor for the purposes of
being allowed additional compensation under section 504 of
the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544) whenever
the prime contract or subcontract amount is over $500,000 and
involves the expenditure of funds appropriated by an Act
making Appropriations for the Department of Defense with
respect to any fiscal year: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 1906 of title 41,
[[Page H4969]]
United States Code, this section shall be applicable to any
Department of Defense acquisition of supplies or services,
including any contract and any subcontract at any tier for
acquisition of commercial items produced or manufactured, in
whole or in part, by any subcontractor or supplier defined in
section 1544 of title 25, United States Code, or a small
business owned and controlled by an individual or individuals
defined under section 4221(9) of title 25, United States
Code.
Sec. 8020. Funds appropriated by this Act for the Defense
Media Activity shall not be used for any national or
international political or psychological activities.
Sec. 8021. During the current fiscal year, the Department
of Defense is authorized to incur obligations of not to
exceed $350,000,000 for purposes specified in section
2350j(c) of title 10, United States Code, in anticipation of
receipt of contributions, only from the Government of Kuwait,
under that section: Provided, That upon receipt, such
contributions from the Government of Kuwait shall be credited
to the appropriations or fund which incurred such
obligations.
Sec. 8022. (a) Of the funds made available in this Act, not
less than $38,619,000 shall be available for the Civil Air
Patrol Corporation, of which--
(1) $28,404,000 shall be available from ``Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force'' to support Civil Air Patrol
Corporation operation and maintenance, readiness, counterdrug
activities, and drug demand reduction activities involving
youth programs;
(2) $9,298,000 shall be available from ``Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force''; and
(3) $917,000 shall be available from ``Other Procurement,
Air Force'' for vehicle procurement.
(b) The Secretary of the Air Force should waive
reimbursement for any funds used by the Civil Air Patrol for
counter-drug activities in support of Federal, State, and
local government agencies.
Sec. 8023. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act
are available to establish a new Department of Defense
(department) federally funded research and development center
(FFRDC), either as a new entity, or as a separate entity
administrated by an organization managing another FFRDC, or
as a nonprofit membership corporation consisting of a
consortium of other FFRDCs and other nonprofit entities.
(b) No member of a Board of Directors, Trustees, Overseers,
Advisory Group, Special Issues Panel, Visiting Committee, or
any similar entity of a defense FFRDC, and no paid consultant
to any defense FFRDC, except when acting in a technical
advisory capacity, may be compensated for his or her services
as a member of such entity, or as a paid consultant by more
than one FFRDC in a fiscal year: Provided, That a member of
any such entity referred to previously in this subsection
shall be allowed travel expenses and per diem as authorized
under the Federal Joint Travel Regulations, when engaged in
the performance of membership duties.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the
funds available to the department from any source during
fiscal year 2013 may be used by a defense FFRDC, through a
fee or other payment mechanism, for construction of new
buildings, for payment of cost sharing for projects funded by
Government grants, for absorption of contract overruns, or
for certain charitable contributions, not to include employee
participation in community service and/or development.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the
funds available to the department during fiscal year 2013,
not more than 5,750 staff years of technical effort (staff
years) may be funded for defense FFRDCs: Provided, That of
the specific amount referred to previously in this
subsection, not more than 1,125 staff years may be funded for
the defense studies and analysis FFRDCs: Provided further,
That this subsection shall not apply to staff years funded in
the National Intelligence Program (NIP) and the Military
Intelligence Program (MIP).
(e) The Secretary of Defense shall, with the submission of
the department's fiscal year 2014 budget request, submit a
report presenting the specific amounts of staff years of
technical effort to be allocated for each defense FFRDC
during that fiscal year and the associated budget estimates.
Sec. 8024. None of the funds appropriated or made
available in this Act shall be used to procure carbon, alloy
or armor steel plate for use in any Government-owned facility
or property under the control of the Department of Defense
which were not melted and rolled in the United States or
Canada: Provided, That these procurement restrictions shall
apply to any and all Federal Supply Class 9515, American
Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Iron and
Steel Institute (AISI) specifications of carbon, alloy or
armor steel plate: Provided further, That the Secretary of
the military department responsible for the procurement may
waive this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying
in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes: Provided further, That these restrictions
shall not apply to contracts which are in being as of the
date of the enactment of this Act.
Sec. 8025. For the purposes of this Act, the term
``congressional defense committees'' means the Armed Services
Committee of the House of Representatives, the Armed Services
Committee of the Senate, the Subcommittee on Defense of the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and the
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives.
Sec. 8026. During the current fiscal year, the Department
of Defense may acquire the modification, depot maintenance
and repair of aircraft, vehicles and vessels as well as the
production of components and other Defense-related articles,
through competition between Department of Defense depot
maintenance activities and private firms: Provided, That the
Senior Acquisition Executive of the military department or
Defense Agency concerned, with power of delegation, shall
certify that successful bids include comparable estimates of
all direct and indirect costs for both public and private
bids: Provided further, That Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-76 shall not apply to competitions conducted under
this section.
Sec. 8027. (a)(1) If the Secretary of Defense, after
consultation with the United States Trade Representative,
determines that a foreign country which is party to an
agreement described in paragraph (2) has violated the terms
of the agreement by discriminating against certain types of
products produced in the United States that are covered by
the agreement, the Secretary of Defense shall rescind the
Secretary's blanket waiver of the Buy American Act with
respect to such types of products produced in that foreign
country.
(2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is any
reciprocal defense procurement memorandum of understanding,
between the United States and a foreign country pursuant to
which the Secretary of Defense has prospectively waived the
Buy American Act for certain products in that country.
(b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress a
report on the amount of Department of Defense purchases from
foreign entities in fiscal year 2013. Such report shall
separately indicate the dollar value of items for which the
Buy American Act was waived pursuant to any agreement
described in subsection (a)(2), the Trade Agreement Act of
1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), or any international agreement
to which the United States is a party.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Buy American
Act'' means chapter 83 of title 41, United States Code.
Sec. 8028. During the current fiscal year, amounts
contained in the Department of Defense Overseas Military
Facility Investment Recovery Account established by section
2921(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991
(Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) shall be available
until expended for the payments specified by section
2921(c)(2) of that Act.
Sec. 8029. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary of the Air Force may convey at no cost to the
Air Force, without consideration, to Indian tribes located in
the States of Nevada, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Montana, Oregon, Minnesota, and Washington relocatable
military housing units located at Grand Forks Air Force Base,
Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mountain Home Air Force Base,
Ellsworth Air Force Base, and Minot Air Force Base that are
excess to the needs of the Air Force.
(b) The Secretary of the Air Force shall convey, at no cost
to the Air Force, military housing units under subsection (a)
in accordance with the request for such units that are
submitted to the Secretary by the Operation Walking Shield
Program on behalf of Indian tribes located in the States of
Nevada, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Oregon,
Minnesota, and Washington. Any such conveyance shall be
subject to the condition that the housing units shall be
removed within a reasonable period of time, as determined by
the Secretary.
(c) The Operation Walking Shield Program shall resolve any
conflicts among requests of Indian tribes for housing units
under subsection (a) before submitting requests to the
Secretary of the Air Force under subsection (b).
(d) In this section, the term ``Indian tribe'' means any
recognized Indian tribe included on the current list
published by the Secretary of the Interior under section 104
of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe Act of 1994 (Public
Law 103-454; 108 Stat. 4792; 25 U.S.C. 479a-1).
Sec. 8030. During the current fiscal year, appropriations
which are available to the Department of Defense for
operation and maintenance may be used to purchase items
having an investment item unit cost of not more than
$250,000.
Sec. 8031. (a) During the current fiscal year, none of the
appropriations or funds available to the Department of
Defense Working Capital Funds shall be used for the purchase
of an investment item for the purpose of acquiring a new
inventory item for sale or anticipated sale during the
current fiscal year or a subsequent fiscal year to customers
of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds if such an
item would not have been chargeable to the Department of
Defense Business Operations Fund during fiscal year 1994 and
if the purchase of such an investment item would be
chargeable during the current fiscal year to appropriations
made to the Department of Defense for procurement.
(b) The fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Department
of Defense as well as all justification material and other
documentation
[[Page H4970]]
supporting the fiscal year 2014 Department of Defense budget
shall be prepared and submitted to the Congress on the basis
that any equipment which was classified as an end item and
funded in a procurement appropriation contained in this Act
shall be budgeted for in a proposed fiscal year 2014
procurement appropriation and not in the supply management
business area or any other area or category of the Department
of Defense Working Capital Funds.
Sec. 8032. None of the funds appropriated by this Act for
programs of the Central Intelligence Agency shall remain
available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year,
except for funds appropriated for the Reserve for
Contingencies, which shall remain available until September
30, 2014: Provided, That funds appropriated, transferred, or
otherwise credited to the Central Intelligence Agency Central
Services Working Capital Fund during this or any prior or
subsequent fiscal year shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That any funds appropriated or transferred
to the Central Intelligence Agency for advanced research and
development acquisition, for agent operations, and for covert
action programs authorized by the President under section 503
of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, shall
remain available until September 30, 2014.
Sec. 8033. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds made available in this Act for the Defense Intelligence
Agency may be used for the design, development, and
deployment of General Defense Intelligence Program
intelligence communications and intelligence information
systems for the Services, the Unified and Specified Commands,
and the component commands.
Sec. 8034. Of the funds appropriated to the Department of
Defense under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide'', not less than $12,000,000 shall be made
available only for the mitigation of environmental impacts,
including training and technical assistance to tribes,
related administrative support, the gathering of information,
documenting of environmental damage, and developing a system
for prioritization of mitigation and cost to complete
estimates for mitigation, on Indian lands resulting from
Department of Defense activities.
Sec. 8035. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act
may be expended by an entity of the Department of Defense
unless the entity, in expending the funds, complies with the
Buy American Act. For purposes of this subsection, the term
``Buy American Act'' means chapter 83 of title 41, United
States Code.
(b) If the Secretary of Defense determines that a person
has been convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing
a ``Made in America'' inscription to any product sold in or
shipped to the United States that is not made in America, the
Secretary shall determine, in accordance with section 2410f
of title 10, United States Code, whether the person should be
debarred from contracting with the Department of Defense.
(c) In the case of any equipment or products purchased with
appropriations provided under this Act, it is the sense of
the Congress that any entity of the Department of Defense, in
expending the appropriation, purchase only American-made
equipment and products, provided that American-made equipment
and products are cost-competitive, quality competitive, and
available in a timely fashion.
Sec. 8036. None of the funds appropriated by this Act
shall be available for a contract for studies, analysis, or
consulting services entered into without competition on the
basis of an unsolicited proposal unless the head of the
activity responsible for the procurement determines--
(1) as a result of thorough technical evaluation, only one
source is found fully qualified to perform the proposed work;
(2) the purpose of the contract is to explore an
unsolicited proposal which offers significant scientific or
technological promise, represents the product of original
thinking, and was submitted in confidence by one source; or
(3) the purpose of the contract is to take advantage of
unique and significant industrial accomplishment by a
specific concern, or to insure that a new product or idea of
a specific concern is given financial support: Provided, That
this limitation shall not apply to contracts in an amount of
less than $25,000, contracts related to improvements of
equipment that is in development or production, or contracts
as to which a civilian official of the Department of Defense,
who has been confirmed by the Senate, determines that the
award of such contract is in the interest of the national
defense.
Mr. KINGSTON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 66, line 17, be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any
point.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Georgia?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 8037. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and
(c), none of the funds made available by this Act may be
used--
(1) to establish a field operating agency; or
(2) to pay the basic pay of a member of the Armed Forces or
civilian employee of the department who is transferred or
reassigned from a headquarters activity if the member or
employee's place of duty remains at the location of that
headquarters.
(b) The Secretary of Defense or Secretary of a military
department may waive the limitations in subsection (a), on a
case-by-case basis, if the Secretary determines, and
certifies to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate that the granting of the waiver
will reduce the personnel requirements or the financial
requirements of the department.
(c) This section does not apply to--
(1) field operating agencies funded within the National
Intelligence Program;
(2) an Army field operating agency established to
eliminate, mitigate, or counter the effects of improvised
explosive devices, and, as determined by the Secretary of the
Army, other similar threats; or
(3) an Army field operating agency established to improve
the effectiveness and efficiencies of biometric activities
and to integrate common biometric technologies throughout the
Department of Defense.
Sec. 8038. The Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, acting through the Office of Economic
Adjustment of the Department of Defense, may use funds made
available in this Act under the heading ``Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' to make grants and supplement
other Federal funds in accordance with the guidance provided
in the explanatory statement regarding this Act.
Sec. 8039. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
shall be available to convert to contractor performance an
activity or function of the Department of Defense that, on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act, is performed by
Department of Defense civilian employees unless--
(1) the conversion is based on the result of a public-
private competition that includes a most efficient and cost
effective organization plan developed by such activity or
function;
(2) the Competitive Sourcing Official determines that, over
all performance periods stated in the solicitation of offers
for performance of the activity or function, the cost of
performance of the activity or function by a contractor would
be less costly to the Department of Defense by an amount that
equals or exceeds the lesser of--
(A) 10 percent of the most efficient organization's
personnel-related costs for performance of that activity or
function by Federal employees; or
(B) $10,000,000; and
(3) the contractor does not receive an advantage for a
proposal that would reduce costs for the Department of
Defense by--
(A) not making an employer-sponsored health insurance plan
available to the workers who are to be employed in the
performance of that activity or function under the contract;
or
(B) offering to such workers an employer-sponsored health
benefits plan that requires the employer to contribute less
towards the premium or subscription share than the amount
that is paid by the Department of Defense for health benefits
for civilian employees under chapter 89 of title 5, United
States Code.
(b)(1) The Department of Defense, without regard to
subsection (a) of this section or subsection (a), (b), or (c)
of section 2461 of title 10, United States Code, and
notwithstanding any administrative regulation, requirement,
or policy to the contrary shall have full authority to enter
into a contract for the performance of any commercial or
industrial type function of the Department of Defense that--
(A) is included on the procurement list established
pursuant to section 2 of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (section
8503 of title 41, United States Code);
(B) is planned to be converted to performance by a
qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or by a qualified
nonprofit agency for other severely handicapped individuals
in accordance with that Act; or
(C) is planned to be converted to performance by a
qualified firm under at least 51 percent ownership by an
Indian tribe, as defined in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b(e)), or a Native Hawaiian Organization, as defined in
section 8(a)(15) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
637(a)(15)).
(2) This section shall not apply to depot contracts or
contracts for depot maintenance as provided in sections 2469
and 2474 of title 10, United States Code.
(c) The conversion of any activity or function of the
Department of Defense under the authority provided by this
section shall be credited toward any competitive or
outsourcing goal, target, or measurement that may be
established by statute, regulation, or policy and is deemed
to be awarded under the authority of, and in compliance with,
subsection (h) of section 2304 of title 10, United States
Code, for the competition or outsourcing of commercial
activities.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Amash
Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Strike section 8039.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, the House has voted repeatedly to strike
[[Page H4971]]
problematic and anticompetitive A-76 language from the bill we have
considered. The same change and reversal of bad policy should be
adopted in this legislation by striking section 8039.
My amendment does just that. As drafted, section 8039 prohibits the
Department of Defense from contracting out any function unless it will
save a minimum of $10 million or 10 percent of the Department's
performance costs--even if the contractor is less costly overall and
can perform the work more efficiently.
Independent studies have found that public-private competitions lower
costs by between 10 and 40 percent, regardless of whether the
competition is won by a private contractor or the government. Rather
than stand in the way of public-private competitions, Congress should
cut the red tape and make the use of this cost-saving process easier,
not harder.
The requirements in section 8039 are largely codified in existing
statute. Retaining section 8039 will obstruct, and potentially nullify,
any current efforts to reform the system in ways that improve public-
private competitions and bring much-needed transparency, consistency,
and reliability to the process.
Instead of complicating the use of competitions that improve service
and lower costs, we should be encouraging agencies to find the most
efficient way to deliver services. This amendment will send that
message by reducing restrictions on the Department of Defense and
making it easier to achieve reforms that will increase the availability
of cost-saving competitions throughout the Department.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, taxpayer-first
amendment to H.R. 5856.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The amendment tends to remove language from the
appropriations bill, which we're going to agree with, by the way. It
has been carried in appropriations bills for a number of years.
However, when the laws were codified, it became part of the permanent
law. It doesn't even need to be in the appropriations bills any longer.
So we have no objection to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
{time} 1830
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Baca
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
Page 32, line 18, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to considering the amendment at
this point in the reading?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object--
and I won't object--I will say this is a little unusual for us to agree
to do this. But in this one case, we will agree to it and let the
gentleman present his amendment.
I believe in as much openness as we possibly can provide for all of
our Members, but we just can't make a habit of going back once the bill
has been read, once the regular order has been followed. But in this
case, we will yield.
I withdraw my reservation, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BACA. I'd like to thank the chairman and Member Dicks for
allowing me this effort on this legislation. I also want to thank my
colleague, Gary Miller, for supporting this amendment.
This is a Baca-Miller amendment. It is bipartisan. It directs $10
million to be moved from the Operations and Management portion of the
Department of Defense budget to the Research and Development portion of
the budget. Moving these funds will allow the DOD to develop cost-
effective solutions to environmental problems.
These funds will allow the Strategic Environmental Research and
Development Program and the Environmental Security Technology
Certification Program to support, and I state, grants. This is a grant,
it's not an earmark, that provides clear water.
My communities in California, including Gary Miller's district, in
the Inland Empire must deal with perchlorate contaminated water.
Perchlorate is a rocket fuel additive that can be harmful to women,
children, and the elderly, that affects both Gary Miller's and my
district. This contamination has resulted in millions of dollars in
cost to the region for cleanup litigation.
Congress should actively support the DOD effort to develop solutions
to problems like perchlorate contamination. I ask my colleagues to
support the Baca-Miller amendment, a bipartisan amendment.
Again, I thank the chair and the ranking member, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, while I did not object to taking
up this amendment, I am going to object to the amendment. This one
actually was an earmark in the FY10, funded as an earmark at $1.6
million. It also takes the money from that source that I have objected
to before, the Defense-Wide Operation and Maintenance accounts. I just
really cannot support anything that is going to affect our readiness to
defend our country.
So I strongly object to this amendment, although I did agree to
allowing us to go back to consider the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 8040. Of the funds appropriated in Department of
Defense Appropriations Acts, the following funds are hereby
rescinded from the following accounts and programs in the
specified amounts:
``Procurement of Ammunition, Army, 2011/2013'',
$14,862,000;
``Aircraft Procurement, Navy, 2011/2013'', $30,100,000;
``Weapons Procurement, Navy, 2011/2013'', $22,000,000;
``Other Procurement, Navy, 2011/2013'', $12,432,000;
``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 2011/2013'',
$65,000,000;
``Other Procurement, Air Force, 2011/2013'', $9,500,000;
``Other Procurement, Army, 2012/2014'', $80,000,000;
``Aircraft Procurement, Navy, 2012/2014'', $14,400,000;
``Weapons Procurement, Navy, 2012/2014'', $31,572,000;
``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 2012/2014'',
$277,050,000;
``Missile Procurement, Air Force, 2012/2014'', $44,000,000;
``Other Procurement, Air Force, 2012/2014'', $55,800,000;
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 2012/
2013'', $63,000,000;
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, 2012/
2013'', $120,000,000; and
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force,
2012/2013'', $179,600,000.
Sec. 8041. None of the funds available in this Act may be
used to reduce the authorized positions for military
technicians (dual status) of the Army National Guard, Air
National Guard, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve for the
purpose of applying any administratively imposed civilian
personnel ceiling, freeze, or reduction on military
technicians (dual status), unless such reductions are a
direct result of a reduction in military force structure.
Sec. 8042. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available in this Act may be obligated or expended for
assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
Sec. 8043. Funds appropriated in this Act for operation
and maintenance of the Military Departments, Combatant
Commands and Defense Agencies shall be available for
reimbursement of pay, allowances and other expenses which
would otherwise be incurred against appropriations for the
National Guard and Reserve when members of the National Guard
and Reserve provide intelligence or counterintelligence
support to Combatant Commands, Defense Agencies and Joint
Intelligence Activities, including the
[[Page H4972]]
activities and programs included within the National
Intelligence Program and the Military Intelligence Program:
Provided, That nothing in this section authorizes deviation
from established Reserve and National Guard personnel and
training procedures.
Sec. 8044. During the current fiscal year, none of the
funds appropriated in this Act may be used to reduce the
civilian medical and medical support personnel assigned to
military treatment facilities below the September 30, 2003,
level: Provided, That the Service Surgeons General may waive
this section by certifying to the congressional defense
committees that the beneficiary population is declining in
some catchment areas and civilian strength reductions may be
consistent with responsible resource stewardship and
capitation-based budgeting.
Sec. 8045. (a) None of the funds available to the
Department of Defense for any fiscal year for drug
interdiction or counter-drug activities may be transferred to
any other department or agency of the United States except as
specifically provided in an appropriations law.
(b) None of the funds available to the Central Intelligence
Agency for any fiscal year for drug interdiction and counter-
drug activities may be transferred to any other department or
agency of the United States except as specifically provided
in an appropriations law.
Sec. 8046. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be used for the procurement of ball and roller bearings other
than those produced by a domestic source and of domestic
origin: Provided, That the Secretary of the military
department responsible for such procurement may waive this
restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing
to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, that adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes: Provided further, That this restriction
shall not apply to the purchase of ``commercial items'', as
defined by section 4(12) of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act, except that the restriction shall apply to ball
or roller bearings purchased as end items.
Sec. 8047. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
purchase any supercomputer which is not manufactured in the
United States, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to
the congressional defense committees that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes that is not available from United States
manufacturers.
Sec. 8048. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act may be used to pay the salary of any officer or
employee of the Department of Defense who approves or
implements the transfer of administrative responsibilities or
budgetary resources of any program, project, or activity
financed by this Act to the jurisdiction of another Federal
agency not financed by this Act without the express
authorization of Congress: Provided, That this limitation
shall not apply to transfers of funds expressly provided for
in Defense Appropriations Acts, or provisions of Acts
providing supplemental appropriations for the Department of
Defense.
Sec. 8049. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
none of the funds available to the Department of Defense for
the current fiscal year may be obligated or expended to
transfer to another nation or an international organization
any defense articles or services (other than intelligence
services) for use in the activities described in subsection
(b) unless the congressional defense committees, the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives,
and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate are
notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
(b) This section applies to--
(1) any international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement
operation under the authority of chapter VI or chapter VII of
the United Nations Charter under the authority of a United
Nations Security Council resolution; and
(2) any other international peacekeeping, peace-
enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operation.
(c) A notice under subsection (a) shall include the
following:
(1) A description of the equipment, supplies, or services
to be transferred.
(2) A statement of the value of the equipment, supplies, or
services to be transferred.
(3) In the case of a proposed transfer of equipment or
supplies--
(A) a statement of whether the inventory requirements of
all elements of the Armed Forces (including the reserve
components) for the type of equipment or supplies to be
transferred have been met; and
(B) a statement of whether the items proposed to be
transferred will have to be replaced and, if so, how the
President proposes to provide funds for such replacement.
Sec. 8050. None of the funds available to the Department
of Defense under this Act shall be obligated or expended to
pay a contractor under a contract with the Department of
Defense for costs of any amount paid by the contractor to an
employee when--
(1) such costs are for a bonus or otherwise in excess of
the normal salary paid by the contractor to the employee; and
(2) such bonus is part of restructuring costs associated
with a business combination.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8051. During the current fiscal year, no more than
$30,000,000 of appropriations made in this Act under the
heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' may be
transferred to appropriations available for the pay of
military personnel, to be merged with, and to be available
for the same time period as the appropriations to which
transferred, to be used in support of such personnel in
connection with support and services for eligible
organizations and activities outside the Department of
Defense pursuant to section 2012 of title 10, United States
Code.
Sec. 8052. During the current fiscal year, in the case of
an appropriation account of the Department of Defense for
which the period of availability for obligation has expired
or which has closed under the provisions of section 1552 of
title 31, United States Code, and which has a negative
unliquidated or unexpended balance, an obligation or an
adjustment of an obligation may be charged to any current
appropriation account for the same purpose as the expired or
closed account if--
(1) the obligation would have been properly chargeable
(except as to amount) to the expired or closed account before
the end of the period of availability or closing of that
account;
(2) the obligation is not otherwise properly chargeable to
any current appropriation account of the Department of
Defense; and
(3) in the case of an expired account, the obligation is
not chargeable to a current appropriation of the Department
of Defense under the provisions of section 1405(b)(8) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991,
Public Law 101-510, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1551 note):
Provided, That in the case of an expired account, if
subsequent review or investigation discloses that there was
not in fact a negative unliquidated or unexpended balance in
the account, any charge to a current account under the
authority of this section shall be reversed and recorded
against the expired account: Provided further, That the total
amount charged to a current appropriation under this section
may not exceed an amount equal to 1 percent of the total
appropriation for that account.
Sec. 8053. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Chief of the National Guard Bureau may permit the use of
equipment of the National Guard Distance Learning Project by
any person or entity on a space-available, reimbursable
basis. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall establish
the amount of reimbursement for such use on a case-by-case
basis.
(b) Amounts collected under subsection (a) shall be
credited to funds available for the National Guard Distance
Learning Project and be available to defray the costs
associated with the use of equipment of the project under
that subsection. Such funds shall be available for such
purposes without fiscal year limitation.
Sec. 8054. Using funds made available by this Act or any
other Act, the Secretary of the Air Force, pursuant to a
determination under section 2690 of title 10, United States
Code, may implement cost-effective agreements for required
heating facility modernization in the Kaiserslautern Military
Community in the Federal Republic of Germany: Provided, That
in the City of Kaiserslautern and at the Rhine Ordnance
Barracks area, such agreements will include the use of United
States anthracite as the base load energy for municipal
district heat to the United States Defense installations:
Provided further, That at Landstuhl Army Regional Medical
Center and Ramstein Air Base, furnished heat may be obtained
from private, regional or municipal services, if provisions
are included for the consideration of United States coal as
an energy source.
Sec. 8055. None of the funds appropriated in title IV of
this Act may be used to procure end-items for delivery to
military forces for operational training, operational use or
inventory requirements: Provided, That this restriction does
not apply to end-items used in development, prototyping, and
test activities preceding and leading to acceptance for
operational use: Provided further, That this restriction does
not apply to programs funded within the National Intelligence
Program: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense may
waive this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying
in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Senate that it is in the national
security interest to do so.
Sec. 8056. (a) The Secretary of Defense may, on a case-by-
case basis, waive with respect to a foreign country each
limitation on the procurement of defense items from foreign
sources provided in law if the Secretary determines that the
application of the limitation with respect to that country
would invalidate cooperative programs entered into between
the Department of Defense and the foreign country, or would
invalidate reciprocal trade agreements for the procurement of
defense items entered into under section 2531 of title 10,
United States Code, and the country does not discriminate
against the same or similar defense items produced in the
United States for that country.
(b) Subsection (a) applies with respect to--
(1) contracts and subcontracts entered into on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) options for the procurement of items that are exercised
after such date under contracts that are entered into before
such date if the option prices are adjusted for any reason
other than the application of a waiver granted under
subsection (a).
[[Page H4973]]
(c) Subsection (a) does not apply to a limitation regarding
construction of public vessels, ball and roller bearings,
food, and clothing or textile materials as defined by section
11 (chapters 50-65) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and
products classified under headings 4010, 4202, 4203, 6401
through 6406, 6505, 7019, 7218 through 7229, 7304.41 through
7304.49, 7306.40, 7502 through 7508, 8105, 8108, 8109, 8211,
8215, and 9404.
Sec. 8057. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used to support any training program involving a unit
of the security forces or police of a foreign country if the
Secretary of Defense has received credible information from
the Department of State that the unit has committed a gross
violation of human rights, unless all necessary corrective
steps have been taken.
(b) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretary of State, shall ensure that prior to a decision to
conduct any training program referred to in subsection (a),
full consideration is given to all credible information
available to the Department of State relating to human rights
violations by foreign security forces.
(c) The Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the
Secretary of State, may waive the prohibition in subsection
(a) if he determines that such waiver is required by
extraordinary circumstances.
(d) Not more than 15 days after the exercise of any waiver
under subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense shall submit a
report to the congressional defense committees describing the
extraordinary circumstances, the purpose and duration of the
training program, the United States forces and the foreign
security forces involved in the training program, and the
information relating to human rights violations that
necessitates the waiver.
Sec. 8058. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this or other Department of Defense
Appropriations Acts may be obligated or expended for the
purpose of performing repairs or maintenance to military
family housing units of the Department of Defense, including
areas in such military family housing units that may be used
for the purpose of conducting official Department of Defense
business.
Sec. 8059. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' for any new
start advanced concept technology demonstration project or
joint capability demonstration project may only be obligated
45 days after a report, including a description of the
project, the planned acquisition and transition strategy and
its estimated annual and total cost, has been provided in
writing to the congressional defense committees: Provided,
That the Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a
case-by-case basis by certifying to the congressional defense
committees that it is in the national interest to do so.
Sec. 8060. The Secretary of Defense shall provide a
classified quarterly report beginning 30 days after enactment
of this Act, to the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees, Subcommittees on Defense on certain matters as
directed in the classified annex accompanying this Act.
Sec. 8061. During the current fiscal year, none of the
funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to
provide support to another department or agency of the United
States if such department or agency is more than 90 days in
arrears in making payment to the Department of Defense for
goods or services previously provided to such department or
agency on a reimbursable basis: Provided, That this
restriction shall not apply if the department is authorized
by law to provide support to such department or agency on a
nonreimbursable basis, and is providing the requested support
pursuant to such authority: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
case basis by certifying in writing to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
that it is in the national security interest to do so.
Sec. 8062. Notwithstanding section 12310(b) of title 10,
United States Code, a Reserve who is a member of the National
Guard serving on full-time National Guard duty under section
502(f) of title 32, United States Code, may perform duties in
support of the ground-based elements of the National
Ballistic Missile Defense System.
Sec. 8063. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used to transfer to any nongovernmental entity ammunition
held by the Department of Defense that has a center-fire
cartridge and a United States military nomenclature
designation of ``armor penetrator'', ``armor piercing (AP)'',
``armor piercing incendiary (API)'', or ``armor-piercing
incendiary tracer (API-T)'', except to an entity performing
demilitarization services for the Department of Defense under
a contract that requires the entity to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Department of Defense that armor piercing
projectiles are either: (1) rendered incapable of reuse by
the demilitarization process; or (2) used to manufacture
ammunition pursuant to a contract with the Department of
Defense or the manufacture of ammunition for export pursuant
to a License for Permanent Export of Unclassified Military
Articles issued by the Department of State.
Sec. 8064. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau, or his designee, may
waive payment of all or part of the consideration that
otherwise would be required under section 2667 of title 10,
United States Code, in the case of a lease of personal
property for a period not in excess of 1 year to any
organization specified in section 508(d) of title 32, United
States Code, or any other youth, social, or fraternal
nonprofit organization as may be approved by the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau, or his designee, on a case-by-case
basis.
Sec. 8065. None of the funds appropriated by this Act
shall be used for the support of any nonappropriated funds
activity of the Department of Defense that procures malt
beverages and wine with nonappropriated funds for resale
(including such alcoholic beverages sold by the drink) on a
military installation located in the United States unless
such malt beverages and wine are procured within that State,
or in the case of the District of Columbia, within the
District of Columbia, in which the military installation is
located: Provided, That in a case in which the military
installation is located in more than one State, purchases may
be made in any State in which the installation is located:
Provided further, That such local procurement requirements
for malt beverages and wine shall apply to all alcoholic
beverages only for military installations in States which are
not contiguous with another State: Provided further, That
alcoholic beverages other than wine and malt beverages, in
contiguous States and the District of Columbia shall be
procured from the most competitive source, price and other
factors considered.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8066. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under
the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $133,381,000
shall remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Defense is authorized to transfer such funds to other
activities of the Federal Government: Provided further, That
the Secretary of Defense is authorized to enter into and
carry out contracts for the acquisition of real property,
construction, personal services, and operations related to
projects carrying out the purposes of this section: Provided
further, That contracts entered into under the authority of
this section may provide for such indemnification as the
Secretary determines to be necessary: Provided further, That
projects authorized by this section shall comply with
applicable Federal, State, and local law to the maximum
extent consistent with the national security, as determined
by the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 8067. Section 8106 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 1997 (titles I through VIII of the matter
under subsection 101(b) of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat.
3009-111; 10 U.S.C. 113 note) shall continue in effect to
apply to disbursements that are made by the Department of
Defense in fiscal year 2013.
Sec. 8068. In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in
this Act, $4,000,000 is hereby appropriated to the Department
of Defense, to remain available for obligation until
expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, that upon the determination of the Secretary of
Defense that it shall serve the national interest, these
funds shall be available only for a grant to the Fisher House
Foundation, Inc., only for the construction and furnishing of
additional Fisher Houses to meet the needs of military family
members when confronted with the illness or hospitalization
of an eligible military beneficiary.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8069. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under
the heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Defense-Wide'', $948,736,000 shall be for the Israeli
Cooperative Programs: Provided, That of this amount,
$149,679,000 shall be for the Short Range Ballistic Missile
Defense (SRBMD) program, including cruise missile defense
research and development under the SRBMD program, of which
$15,000,000 shall be for production activities of SRBMD
missiles in the United States and in Israel to meet Israel's
defense requirements consistent with each nation's laws,
regulations, and procedures, $74,692,000 shall be available
for an upper-tier component to the Israeli Missile Defense
Architecture, and $44,365,000 shall be for the Arrow System
Improvement Program including development of a long range,
ground and airborne, detection suite, and $680,000,000 shall
be for the Iron Dome program: Provided further, That funds
made available under this provision for production of
missiles and missile components may be transferred to
appropriations available for the procurement of weapons and
equipment, to be merged with and to be available for the same
time period and the same purposes as the appropriation to
which transferred: Provided further, That the transfer
authority provided under this provision is in addition to any
other transfer authority contained in this Act.
Sec. 8070. None of the funds available to the Department
of Defense may be obligated to modify command and control
relationships to give Fleet Forces Command operational and
administrative control of U.S. Navy forces assigned to the
Pacific fleet: Provided, That the command and control
relationships which existed on October 1, 1994, shall remain
in force unless changes are specifically authorized in a
subsequent Act.
Sec. 8071. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under
the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'',
$372,573,000 shall be
[[Page H4974]]
available until September 30, 2013, to fund prior year
shipbuilding cost increases: Provided, That upon enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall transfer funds to
the following appropriations in the amounts specified:
Provided further, That the amounts transferred shall be
merged with and be available for the same purposes as the
appropriations to which transferred to:
(1) Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy,
2007/2013'': LHA Replacement Program $156,685,000;
(2) Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy,
2008/2013'': LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock Program
$80,888,000; and
(3) Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy,
2009/2013'': CVN Refueling Overhauls $135,000,000.
Sec. 8072. Funds appropriated by this Act, or made
available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for
intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically
authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal
year 2013 until the enactment of the Intelligence
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
Sec. 8073. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds that creates or initiates a new
program, project, or activity unless such program, project,
or activity must be undertaken immediately in the interest of
national security and only after written prior notification
to the congressional defense committee.
Sec. 8074. The budget of the President for fiscal year
2014 submitted to the Congress pursuant to section 1105 of
title 31, United States Code, shall include separate budget
justification documents for costs of United States Armed
Forces' participation in contingency operations for the
Military Personnel accounts, the Operation and Maintenance
accounts, and the Procurement accounts: Provided, That these
documents shall include a description of the funding
requested for each contingency operation, for each military
service, to include all Active and Reserve components, and
for each appropriations account: Provided further, That these
documents shall include estimated costs for each element of
expense or object class, a reconciliation of increases and
decreases for each contingency operation, and programmatic
data including, but not limited to, troop strength for each
Active and Reserve component, and estimates of the major
weapons systems deployed in support of each contingency:
Provided further, That these documents shall include budget
exhibits OP-5 and OP-32 (as defined in the Department of
Defense Financial Management Regulation) for all contingency
operations for the budget year and the two preceding fiscal
years.
Sec. 8075. None of the funds in this Act may be used for
research, development, test, evaluation, procurement or
deployment of nuclear armed interceptors of a missile defense
system.
Sec. 8076. In addition to the amounts appropriated or
otherwise made available elsewhere in this Act, $44,000,000
is hereby appropriated to the Department of Defense:
Provided, That upon the determination of the Secretary of
Defense that it shall serve the national interest, he shall
make grants in the amounts specified as follows: $20,000,000
to the United Service Organizations and $24,000,000 to the
Red Cross.
Sec. 8077. None of the funds appropriated or made
available in this Act shall be used to reduce or disestablish
the operation of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of
the Air Force Reserve, if such action would reduce the WC-130
Weather Reconnaissance mission below the levels funded in
this Act: Provided, That the Air Force shall allow the 53rd
Weather Reconnaissance Squadron to perform other missions in
support of national defense requirements during the non-
hurricane season.
Sec. 8078. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
available for integration of foreign intelligence information
unless the information has been lawfully collected and
processed during the conduct of authorized foreign
intelligence activities: Provided, That information
pertaining to United States persons shall only be handled in
accordance with protections provided in the Fourth Amendment
of the United States Constitution as implemented through
Executive Order No. 12333.
Sec. 8079. (a) At the time members of reserve components of
the Armed Forces are called or ordered to active duty under
section 12302(a) of title 10, United States Code, each member
shall be notified in writing of the expected period during
which the member will be mobilized.
(b) The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirements of
subsection (a) in any case in which the Secretary determines
that it is necessary to do so to respond to a national
security emergency or to meet dire operational requirements
of the Armed Forces.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8080. The Secretary of Defense may transfer funds
from any available Department of the Navy appropriation to
any available Navy ship construction appropriation for the
purpose of liquidating necessary changes resulting from
inflation, market fluctuations, or rate adjustments for any
ship construction program appropriated in law: Provided, That
the Secretary may transfer not to exceed $100,000,000 under
the authority provided by this section: Provided further,
That the Secretary may not transfer any funds until 30 days
after the proposed transfer has been reported to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate, unless a response from the Committees is
received sooner: Provided further, That any funds transferred
pursuant to this section shall retain the same period of
availability as when originally appropriated: Provided
further, That the transfer authority provided by this section
is in addition to any other transfer authority contained
elsewhere in this Act.
Sec. 8081. For purposes of section 7108 of title 41,
United States Code, any subdivision of appropriations made
under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'' that
is not closed at the time reimbursement is made shall be
available to reimburse the Judgment Fund and shall be
considered for the same purposes as any subdivision under the
heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'' appropriations
in the current fiscal year or any prior fiscal year.
Sec. 8082. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be used to transfer research and development,
acquisition, or other program authority relating to current
tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (TUAVs) from the Army.
(b) The Army shall retain responsibility for and
operational control of the MQ-1C Sky Warrior Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle (UAV) in order to support the Secretary of Defense in
matters relating to the employment of unmanned aerial
vehicles.
Sec. 8083. Up to $15,000,000 of the funds appropriated
under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'' may be
made available for the Asia Pacific Regional Initiative
Program for the purpose of enabling the Pacific Command to
execute Theater Security Cooperation activities such as
humanitarian assistance, and payment of incremental and
personnel costs of training and exercising with foreign
security forces: Provided, That funds made available for this
purpose may be used, notwithstanding any other funding
authorities for humanitarian assistance, security assistance
or combined exercise expenses: Provided further, That funds
may not be obligated to provide assistance to any foreign
country that is otherwise prohibited from receiving such type
of assistance under any other provision of law.
Sec. 8084. None of the funds appropriated by this Act for
programs of the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence shall remain available for obligation beyond the
current fiscal year, except for funds appropriated for
research and technology, which shall remain available until
September 30, 2014.
Sec. 8085. For purposes of section 1553(b) of title 31,
United States Code, any subdivision of appropriations made in
this Act under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy'' shall be considered to be for the same purpose as any
subdivision under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy'' appropriations in any prior fiscal year, and the 1
percent limitation shall apply to the total amount of the
appropriation.
Sec. 8086. The Director of National Intelligence shall
include the budget exhibits identified in paragraphs (1) and
(2) as described in the Department of Defense Financial
Management Regulation with the congressional budget
justification books:
(1) For procurement programs requesting more than
$10,000,000 in any fiscal year, the P-1, Procurement Program;
P-5, Cost Analysis; P-5a, Procurement History and Planning;
P-21, Production Schedule; and P-40, Budget Item
Justification.
(2) For research, development, test and evaluation projects
requesting more than $5,000,000 in any fiscal year, the R-1,
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Program; R-2,
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Budget Item
Justification; R-3, Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation Project Cost Analysis; and R-4, Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation Program Schedule Profile.
Sec. 8087. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, due to an excessive level of funded carryover at Army
depots, the total amount appropriated to ``Operation and
Maintenance, Army'', in title II of this Act is hereby
reduced by $1,207,400,000, and the total amount appropriated
to ``Other Procurement, Army'', in title III of this Act is
hereby reduced by $1,253,500,000.
Sec. 8088. (a) Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence
shall submit a report to the congressional intelligence
committees to establish the baseline for application of
reprogramming and transfer authorities for fiscal year 2013:
Provided, That the report shall include--
(1) a table for each appropriation with a separate column
to display the President's budget request, adjustments made
by Congress, adjustments due to enacted rescissions, if
appropriate, and the fiscal year enacted level;
(2) a delineation in the table for each appropriation by
Expenditure Center and project; and
(3) an identification of items of special congressional
interest.
(b) None of the funds provided for the National
Intelligence Program in this Act shall be available for
reprogramming or transfer until the report identified in
subsection (a) is submitted to the congressional intelligence
committees, unless the Director of National Intelligence
certifies in writing to the congressional intelligence
committees that such
[[Page H4975]]
reprogramming or transfer is necessary as an emergency
requirement.
Sec. 8089. (a) None of the funds provided for the National
Intelligence Program in this or any prior appropriations Act
shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming or transfer of funds in accordance with section
102A(d) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-
1(d)) that--
(1) creates a new start effort;
(2) terminates a program with appropriated funding of
$10,000,000 or more;
(3) transfers funding into or out of the National
Intelligence Program; or
(4) transfers funding between appropriations,
unless the congressional intelligence committees are notified
30 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds; this
notification period may be reduced for urgent national
security requirements.
(b) None of the funds provided for the National
Intelligence Program in this or any prior appropriations Act
shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming or transfer of funds in accordance with section
102A(d) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-
1(d)) that results in a cumulative increase or decrease of
the levels specified in the classified annex accompanying the
Act unless the congressional intelligence committees are
notified 30 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds;
this notification period may be reduced for urgent national
security requirements.
Sec. 8090. The Director of National Intelligence shall
submit to Congress each year, at or about the time that the
President's budget is submitted to Congress that year under
section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, a future-
years intelligence program (including associated annexes)
reflecting the estimated expenditures and proposed
appropriations included in that budget. Any such future-years
intelligence program shall cover the fiscal year with respect
to which the budget is submitted and at least the four
succeeding fiscal years.
Sec. 8091. For the purposes of this Act, the term
``congressional intelligence committees'' means the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives, the Select Committee on Intelligence of the
Senate, the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of
the Senate.
Sec. 8092. The Department of Defense shall continue to
report incremental contingency operations costs for Operation
New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom, or any other named
operations in the U.S. Central Command area of operation on a
monthly basis in the Cost of War Execution Report as
prescribed in the Department of Defense Financial Management
Regulation Department of Defense Instruction 7000.14, Volume
12, Chapter 23 ``Contingency Operations'', Annex 1, dated
September 2005.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8093. During the current fiscal year, not to exceed
$11,000,000 from each of the appropriations made in title II
of this Act for ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'',
``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', and ``Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force'' may be transferred by the military
department concerned to its central fund established for
Fisher Houses and Suites pursuant to section 2493(d) of title
10, United States Code.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8094. Funds appropriated by this Act for operation
and maintenance may be available for the purpose of making
remittances to the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development
Fund in accordance with the requirements of section 1705 of
title 10, United States Code.
Sec. 8095. (a) Any agency receiving funds made available in
this Act, shall, subject to subsections (b) and (c), post on
the public website of that agency any report required to be
submitted by the Congress in this or any other Act, upon the
determination by the head of the agency that it shall serve
the national interest.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a report if--
(1) the public posting of the report compromises national
security; or
(2) the report contains proprietary information.
(c) The head of the agency posting such report shall do so
only after such report has been made available to the
requesting Committee or Committees of Congress for no less
than 45 days.
Sec. 8096. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be expended for any Federal
contract for an amount in excess of $1,000,000, unless the
contractor agrees not to--
(1) enter into any agreement with any of its employees or
independent contractors that requires, as a condition of
employment, that the employee or independent contractor agree
to resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or
arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including
assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring,
supervision, or retention; or
(2) take any action to enforce any provision of an existing
agreement with an employee or independent contractor that
mandates that the employee or independent contractor resolve
through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of
sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, false
imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.
(b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be expended for any Federal
contract unless the contractor certifies that it requires
each covered subcontractor to agree not to enter into, and
not to take any action to enforce any provision of, any
agreement as described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subsection (a), with respect to any employee or independent
contractor performing work related to such subcontract. For
purposes of this subsection, a ``covered subcontractor'' is
an entity that has a subcontract in excess of $1,000,000 on a
contract subject to subsection (a).
(c) The prohibitions in this section do not apply with
respect to a contractor's or subcontractor's agreements with
employees or independent contractors that may not be enforced
in a court of the United States.
(d) The Secretary of Defense may waive the application of
subsection (a) or (b) to a particular contractor or
subcontractor for the purposes of a particular contract or
subcontract if the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary
personally determines that the waiver is necessary to avoid
harm to national security interests of the United States, and
that the term of the contract or subcontract is not longer
than necessary to avoid such harm. The determination shall
set forth with specificity the grounds for the waiver and for
the contract or subcontract term selected, and shall state
any alternatives considered in lieu of a waiver and the
reasons each such alternative would not avoid harm to
national security interests of the United States. The
Secretary of Defense shall transmit to Congress, and
simultaneously make public, any determination under this
subsection not less than 15 business days before the contract
or subcontract addressed in the determination may be awarded.
Sec. 8097. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be distributed to the Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) or its subsidiaries.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8098. From within the funds appropriated for
operation and maintenance for the Defense Health Program in
this Act, up to $139,204,000, shall be available for transfer
to the Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans
Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund in accordance
with the provisions of section 1704 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Public Law 111-84:
Provided, That for purposes of section 1704(b), the facility
operations funded are operations of the integrated Captain
James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center, consisting of the
North Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical Center, the Navy
Ambulatory Care Center, and supporting facilities designated
as a combined Federal medical facility as described by
section 706 of Public Law 110-417: Provided further, That
additional funds may be transferred from funds appropriated
for operation and maintenance for the Defense Health Program
to the Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans
Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund upon written
notification by the Secretary of Defense to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Senate.
Sec. 8099. The Office of the Director of National
Intelligence shall not employ more Senior Executive employees
than are specified in the classified annex.
Sec. 8100. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be obligated or expended to
pay a retired general or flag officer to serve as a senior
mentor advising the Department of Defense unless such retired
officer files a Standard Form 278 (or successor form
concerning public financial disclosure under part 2634 of
title 5, Code of Federal Regulations) to the Office of
Government Ethics.
Sec. 8101. Appropriations available to the Department of
Defense may be used for the purchase of heavy and light
armored vehicles for the physical security of personnel or
for force protection purposes up to a limit of $250,000 per
vehicle, notwithstanding price or other limitations
applicable to the purchase of passenger carrying vehicles.
Sec. 8102. Of the amounts appropriated for ``Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', the following amounts shall be
available to the Secretary of Defense, for the following
authorized purposes, notwithstanding any other provision of
law, acting through the Office of Economic Adjustment of the
Department of Defense, to make grants, conclude cooperative
agreements, and supplement other Federal funds, to remain
available until expended, to assist the civilian population
of Guam in response to the military buildup of Guam: (1)
$33,000,000 for addressing the need for construction of a
mental health and substance abuse facility and construction
of a regional public health laboratory; and (2) $106,400,000
for addressing the need for civilian water and wastewater
improvements: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense shall,
not fewer than 15 days prior to obligating funds for either
of the foregoing purposes, notify the congressional defense
committees in writing of the details of any such obligation.
Sec. 8103. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used by the Secretary of
[[Page H4976]]
Defense to take beneficial occupancy of more than 2,000
parking spaces (other than handicap-reserved spaces) to be
provided by the BRAC 133 project: Provided, That this
limitation may be waived in part if: (1) the Secretary of
Defense certifies to Congress that levels of service at
existing intersections in the vicinity of the project have
not experienced failing levels of service as defined by the
Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual over a
consecutive 90-day period; (2) the Department of Defense and
the Virginia Department of Transportation agree on the number
of additional parking spaces that may be made available to
employees of the facility subject to continued 90-day traffic
monitoring; and (3) the Secretary of Defense notifies the
congressional defense committees in writing at least 14 days
prior to exercising this waiver of the number of additional
parking spaces to be made available: Provided further, That
the Secretary of Defense shall implement the Department of
Defense Inspector General recommendations outlined in report
number DODIG-2012-024, and certify to Congress not later than
180 days after enactment of this Act that the recommendations
have been implemented.
Sec. 8104. Not later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall resume
monthly reporting of the numbers of civilian personnel end
strength by appropriation account for each and every
appropriation account used to finance Federal civilian
personnel salaries to the congressional defense committees
within 15 days after the end of each fiscal quarter.
Sec. 8105. None of the funds appropriated in this or any
other Act may be used to plan, prepare for, or otherwise take
any action to undertake or implement the separation of the
National Intelligence Program budget from the Department of
Defense budget.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8106. Upon a determination by the Director of
National Intelligence that such action is necessary and in
the national interest, the Director may, with the approval of
the Office of Management and Budget, transfer not to exceed
$2,000,000,000 of the funds made available in this Act for
the National Intelligence Program: Provided, That such
authority to transfer may not be used unless for higher
priority items, based on unforeseen intelligence
requirements, than those for which originally appropriated
and in no case where the item for which funds are requested
has been denied by the Congress: Provided further, That a
request for multiple reprogrammings of funds using authority
provided in this section shall be made prior to June 30,
2013.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8107. In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in
the Act, there is appropriated $270,000,000 for an additional
amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', to be
available until expended: Provided, That such funds shall
only be available to the Secretary of Defense, acting through
the Office of Economic Adjustment of the Department of
Defense, or for transfer to the Secretary of Education,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, to make grants,
conclude cooperative agreements, or supplement other Federal
funds to construct, renovate, repair, or expand elementary
and secondary public schools on military installations in
order to address capacity or facility condition deficiencies
at such schools: Provided further, That in making such funds
available, the Office of Economic Adjustment or the Secretary
of Education shall give priority consideration to those
military installations with schools having the most serious
capacity or facility condition deficiencies as determined by
the Secretary of Defense: Provided further, That funds may
not be made available for a school unless its enrollment of
Department of Defense-connected children is greater than 50
percent.
Sec. 8108. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available in this or any other Act may be used to
transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to or
within the United States, its territories, or possessions
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who--
(1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed
Forces of the United States; and
(2) is or was held on or after June 24, 2009, at the United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department
of Defense.
Sec. 8109. (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) and
subsection (d), none of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available in this or any other Act may be used to
transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody
or control of the individual's country of origin, any other
foreign country, or any other foreign entity unless the
Secretary of Defense submits to Congress the certification
described in subsection (b) not later than 30 days before the
transfer of the individual.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action taken by
the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at
Guantanamo to effectuate--
(A) an order affecting the disposition of the individual
that is issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United
States having lawful jurisdiction (which the Secretary shall
notify Congress of promptly after issuance); or
(B) a pre-trial agreement entered in a military commission
case prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) A certification described in this subsection is a
written certification made by the Secretary of Defense, with
the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation
with the Director of National Intelligence, that--
(1) the government of the foreign country or the recognized
leadership of the foreign entity to which the individual
detained at Guantanamo is to be transferred--
(A) is not a designated state sponsor of terrorism or a
designated foreign terrorist organization;
(B) maintains control over each detention facility in which
the individual is to be detained if the individual is to be
housed in a detention facility;
(C) is not, as of the date of the certification, facing a
threat that is likely to substantially affect its ability to
exercise control over the individual;
(D) has taken or agreed to take effective actions to ensure
that the individual cannot take action to threaten the United
States, its citizens, or its allies in the future;
(E) has taken or agreed to take such actions as the
Secretary of Defense determines are necessary to ensure that
the individual cannot engage or reengage in any terrorist
activity; and
(F) has agreed to share with the United States any
information that--
(i) is related to the individual or any associates of the
individual; and
(ii) could affect the security of the United States, its
citizens, or its allies; and
(2) includes an assessment, in classified or unclassified
form, of the capacity, willingness, and past practices (if
applicable) of the foreign country or entity in relation to
the Secretary's certifications.
(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection
(d), none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this or any other Act may be used to transfer
any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or
control of the individual's country of origin, any other
foreign country, or any other foreign entity if there is a
confirmed case of any individual who was detained at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, at any time after
September 11, 2001, who was transferred to such foreign
country or entity and subsequently engaged in any terrorist
activity.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action taken by
the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at
Guantanamo to effectuate--
(A) an order affecting the disposition of the individual
that is issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United
States having lawful jurisdiction (which the Secretary shall
notify Congress of promptly after issuance); or
(B) a pre-trial agreement entered in a military commission
case prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d)(1) The Secretary of Defense may waive the applicability
to a detainee transfer of a certification requirement
specified in subparagraph (D) or (E) of subsection (b)(1) or
the prohibition in subsection (c), if the Secretary certifies
the rest of the criteria required by subsection (b) for
transfers prohibited by (c) and, with the concurrence of the
Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of
National Intelligence, determines that--
(A) alternative actions will be taken to address the
underlying purpose of the requirement or requirements to be
waived;
(B) in the case of a waiver of subparagraph (D) or (E) of
subsection (b)(1), it is not possible to certify that the
risks addressed in the paragraph to be waived have been
completely eliminated, but the actions to be taken under
subparagraph (A) will substantially mitigate such risks with
regard to the individual to be transferred;
(C) in the case of a waiver of subsection (c), the
Secretary has considered any confirmed case in which an
individual who was transferred to the country subsequently
engaged in terrorist activity, and the actions to be taken
under subparagraph (A) will substantially mitigate the risk
of recidivism with regard to the individual to be
transferred; and
(D) the transfer is in the national security interests of
the United States.
(2) Whenever the Secretary makes a determination under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress, not later than 30 days before the
transfer of the individual concerned, the following:
(A) A copy of the determination and the waiver concerned.
(B) A statement of the basis for the determination,
including--
(i) an explanation why the transfer is in the national
security interests of the United States; and
(ii) in the case of a waiver of subparagraph (D) or (E) of
subsection (b)(1), an explanation why it is not possible to
certify that the risks addressed in the subparagraph to be
waived have been completely eliminated.
(C) A summary of the alternative actions to be taken to
address the underlying purpose of, and to mitigate the risks
addressed in, the subparagraph or subsection to be waived.
(D) The assessment required by subsection (b)(2).
(e) In this section:
(1) The term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
[[Page H4977]]
(A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Appropriations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of
the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Appropriations, and the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
(2) The term ``individual detained at Guantanamo'' means
any individual located at United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of October 1, 2009, who--
(A) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of
the Armed Forces of the United States; and
(B) is--
(i) in the custody or under the control of the Department
of Defense; or
(ii) otherwise under detention at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay,
(3) The term ``foreign terrorist organization'' means any
organization so designated by the Secretary of State under
section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1189).
Sec. 8110. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available in this or any other Act may be used to
construct, acquire, or modify any facility in the United
States, its territories, or possessions to house any
individual described in subsection (c) for the purposes of
detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the
effective control of the Department of Defense.
(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to
any modification of facilities at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
(c) An individual described in this subsection is any
individual who, as of June 24, 2009, is located at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and who--
(1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of
the Armed Forces of the United States; and
(2) is--
(A) in the custody or under the effective control of the
Department of Defense; or
(B) otherwise under detention at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Sec. 8111. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of
understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant
to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation
that any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed,
for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been
exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a
timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority
responsible for collecting the tax liability, where the
awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, unless
the agency has considered suspension or debarment of the
corporation and made a determination that this further action
is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
Sec. 8112. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of
understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant
to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation
that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any
Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the
awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless the agency
has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and
made a determination that this further action is not
necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
Sec. 8113. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used in contravention of section 1590 or 1591 of title
18, United States Code, or in contravention of the
requirements of section 106(g) or (h) of the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7104(g) or (h)).
Sec. 8114. None of the funds made available by this Act
for International Military education and training, foreign
military financing, excess defense article, assistance under
section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal year 2006 (Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3456)
issuance for direct commercial sales of military equipment,
or peacekeeping operations for the countries of Chad, Yemen,
Somalia, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and
Burma may be used to support any military training or
operation that include child soldiers, as defined by the
Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008, and except if such
assistance is otherwise permitted under section 404 of the
Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-457; 22
U.S.C. 2370c-1).
Sec. 8115. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used in contravention of the War Powers Resolution (50
U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).
Sec. 8116. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used to retire, divest, realign, or transfer Air Force
aircraft, to disestablish or convert units associated with
such aircraft, or to disestablish or convert any other unit
of the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve.
Sec. 8117. The Secretary of the Air Force shall obligate
and expend funds previously appropriated for the procurement
of RQ-4B Global Hawk and C-27J Spartan aircraft for the
purposes for which such funds were originally appropriated.
Sec. 8118. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used to retire C-23 Sherpa aircraft.
Sec. 8119. The total amount available in the Act for pay
for civilian personnel of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2013 shall be the amount otherwise appropriated
or made available by this Act for such pay reduced by
$258,524,000.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 120, line
12, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment
at any point.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Florida?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 8120. None of the funds appropriated, or otherwise
made available in this Act may be used to transfer a veterans
memorial object to a foreign country or an entity controlled
by a foreign government, or otherwise transfer or convey such
an object to any person or entity for purposes of the
ultimate transfer or conveyance of the object to a foreign
country or entity controlled by a foreign government, unless
such transfer is specifically authorized by law.
Sec. 8121. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none
of the funds made available in this Act may be used to
sponsor professional or semi-professional motorsports,
fishing, mixed martial arts, wrestling, or other sporting
events or competitors.
(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply in
the case of sponsorship of amateur or high school sporting
events or competitors.
Point of Order
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chair, I raise a point of order against section 8121
of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. PALAZZO. Section 8121 constitutes legislation because it requires
that the Secretary determine what qualifies as ``semiprofessional,''
``a sporting event,'' and ``mixed martial arts.''
These are not terms that current law requires that the Secretary
know, thus, imposing these determinations upon the Secretary violates
clause 2 of rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
Seeing none, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Mississippi makes a point of order that section
8121 proposes to change existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of
rule XXI. Section 8121 is in the form of a limitation on funds in the
bill.
As recorded in Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section
52, even though a limitation might refrain from explicitly assigning
new duties to officers of the government, if it implicitly requires
them to make investigations, judgments, or determinations not otherwise
required of them by law, then it assumes the character of legislation
and is subject to a point of order under clause 2(b) of rule XXI.
The fact that a limitation may impose certain incidental burdens on
executive officials does not destroy the character of the limitation as
long as it is descriptive of functions and findings already required to
be undertaken by existing law. The proponent of a limitation assumes
the burden of establishing that any duties or determinations imposed by
the provision are merely ministerial or are already required by law. As
noted in Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section 61.12,
the question is not whether an official routinely makes such
determinations but, rather, whether such determinations are required by
law.
The Chair finds that the limitation in section 8121 does more than
merely impose a negative restriction on the funds of the bill. Instead,
it would require the Secretary to make various determinations, such as
what qualifies as ``semi-professional,'' as ``mixed martial arts,'' or
as ``sporting events.'' The proponent of this language has not proven
that these are matters with which the Secretary is charged under
existing law.
The Chair finds the proceedings of August 20, 1980, pertinent. On
that day, a limitation on funds in an appropriation bill to dispose of
``agricultural'' land was held to impose new duties in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI because the determination whether lands were
``agricultural'' was not required by law.
On these premises, the Chair concludes that the section proposes to
change existing law. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained, and
the section is stricken from the bill.
[[Page H4978]]
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to
request a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Amash).
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Washington?
Seeing none, pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan will be
postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE IX
OVERSEAS DEPLOYMENTS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES
MILITARY PERSONNEL
Military Personnel, Army
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'',
$9,165,082,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by
the Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War
on Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Jones
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 121, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $98,697,000)''.
Page 121, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $9,373,000)''.
Page 122, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $17,482,000)''.
Page 122, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $13,857,000)''.
Page 122, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,690,000)''.
Page 122, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $424,000)''.
Page 123, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $266,000)''.
Page 123, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $273,000)''.
Page 123, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $6,287,000)''.
Page 124, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $113,000)''.
Page 132, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $412,287,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, under title IX of this bill there is $412
million labeled ``incentive pay'' for Afghan soldiers. Also under title
IX, there is $13 million labeled ``incentive pay'' for American
soldiers. This is a problem for our military.
My amendment, which is supported by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, is
very simple. At all does it move some incentive pay from Afghan
soldiers to American soldiers.
Last month the Department of Defense published their review of
military compensation, a report required by law every 4 years. The
report concluded that our system of combat pay is broken. I quote:
``There is little correlation between exposure to danger and
compensation pay.''
A recent article on the report by the Marine Corps Times outlined how
a Navy captain assigned to Bahrain received more than $1,000 a month
while a Marine lance corporal patrolling the streets of Helmand
province received much less in combat pay. That's not right.
{time} 1850
If you look in this bill and compare the $412 million for the Afghans
against the $13 million for our troops, the inequity is clear. My
amendment simply moves the incentive pay for the Afghan soldiers to the
American soldiers. This money should go to the junior enlisted
servicemembers facing the most risk in Afghanistan.
My amendment does not touch Afghan base pay. That $450 million is
still in the bill. It does not touch their pay for food and
subsistence. That $71 million is still there. It doesn't touch their
recruiting money either. The $4 million is still there. It doesn't even
touch the money we spent to host ``welcome home'' concerts for the
Afghan army when they returned from deployment. That money comes out of
the Information Operations fund.
If anyone says that this amendment will hurt America's effort to fund
the Afghan army, which we hope will take over its responsibility in
just a few years, I invite you to look at the numbers in this fund. The
Afghan security forces are well funded.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that this amendment will be accepted, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Veterans of Foreign Wars
of the United States,
July 18, 2012.
Hon. Walter B. Jones,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Jones: On behalf of the 2 million members
of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW)
and our Auxiliaries, I am pleased to offer our support for
your amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to
eliminate $412 million dollars in incentive pay for the
Afghan Security Forces and redirect them in full to American
service members for incentive pay.
This reprogramming of funds would not affect Afghan base
pay or the payments these individuals receive for food and
other subsistence needs. Additionally, the ability of the
Afghan Security Forces to recruit and train would not be
hindered. Your amendment is limited to incentive pay funds--a
fund that DoD has not fully obligated funds from in at least
two fiscal years.
This is a prudent measure that wisely balances our fiscal
challenges, objectives on the ground, and the absolute
responsibly we all share to honor the sacrifices of those who
choose to wear the uniform. Thank you for taking the lead on
this effort, and for your continued support of our armed
forces and veterans.
Sincerely,
Raymond C. Kelley,
Director,
VFW National Legislative Service.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I do not object to what the gentleman is trying
to do. Although, I have to be very honest in that his amendment does
not accomplish what he thinks it will accomplish. We are okay to
transfer the money, so we are not going to object to the amendment.
The fact is that this is controlled by law, not by appropriations.
This is controlled by the National Defense Authorization Act, not by
the appropriations bill. So, while I understand what the gentleman
wants to do and while I agree with what he wants to do, this won't do
it, but I am not going to object to it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Jones
amendment.
I appreciate the efforts of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to provide the Administration with
funds for the Afghan military and police who are being trained to take
over security from our troops, but $412 million for additional
incentive pay is simply crazy.
For the past two fiscal years, funds for this same account remain
unobligated. Not unexpended, Mr. Chair--unobligated.
We need to move that unobligated funding stream along, and then
determine how much more is needed in incentives for these Afghan
forces. But right now we need to stop putting the money out there
before anyone knows what they're doing with it. This is nearly half a
billion dollars. And it's going to waste.
The bottom line here is this amendment would not touch the base pay
for Afghan military and police. It would not touch funds to provide
food and other basic needs for these Afghan troops. It would not touch
the funds for recruitment and training.
Instead, under the Jones amendment, funds targeted for Afghan
incentive pay would be transferred within the OCO account to augment
the combat pay of our junior enlisted servicemen and women who carry
out daily patrols.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Jones amendment.
It's good policy. It's a good use of funds. And it's only fair.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Military Personnel, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'',
$870,425,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by the
Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine
Corps'', $1,623,356,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
Military Personnel, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air
Force'', $1,286,783,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the
[[Page H4979]]
Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Reserve Personnel, Army
For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Army'',
$156,893,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by the
Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Reserve Personnel, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'',
$39,335,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by the
Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Marine
Corps'', $24,722,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
Reserve Personnel, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Air
Force'', $25,348,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
National Guard Personnel, Army
For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel,
Army'', $583,804,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
National Guard Personnel, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel,
Air Force'', $10,473,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and Maintenance, Army
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army'', $26,682,437,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
(including transfer of funds)
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Navy'', $5,880,395,000, of which up to $254,461,000 may be
transferred to the Coast Guard ``Operating Expenses''
account: Provided, That such amount is designated by the
Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Marine Corps'', $4,566,340,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air Force'', $9,136,236,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide'', $7,790,579,000: Provided, That of the funds
provided under this heading, not to exceed $1,750,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2014, shall be for
payments to reimburse key cooperating nations for logistical,
military, and other support, including access, provided to
United States military operations in support of Operation
Enduring Freedom, notwithstanding any other provision of law:
Provided further, That such reimbursement payments may be
made in such amounts as the Secretary of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, and in consultation
with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, may
determine, in his discretion, based on documentation
determined by the Secretary of Defense to adequately account
for the support provided, and such determination is final and
conclusive upon the accounting officers of the United States,
and 15 days following notification to the appropriate
congressional committees: Provided further, That the
requirement under this heading to provide notification shall
not apply with respect to a reimbursement for access based on
an international agreement: Provided further, That these
funds may be used for the purpose of providing specialized
training and procuring supplies and specialized equipment and
providing such supplies and loaning such equipment on a non-
reimbursable basis to coalition forces supporting United
States military operations in Afghanistan, and 15 days
following notification to the appropriate congressional
committees: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense
shall provide quarterly reports to the congressional defense
committees on the use of funds provided in this paragraph:
Provided further, That such amount is designated by the
Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas
Mr. POE of Texas. 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 125, lines 17 and 19, after each dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,300,000,000)''.
Page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,300,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POE of Texas. As stated in the report language of the bill, my
amendment cuts $1.3 billion that is going specifically to Pakistan.
Pakistan seems to be the Benedict Arnold nation in the list of
countries that we call allies. They have proven to be deceptive and
deceitful and a danger to the United States. Here is some of the
evidence:
For the last 7 months, Pakistan closed down the southern supply
route. The route transported about 40 percent of all NATO supplies into
the country and to Afghanistan;
Pakistan still refuses to go after the terrorist sanctuaries in the
tribal areas of Pakistan. Terrorist groups like the LET, the Pakistani
Taliban, and al Qaeda frequently cross over into Afghanistan, kill our
troops and then run back into Pakistan and hide where our troops cannot
follow them;
On May 23, 2012, Pakistan sentenced the doctor who helped us get
Osama bin Laden to 33 years in prison. I thought getting the world's
No. 1 terrorist--the terrorist who killed thousands of Americans--was a
good thing, but apparently, Pakistan prosecuted him;
In February 2012, a NATO report confirmed our suspicions: the ISI is
aiding the Taliban and other extremist groups in Afghanistan and
Pakistan by providing resources, sanctuary, and training;
In June 2011, Pakistan tipped off terrorists making IEDs--not once,
but twice--after we told them where the bomb-making factories were and
asked Pakistan to go after them;
In 2011, Pakistan tried to cheat the United States by filling out
bogus reimbursement claims for allegedly going after militants when
they weren't doing that at all.
There is more.
On September 22, 2011, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee:
``With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted that truck
bomb attack as well as the assault on our Embassy.'' The truck bombing
he mentions here wounded more than 70 U.S. and NATO allies and troops.
Admiral Mullen went on to say: ``The Haqqani Network acts as a
veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency.''
What more do we need to hear? Pakistan doesn't deserve American
money. By the end of fiscal year 2011, Pakistan had had a total of
$21.5 billion of American money since FY 2002. Mr. Chairman, I ask: Has
America received its money's worth? The answer is no.
I want to address a couple of arguments I've heard from the other
side:
First, some say that the money in this bill for Pakistan is only to
reimburse them for going after terrorists. They say we shouldn't take
away that carrot. But, since 2002, Congress has already appropriated
over $8 billion to the Coalition Support Fund specifically for
Pakistan. Where I come from, if you try something and it doesn't work,
you don't continue to do it. We've been doing the same thing for over
10 years. It's time for a new strategy with Pakistan. More money is not
going to solve the problem.
Second, they say Pakistan just reopened the southern supply route.
[[Page H4980]]
Pakistan closed the southern supply route from November 2011 to this
month. Pakistan was a bad ally before it closed the supply route. The
fact that they messed us around and closed it for 7 months only adds to
the long list of evidence that shows they are no friend of ours. It
also shows that we don't need them to win the war in Afghanistan. We
were able to pursue our mission in Afghanistan without them. What
really endangers our troops is not access to the southern supply route,
but the failure to get access to Pakistan's tribal areas where Pakistan
gives terrorists a safe haven.
Pakistan is playing America. The only thing Pakistan's military
rulers understand is dollars, and as long as we keep the money flowing,
they have no incentive to change their evil ways.
Our message should be this: Pakistan has a raging insurgency in their
country with al Qaeda, the Pakistan Taliban, and the Haqqani Network.
Pakistan can either receive assistance and go after these terrorists
with us or don't take any of our money, and we will find our own way to
take these terrorists out.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in telling Pakistan they will
no longer get American money. We don't need to pay Pakistan to betray
us. They will do it for free.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I agree with everything that Mr.
Poe said. You cannot have an ally who is an ally today but not an ally
tomorrow, and that has been our experience with Pakistan. The Defense
Department will tell you that it is very complicated because they do
enjoy a nuclear capability that could be dangerous if it got into the
wrong hands.
I would ask Mr. Poe a question and would yield to him for an answer:
Your amendment is not limited to Pakistan. Your amendment would cut
across the board and reduce money for the Kurdish Republic, Jordan,
which is one of our most important partners and coalitions in the
region; funding for the northern distribution networks; and numerous
other coalition partners who are helping in the fight against
terrorism.
{time} 1900
I wonder if we could talk you into amending your amendment or
rewriting your amendment to make it specifically to Pakistan. And let
me say this to you before you answer, and then I will yield to you.
In this bill, the money for Pakistan cannot be spent. We have fenced
this money--all of it--until the Secretary of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, certifies to Congress that the
government of Pakistan is doing this: cooperating with the United
States in counterterrorism efforts, including taking steps to end
support for terrorist groups and preventing them from basing and
operating in Pakistan and carrying out cross-border attacks; Pakistan
is not supporting terrorist activities against the United States or
coalition forces in Afghanistan; Pakistan is not dismantling IED
networks and is interdicting precursor chemicals used in making IEDs;
preventing the proliferation of nuclear-related materials.
There are four or five more, and I won't take the time. I want to do
what you want to do, but I don't want to have an adverse effect on our
coalition partners that we rely on so much.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
My understanding is, in the report language, to specify a certain
country would not be ruled in order; therefore, I used the $1.3 billion
with the floor statement that applies only to Pakistan and none of our
coalition countries that you have mentioned.
I am open to an amendment that would be ruled in order, and I would
be glad to work with the chairman on that amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. We would probably have to take a few minutes to
do that, which I would be very happy to do because what you want to do
is what I want to do.
Mr. Chairman, let me inquire as to where we are in this bill so we
can have an opportunity to amend this amendment and still not get
beyond the point of reading.
The Acting CHAIR. The reading has progressed to page 127, line 2.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Would the gentleman be willing to do just that,
withdraw your amendment now, and let us take a few minutes and
guarantee that these coalition partners are not included?
Mr. POE of Texas. Yes, I would certainly be willing to do that.
I will withdraw my amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman very much. This is an
important issue.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army Reserve'', $152,387,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control act of 1985.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Altmire
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 127, line 5, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $5,500,000)''.
Page 128, line 11, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 129, line 4, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $18,500,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will
restore $15.5 million that was cut from the Yellow Ribbon program under
this bill.
While I understand the tough budget constraints we face, I think we
can all agree that programs that provide essential services to the
brave men and women who risk their lives to serve our country should
not be on the chopping block. Simply put, no one should stand ahead of
our Nation's veterans and our men and women in uniform when it comes
time to making Federal funding decisions.
Congress established the Yellow Ribbon program in 2008 to provide
tailored support to meet the unique needs of the National Guard and
Reserve combat veterans and their families before, during, and after
their deployments. The services it provides includes suicide
prevention, career counseling, access to health care, veteran, and
education benefits. Last year alone, the Yellow Ribbon program held
over 2,100 events across the country, reaching over 300,000 servicemen
and -women and their families.
As the number of returning National Guard and Reserve combat veterans
increases, the need for these services increases along with it. My
amendment will help to ensure the Yellow Ribbon program is there to
meet the increasing need. My amendment simply restores funding for the
Yellow Ribbon program to its level from the previous year, fiscal year
2012, paid for by transferring funds from the overseas contingency
operations transfer account. The $15.5 million returned to the Yellow
Ribbon program represents only one half of 1 percent of this account.
While I recognize its importance, I think a small part of the funding
can and should be used to help our National Guard and Reserve veterans
and their families navigate through the challenges associated with
their deployment.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The Yellow Ribbon program is a very great
program, and the gentleman has made the case very powerfully. I am in
support of what he is trying to do. I support the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
[[Page H4981]]
Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman for his amendment, and we
gladly support it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Navy Reserve'', $55,924,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Marine Corps Reserve'', $25,477,000: Provided, That such
amount is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air Force Reserve'', $120,618,000: Provided, That such amount
is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army National Guard'', $382,448,000: Provided, That such
amount is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air National Guard'', $34,500,000: Provided, That such amount
is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund
(including transfer of funds)
In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in this Act,
there is appropriated $3,250,000,000 for the ``Overseas
Contingency Operations Transfer Fund'' for expenses directly
relating to overseas contingency operations by United States
military forces, to be available until expended: Provided,
That of the funds made available in this section, the
Secretary of Defense may transfer these funds only to
military personnel accounts, operation and maintenance
accounts, procurement accounts, and working capital fund
accounts: Provided further, That the funds made available in
this paragraph may only be used for programs, projects, or
activities categorized as Overseas Contingency Operations in
the fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Department of
Defense and the justification material and other
documentation supporting such request: Provided further, That
the funds transferred shall be merged with and shall be
available for the same purposes and for the same time period,
as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further,
that the Secretary shall notify the congressional defense
committees 15 days prior to such transfer: Provided further,
That the transfer authority provided under this heading is in
addition to any other transfer authority available to the
Department of Defense: Provided further, That upon a
determination that all or part of the funds transferred from
this appropriation are not necessary for the purposes
provided herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this
appropriation and shall be available for the same purposes
and for the same time period as originally appropriated:
Provided further, That such amount is designated by the
Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund
(including transfer of funds)
For the ``Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund'', $375,000,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2014: Provided, That
such funds shall be available to the Secretary of Defense for
infrastructure projects in Afghanistan, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, which shall be undertaken by the
Secretary of State, unless the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Defense jointly decide that a specific project
will be undertaken by the Department of Defense: Provided
further, That the infrastructure referred to in the preceding
proviso is in support of the counterinsurgency strategy,
which may require funding for facility and infrastructure
projects, including, but not limited to, water, power, and
transportation projects and related maintenance and
sustainment costs: Provided further, That the authority to
undertake such infrastructure projects is in addition to any
other authority to provide assistance to foreign nations:
Provided further, That any projects funded under this heading
shall be jointly formulated and concurred in by the Secretary
of State and Secretary of Defense: Provided further, That
funds may be transferred to the Department of State for
purposes of undertaking projects, which funds shall be
considered to be economic assistance under the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 for purposes of making available the
administrative authorities contained in that Act: Provided
further, That the transfer authority in the preceding proviso
is in addition to any other authority available to the
Department of Defense to transfer funds: Provided further,
That any unexpended funds transferred to the Secretary of
State under this authority shall be returned to the
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund if the Secretary of State, in
coordination with the Secretary of Defense, determines that
the project cannot be implemented for any reason, or that the
project no longer supports the counterinsurgency strategy in
Afghanistan: Provided further, That any funds returned to the
Secretary of Defense under the previous proviso shall be
available for use under this appropriation and shall be
treated in the same manner as funds not transferred to the
Secretary of State: Provided further, That contributions of
funds for the purposes provided herein to the Secretary of
State in accordance with section 635(d) of the Foreign
Assistance Act from any person, foreign government, or
international organization may be credited to this Fund, to
remain available until expended, and used for such purposes:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not
fewer than 15 days prior to making transfers to or from, or
obligations from the Fund, notify the appropriate committees
of Congress in writing of the details of any such transfer:
Provided further, That the ``appropriate committees of
Congress'' are the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign
Relations and Appropriations of the Senate and the Committees
on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Appropriations of the
House of Representatives: Provided further, That such amount
is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cicilline
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 130, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $375,000,000)''.
Page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $375,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the
continued appropriation of hundreds of millions of dollars to the
Afghanistan infrastructure fund while our national infrastructure is
crumbling here in America.
President Obama has laid out a broad vision for completing our work
in Afghanistan, turning security responsibilities over to the Afghan
people, and bringing our troops home. Now is the time to focus our
resources here in the United States, on our own roads, bridges,
schools, and infrastructure.
We have already spent billions of dollars toward rebuilding the
infrastructure of Afghanistan. As we begin drawing down combat
operations in Afghanistan, it's the responsibility of the Afghan people
to build, operate, and maintain their own civilian and military
institutions, and their own infrastructure.
My amendment, which I offer along with the gentleman from California
(Mr. Honda), the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), and
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), would strike the funding of the
Afghanistan infrastructure fund and apply the savings to the spending
reduction account.
Established by Congress in the fiscal year 2011 National Defense
Authorization, in its first year, the Afghanistan infrastructure fund
received an appropriation of $400 million. These funds have been
dedicated to projects that are jointly approved by the Department of
State and the Department of Defense, and the projects include power
generation and transmission, roads, and construction of other large
infrastructure projects.
{time} 1910
According to the April 2012 report by the Special Inspector General
for Afghanistan Reconstruction, from fiscal year 2002 to the end of
March, fiscal
[[Page H4982]]
year 2012, the United States appropriated approximately $89.4 billion
for relief and reconstruction in Afghanistan. Approximately $800
million has been provided thus far for the Afghanistan Infrastructure
Fund.
As the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service indicates from 2012
to 2010, the U.S. Agency for International Development allocated more
than $2 billion towards road construction and more than $1.2 billion
towards electric power in Afghanistan. While we've spent billions of
dollars on infrastructure in Afghanistan, we have also seen reports
from the Government Accountability Office and others that have
highlighted the challenges in accounting for how reconstruction funds
are spent and the overall impact that these are having on the society
there.
Yet according to a 2011 report by the American Society of Civil
Engineers, the cost of our crumbling infrastructure right here in
America is real. By the year 2020, our Nation's crumbling surface
transportation infrastructure is slated to cost the United States
economy more than 876,000 jobs and suppress the country's growth of
gross domestic product by $897 billion.
These costs are only going to increase more and more if we don't take
the action to make the much-needed and long-deferred investments in our
own transportation systems and our own infrastructure. When we look at
the bigger picture, including water and wastewater, energy, schools,
ports and more, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that
over the next 5 years we would need an investment of $2.2 trillion just
to bring our Nation's infrastructure to a condition they describe as
``good.''
Every year that we wait to take meaningful steps to do this, the cost
to taxpayers and to our economy keeps growing and growing and growing.
Over the past 18 months, constituents have expressed to me tremendous
frustration that we're devoting so many of our resources and so much of
our energy to rebuilding the infrastructure in Afghanistan.
They ask why we are dedicating so much to nation-building halfway
around the world when there are so many families right here in our own
country who are struggling to find work and make ends meet.
We need to do nation-building right here at home in America. This
amendment is a strong step in support of reinvesting in our own economy
and our own infrastructure right here at home.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this gets to be a very serious
issue if we want to get our troops out of Afghanistan. At numerous
hearings, General Allen, who commands in Afghanistan, General Mattis,
commander of Central Command, this was their recommendation. This is
what they said they needed in order to get us and get our troops out of
Afghanistan, which I think we all want to see happen as quickly as
possible. Certainly I can tell you that I do.
We did not fund it totally because some of the plans were not
sufficiently considered; but, generally, this is what our commanders in
the field, those responsible for fighting the fight, those responsible
for leading our troops, this is what they tell us they need to get our
troops out of Afghanistan. I do object and oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Woodall). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 130, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $175,000,000)''.
Page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $175,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COHEN. I'm not going to repeat some of the arguments that were
made by my colleague from Rhode Island, but I understand them.
There is, indeed, a large need for infrastructure in our country.
We're falling far behind, and we've invested a lot of money in
Afghanistan that has been wasted; a tremendous amount of money has been
wasted. The most recent report I saw said that we cannot even begin to
approximate how much money has been stolen and wasted in Afghanistan.
We're not providing infrastructure for the people. We're providing a
ruling class, a limited--we talk about the 2 percent here--we're
talking about the one-tenth of 1 percent in Afghanistan, if that, and
giving them the opportunity to put money in their pocket that should be
going to the people.
I ask the gentleman on the other side of the aisle who opposed the
last amendment to consider this one, which almost passed last year,
same basic amendment. This takes 175 million out, leaves 200 million in
the fund, but it says they have got to prioritize, pick their projects
and pick what they do.
It doesn't decimate the fund; it just prioritizes and takes 175
million out of the Afghan infrastructure fund. We rebuilt Iraq. They're
partners with Iran now. Didn't do us a lot of good.
Most of us have been to Afghanistan or, at least, better yet, many of
us have. We could do all the infrastructure in the world. It will go to
waste. They can't even maintain it.
They don't have vehicles to use the roads. It's crazy to build them
roads to go from point A to point B when they don't have cars. They
have got oxen and carts.
So I would say that we reduce it by 175 million, we leave 200
million. Certainly I want our troops out. I went and visited with 124
soldiers, Guardsmen in Memphis, who were going down to Camp Shelby
before they go to Afghanistan. I went down to visit with them yesterday
when they went off, all police people.
I suspect that one of those people may not come back. I hated the
idea that those people were leaving Memphis to go to Afghanistan. It
will be the last troops going over.
I want them out. If Mr. Young understands, I guess, there is some
magic to this money, there would be $200 million left. If it's roads to
get them out and airports to get them out, fine. But I can't believe
they need all 375; and I have to submit that I think that a lot of that
money is for roads, infrastructure, hospitals, grids, whatever that has
nothing to do with our troops getting out. It has something to do with
some people who continue a policy that has failed to really build up
goodwill toward America or to see that the monies go where they belong.
I ask that we think of America first, we get our troops out, we leave
$200 million in the fund. I ask you to approve this amendment and
reduce the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund by $175 million. I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would say to the sponsor of the amendment
that this is a more reasonable approach--yes, it is--but this actually
cuts the fund in half. Now, that is a major cut on something that our
military commanders in the field say that they really need to have.
Now, the committee took a $25 million cut, but that was in agreement
with the commanders. They felt that they could absorb that cut and
still do the program, but I don't think I can support cutting this
program in half.
Mr. COHEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. COHEN. I didn't know, in your statement to the gentleman from
Rhode Island, why are these funds needed to get our troops out? Do we
not have airplanes, roads, boats and whatever to get our folks out?
[[Page H4983]]
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. We are having a little trouble hearing at the
table here.
Mr. COHEN. I said, in response to the gentleman from Rhode Island,
you have said these funds, all $375 million, were needed to get our
troops out of Afghanistan. Are we building, like, runways to get all
our troops out, roads to get them out?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I want the troops out of
Afghanistan as soon as our military commanders advise us and the
President that we can do so and we can do it safely.
I have seen on my weekly visits to the Walter Reed/Bethesda Hospital,
I have seen the terrible, terrible tragic cost of this war, and that
doesn't even talk about those who have lost their lives.
I don't want to walk through that hospital and see any more quadruple
or triple amputees. I don't want to see that, and our military
commanders must make that decision. We are not in a position to make
that decision of how, when, where do we accomplish this departure from
Afghanistan with victory.
{time} 1920
And so I still have to express my objection to this amendment because
it cuts the fund that our military commanders tell us that they need--
cuts it in half. And so I just have to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
will be postponed.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment
that was offered by Congressman Poe, which I understand may well be
reintroduced once the wording is worked on a little bit by the end of
this discussion. Let me just then move forward with my support for
Judge Poe's amendment and the basic concept that he's presented, which
is to eliminate funding for Pakistan.
Basically, we need to end the charade once and for all that we are
buying Pakistani cooperation against terrorist forces in South Asia.
Pakistan isn't with us in the war against terrorism. They are at war
with us by supporting and funding the very terrorists that we are up
against. Pakistan, at best, is a war profiteer, collecting a ransom by
taxing our military supply lines that pass through their country. They
are laughing all the way to the bank. They are also laughing as their
military intelligence, the ISI, takes huge sums of money that they are
getting from us and then passing it on to terrorists and radical
Islamist elements who are killing their neighbors and killing American
military personnel.
After our SEALs went to get Osama bin Laden, the Pakistan military
took the wreckage of our downed stealth helicopter and gave it for
study to the Communist Chinese. Then they arrested and imprisoned the
Pakistani doctor who risked his life to help us find bin Laden. Dr.
Afridi still languishes in a Pakistani dungeon even as we speak here
today. Some of us understand that this Pakistani doctor--and I hope we
should all understand this--is an American hero. He risked his life to
bring justice to the murderers of 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11. It
is a shame that we even consider giving Pakistan billions of dollars of
aid while they keep Dr. Afridi in a dungeon. Who else will ever
cooperate with us in the future? Who's going to work with our military
overseas, knowing that that's the way we treat people who commit heroic
acts? We shouldn't give the Pakistanis one penny until Dr. Afridi is
free.
Just recently, I was contacted by a distraught individual in Pakistan
asking for help in locating a missing Baloch leader. Sadly, this Baloch
leader is probably already dead--another victim of the Pakistani
government's ``kill and dump'' policy by which they repress their own
people.
We have to understand we have lost over 2,000 American military
personnel in Afghanistan. But who has been supporting the side that has
been killing our people? The Pakistanis have inspired and supported
these very insurgents. They were the creators of the Taliban. And after
9/11, they played us for fools ever since.
Yesterday, this House passed a bill that Pakistani's Haqqani Network
should be listed as a terrorist organization. That terrorist
organization has been helped and supplied by some members of the
Pakistani military. We should have quit bankrolling this rotten regime
a long time ago. We should end the charade.
There are people in South Asia that are our friends. Due to the Cold
War, we allied ourselves with Pakistan a long time ago, and we were
told they were the bulwark against radical Islam. That was a lie. But
during the Cold War, we needed them in the fight against the Soviet
Union. The Cold War is over. We should ally ourselves with people who
share our values and cherish, as we cherish them, a friendship between
free people. As I say, we should go towards India, now that the Cold
War is over, to help establish a new type of relationship in South Asia
that will preserve the peace and preserve the equilibrium in that part
of the world.
It is ridiculous for us to continue to support that country, that
government that is the basis of support for the most radical elements
of radical Islam and the terrorist units that are killing our people
and killing their people throughout the world. If we're having trouble
getting out of Pakistan, it's because the Pakistanis are on the wrong
side. And we all know it. We shouldn't give one more penny thinking
we're going to buy their friendship. They disdain us for it. They think
we're weaklings for it.
Let's stand up for Dr. Afridi. Let's stand up and make sure that we
are courageous in what we're doing in our policy and not trying to
curry favor with gangsters that run a country like Pakistan.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
For the ``Afghanistan Security Forces Fund'',
$5,026,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014:
Provided, That such funds shall be available to the Secretary
of Defense, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
the purpose of allowing the Commander, Combined Security
Transition Command-Afghanistan, or the Secretary's designee,
to provide assistance, with the concurrence of the Secretary
of State, to the security forces of Afghanistan, including
the provision of equipment, supplies, services, training,
facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, and
construction, and funding: Provided further, That the
authority to provide assistance under this heading is in
addition to any other authority to provide assistance to
foreign nations: Provided further, That contributions of
funds for the purposes provided herein from any person,
foreign government, or international organization may be
credited to this Fund, to remain available until expended,
and used for such purposes: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional defense
committees in writing upon the receipt and upon the
obligation of any contribution, delineating the sources and
amounts of the funds received and the specific use of such
contributions: Provided further, That the Secretary of
Defense shall, not fewer than 15 days prior to obligating
from this appropriation account, notify the congressional
defense committees in writing of the details of any such
obligation: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense
shall notify the congressional defense committees of any
proposed new projects or transfer of funds between budget
sub-activity groups in excess of $20,000,000: Provided
further, That such amount is designated by the Congress for
Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Boswell
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 132, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $22,000,000)''.
Page 141, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
[[Page H4984]]
Mr. BOSWELL. I rise to offer an amendment with my good friend from
Washington (Mr. McDermott) to provide greater funding for suicide
prevention outreach for our troops on Active Duty. This amendment would
add $10 million for suicide prevention outreach in the Defense Health
Program of the Operations and Maintenance Account in title IX of the
bill. It would pay for this by transferring $22 million from the
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund. This amendment is fully paid for,
fiscally responsible, and incredibly timely.
This is the most recent issue of Time magazine, reporting that
military and veteran suicide is a tragic epidemic that has only gotten
worse. We are currently losing one U.S. soldier every day to suicide. I
know my colleague, Dr. McDermott, comes to this issue as an expert in
the field. I come as a Vietnam veteran and someone very passionate
about providing our heroes with the care and the support they deserve.
In 2007, I wrote the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act to
honor the memory of a young veteran from Iowa who, tragically, took his
life in front of his mother. To make sure veterans have 24/7 access to
a crisis hotline and other mental health resources, we passed that
bill. Since then, the Veterans Crisis hotline has answered more than
600,000 calls and reportedly made more than 21,000 lifesaving rescues.
Tragically, we still lose a veteran to suicide every 80 minutes. So we
have much more to do.
I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work on
this issue. You worked tirelessly to combat suicide rates amongst our
servicemembers and our veterans. I hope you will join me in supporting
this amendment. We are losing too many of our heroes. It's up to us to
act.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from Washington, Dr. McDermott.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Boswell.
Mr. Boswell and I saw the Vietnam war in different ways--he, by
flying a helicopter and me, by being a psychiatrist dealing with people
who came home. And I feel strongly that suicide prevention and the
intervention must become, in military speak, a core mission of the
military.
This week's Time magazine, as you see from that front page, describes
military suicides as an epidemic. I would like to take $10 million out
of a $19 billion fund in this amendment to go beyond the funding for
existing suicide prevention services and toward modifying the culture
that keeps some from seeking help. We must also note that any progress
in suicide prevention will be fleeting if we don't focus on reducing
the stigma associated with seeking psychological health services among
our Active Duty people.
{time} 1930
I believe the Pentagon can do more to eradicate barriers to mental
health care. This means ensuring that mental health and substance abuse
issues are treated as medical issues and are taken out of the realm of
personnel matters. This means ensuring that seeking and receiving
psychological health care does nothing to jeopardize a soldier's
security clearance or prospects in his future career.
I would also urge the Pentagon to ensure that a portion of this money
goes toward hiring, development and retention of top-tier psychological
health talent for our military at this time. It is the tale of cost of
this war that nobody calculates when we go to war. What do we do when
the people come home? We forget them. We think they should pull
themselves together and go back to their regular life. And many of them
can't do it without some help. We need to provide it. They become
desperate, figure there's no hope and take their own life. That
shouldn't happen to a 24-year-old kid, man or woman, who has been in
Afghanistan or Iraq giving to our country what we ask from them. Their
willingness to risk the whole business of going to war has to be dealt
with when they come home.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. BOSWELL. I yield back the balance of my time and ask for
everyone's support.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I had opposed similar amendments in the past
because of the source of the funding, the defense-wide O&M accounts
which we just really cannot afford to cut into our readiness accounts.
This does not take funding from that account. And so I appreciate the
gentleman's changing the source of his amendment, and I'm agreeing to
the amendment.
Mr. BOSWELL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. BOSWELL. I just want to thank you again for your attention and
your dedication to this cause, Mr. Chairman. I've noticed that for
years you and the ranking member have worked together, and you're doing
the right thing. Thank you very much.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. DICKS. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to my friend from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman for his efforts here and
my colleague from Washington State who I know has an abiding concern
about this, as I do.
This is a tragedy when more people are dying from suicide than are in
combat. I know the Army has tried. General Corelli made an enormous
effort to try to find the answers, and it's a serious, difficult
problem. And a lot of it relies on trying to deal with these people
before they go over so that you can find the ones that are going to be
susceptible or have problems going in. It's just a very difficult
problem.
I commend the gentleman for his leadership on this.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
PROCUREMENT
Aircraft Procurement, Army
For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement,
Army'', $541,600,000, to remain available until September 30,
2015: Provided, That such amount is designated by the
Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Missile Procurement, Army
For an additional amount for ``Missile Procurement, Army'',
$49,653,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015:
Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress for
Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'', $15,422,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2015: Provided, That such
amount is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition,
Army'', $338,493,000, to remain available until September 30,
2015: Provided, That such amount is designated by the
Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Other Procurement, Army
For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army'',
$2,005,907,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015:
Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress for
Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement,
Navy'', $146,277,000, to remain available until September 30,
2015: Provided, That such amount is designated by the
Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Weapons Procurement, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Weapons Procurement, Navy'',
$22,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015:
Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress for
Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
[[Page H4985]]
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition,
Navy and Marine Corps'', $284,450,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2015: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
Other Procurement, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Navy'',
$98,882,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015:
Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress for
Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Procurement, Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Marine Corps'',
$943,683,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015:
Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress for
Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, Air
Force'', $305,600,000, to remain available until September
30, 2015: Provided, That such amount is designated by the
Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Missile Procurement, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Missile Procurement, Air
Force'', $34,350,000, to remain available until September 30,
2015: Provided, That such amount is designated by the
Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition,
Air Force'', $116,203,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2015: Provided, That such amount is designated
by the Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global
War on Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Other Procurement, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air
Force'', $2,785,170,000, to remain available until September
30, 2015: Provided, That such amount is designated by the
Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Procurement, Defense-wide
For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'',
$217,849,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015:
Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress for
Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army
For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Army'', $14,860,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2014: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Navy'', $60,119,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2014: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Air Force'', $53,150,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2014: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $107,387,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2014: Provided, That such
amount is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS
Defense Working Capital Funds
For an additional amount for ``Defense Working Capital
Funds'', $293,600,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
Defense Health Program
For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program'',
$993,898,000, which shall be for operation and maintenance,
to remain available until September 30, 2014: Provided, That
such amount is designated by the Congress for Overseas
Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to
section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense
For an additional amount for ``Drug Interdiction and
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'', $469,025,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2014: Provided, That such
amount is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
(including transfer of funds)
For an additional amount for the ``Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Fund'', $1,614,900,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2015: Provided, That such funds
shall be available to the Secretary of Defense,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purpose
of allowing the Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive
Device Defeat Organization to investigate, develop and
provide equipment, supplies, services, training, facilities,
personnel and funds to assist United States forces in the
defeat of improvised explosive devices: Provided further,
That the Secretary of Defense may transfer funds provided
herein to appropriations for military personnel; operation
and maintenance; procurement; research, development, test and
evaluation; and defense working capital funds to accomplish
the purpose provided herein: Provided further, That this
transfer authority is in addition to any other transfer
authority available to the Department of Defense: Provided
further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not fewer than
15 days prior to making transfers from this appropriation,
notify the congressional defense committees in writing of the
details of any such transfer: Provided further, That such
amount is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Speier
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 142, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $120,500,000)''.
Page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $120,500,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I'm here to offer an amendment to strike
$120.5 million in undistributed funds from the Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Fund, matching the Senate authorizers and
keeping intact over $1.7 billion for this program.
The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund--more commonly
known as JIEDDO--is responsible for leading, advocating and
coordinating the Defense Department's efforts to defeat IEDs. After
more than $20 billion, Congress has received numerous reports that
JIEDDO has had decidedly mixed outcomes, and after three attempts still
has not developed a mechanism for tracking the Pentagon's counter-IED
efforts. So we've spent $20 billion.
In the Senate, the Armed Services Committee cut $200 million from
JIEDDO. In their report, they said JIEDDO suffered from:
Duplication of effort with the military services, excessive
contractor support costs, and organizational inefficiencies.
As The Washington Post recently reported, these excessive contractor
support costs included noncompetitive contracts given to former
government employees profiting from Washington's perpetual revolving
door and hundreds of millions of dollars of contracts being
subcontracted out to other former military personnel.
Isn't this what our constituents dislike the most about what's going
on here, that there are cronyism activities, that there are revolving
doors and that military personnel, after they're retired, become
mentors?
[[Page H4986]]
{time} 1940
This bill also recognizes there's a problem here. The bill itself has
actually reduced their budget by $60 million.
The IED threat remains significant, but continuing to robustly invest
in counter-IED technology makes less sense, both tactically and
strategically.
From a tactical level, Pentagon statistics show that IEDs were 25
percent less effective this year than the year before. Strategically,
we are shifting away from ground wars and counterinsurgency missions
and must begin reallocating some of these funds to more pressing
national security needs.
In February, the GAO told Congress that JIEDDO's poor planning and
management resulted in many funds going to duplicative projects,
creating waste and likely slowing down the ability of the Department of
Defense to meet its mission objectives. For example, in 2008, U.S.
Central Command began development for a directed energy solution to
defeating IEDs. Without coordination, JIEDDO undertook six different
efforts to tackle the problem, which cost taxpayers at least $104
million.
When the commander of U.S. Central Command still didn't have a
solution by August 2011, he had to write JIEDDO to urge them to
coordinate their efforts in hopes of getting something he could field
to fulfill what was then a 3-year-old unmet requirement for the
warfighter. JIEDDO coordinated the effort of the six projects but
deferred making a decision on shifting resources or canceling the
project yet again. The organization also admitted that they likely
would not have been able to execute their mission to manage the
Pentagon's IED efforts in this case without the commander's written
protest.
Some soldiers in the field have also expressed disappointment at
JIEDDO's results. A marine that served in Afghanistan in 2009 compared
the IED-detecting devices issued by JIEDDO to a beachcomber's faulty
metal detector and said his IED jammers were frequently broken. Others
report that dogs remain more reliable detectors downrange.
It's time to stop signing a blank check for an organization that
cannot track its projects or expenditures, that often gives contracts
to its cronies, and that the GAO has said is duplicative.
As we draw down in Afghanistan and look to cut funds from much more
productive and efficient parts of the Federal budget, I urge you to
support these cuts of an inefficient organization that lacks the
management controls to prevent taxpayer dollars from being wasted.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the Joint IED Defeat fund recognizes
the fact that we're still a nation at war. The young men and women who
come back from war--and God forbid, some come back having paid the
ultimate sacrifice, but many come back with unbelievable wounds, double
amputees, loss of different limbs. This joint IED task force has done a
lot to minimize that possibility.
The committee did recognize, and as the gentlewoman mentions, we did
reduce spending in this fund by $70 million. But we're a nation at war.
They still have a critical mission. It's important that the work that
they continue to do to defeat sometimes the simplest IEDs and sometimes
the most complex IEDs continue. It's an investment that we need to make
to make sure that, as we finish our job in Afghanistan, that we do our
level best to protect our troops, those that are volunteering there,
and to bring them back home in one piece.
So we oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Office of the Inspector General
For an additional amount for the ``Office of the Inspector
General'', $10,766,000: Provided, That such amount is
designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS TITLE
Sec. 9001. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds made available in this title are in addition to amounts
appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department
of Defense for fiscal year 2013.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 9002. Upon the determination of the Secretary of
Defense that such action is necessary in the national
interest, the Secretary may, with the approval of the Office
of Management and Budget, transfer up to $3,000,000,000
between the appropriations or funds made available to the
Department of Defense in this title: Provided, That the
Secretary shall notify the Congress promptly of each transfer
made pursuant to the authority in this section: Provided
further, That the authority provided in this section is in
addition to any other transfer authority available to the
Department of Defense and is subject to the same terms and
conditions as the authority provided in the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 2013.
Sec. 9003. Supervision and administration costs associated
with a construction project funded with appropriations
available for operation and maintenance, ``Afghanistan
Infrastructure Fund'', or the ``Afghanistan Security Forces
Fund'' provided in this Act and executed in direct support of
overseas contingency operations in Afghanistan, may be
obligated at the time a construction contract is awarded:
Provided, That for the purpose of this section, supervision
and administration costs include all in-house Government
costs.
Sec. 9004. From funds made available in this title, the
Secretary of Defense may purchase for use by military and
civilian employees of the Department of Defense in the U.S.
Central Command area of responsibility: (a) passenger motor
vehicles up to a limit of $75,000 per vehicle; and (b) heavy
and light armored vehicles for the physical security of
personnel or for force protection purposes up to a limit of
$250,000 per vehicle, notwithstanding price or other
limitations applicable to the purchase of passenger carrying
vehicles.
Sec. 9005. Not to exceed $250,000,000 of the amount
appropriated in this title under the heading ``Operation and
Maintenance, Army'' may be used, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, to fund the Commander's Emergency Response
Program (CERP), for the purpose of enabling military
commanders in Afghanistan to respond to urgent, small-scale,
humanitarian relief and reconstruction requirements within
their areas of responsibility: Provided, That each project
(including any ancillary or related elements in connection
with such project) executed under this authority shall not
exceed $20,000,000: Provided further, That not later than 45
days after the end of each fiscal year quarter, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report regarding the source of funds and the
allocation and use of funds during that quarter that were
made available pursuant to the authority provided in this
section or under any other provision of law for the purposes
described herein: Provided further, That, not later than 30
days after the end of each month, the Army shall submit to
the congressional defense committees monthly commitment,
obligation, and expenditure data for the Commander's
Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan: Provided further,
That not less than 15 days before making funds available
pursuant to the authority provided in this section or under
any other provision of law for the purposes described herein
for a project with a total anticipated cost for completion of
$5,000,000 or more, the Secretary shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a written notice containing
each of the following:.
(1) The location, nature and purpose of the proposed
project, including how the project is intended to advance the
military campaign plan for the country in which it is to be
carried out.
(2) The budget, implementation timeline with milestones,
and completion date for the proposed project, including any
other CERP funding that has been or is anticipated to be
contributed to the completion of the project.
(3) A plan for the sustainment of the proposed project,
including the agreement with either the host nation, a non-
Department of Defense agency of the United States Government
or a third-party contributor to finance the sustainment of
the activities and maintenance of any equipment or facilities
to be provided through the proposed project.
Sec. 9006. Funds available to the Department of Defense
for operation and maintenance may be used, notwithstanding
any other provision of law, to provide supplies, services,
transportation, including airlift and sealift, and other
logistical support to coalition forces supporting military
and stability operations in Afghanistan: Provided, That the
Secretary of Defense shall provide quarterly reports to the
congressional defense committees regarding support provided
under this section.
Sec. 9007. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this or any other Act shall be obligated or
expended by the United States Government for a purpose as
follows:
(1) To establish any military installation or base for the
purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United
States Armed Forces in Iraq.
[[Page H4987]]
(2) To exercise United States control over any oil resource
of Iraq.
(3) To establish any military installation or base for the
purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United
States Armed Forces in Afghanistan.
Sec. 9008. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used in contravention of the following laws enacted or
regulations promulgated to implement the United Nations
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (done at New York on
December 10, 1984):
(1) Section 2340A of title 18, United States Code.
(2) Section 2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 (division G of Public Law 105-277;
112 Stat. 2681-822; 8 U.S.C. 1231 note) and regulations
prescribed thereto, including regulations under part 208 of
title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, and part 95 of title
22, Code of Federal Regulations.
(3) Sections 1002 and 1003 of the Department of Defense,
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes
in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006
(Public Law 109-148).
Sec. 9009. None of the funds provided for the
``Afghanistan Security Forces Fund'' (ASFF) may be obligated
prior to the approval of a financial and activity plan by the
Afghanistan Resources Oversight Council (AROC) of the
Department of Defense: Provided, That the AROC must approve
the requirement and acquisition plan for any service
requirements in excess of $50,000,000 annually and any non-
standard equipment requirements in excess of $100,000,000
using ASFF: Provided further, That the AROC must approve all
projects and the execution plan under the ``Afghanistan
Infrastructure Fund'' (AIF) and any project in excess of
$5,000,000 from the Commanders Emergency Response Program
(CERP): Provided further, That the Department of Defense must
certify to the congressional defense committees that the AROC
has convened and approved a process for ensuring compliance
with the requirements in the preceding provisos and
accompanying report language for the ASFF, AIF, and CERP.
Sec. 9010. Funds made available in this title to the
Department of Defense for operation and maintenance may be
used to purchase items having an investment unit cost of not
more than $250,000: Provided, That, upon determination by the
Secretary of Defense that such action is necessary to meet
the operational requirements of a Commander of a Combatant
Command engaged in contingency operations overseas, such
funds may be used to purchase items having an investment item
unit cost of not more than $500,000.
Sec. 9011. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, up
to $88,000,000 of funds made available in this title under
the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'' may be
obligated and expended for purposes of the Task Force for
Business and Stability Operations, subject to the direction
and control of the Secretary of Defense, with concurrence of
the Secretary of State, to carry out strategic business and
economic assistance activities in Afghanistan in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom: Provided, That not less than 15
days before making funds available pursuant to the authority
provided in this section for any project with a total
anticipated cost of $5,000,000 or more, the Secretary shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a written
notice containing a detailed justification and timeline for
each proposed project.
Sec. 9012. From funds made available to the Department of
Defense in this title under the heading ``Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force'' up to $508,000,000 may be used by
the Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, to support United States Government transition
activities in Iraq by funding the operations and activities
of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq and security
assistance teams, including life support, transportation and
personal security, and facilities renovation and
construction: Provided, That not less than 15 days before
making funds available pursuant to the authority provided in
this section, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a written notice containing a detailed
justification and timeline for each proposed site.
(availability of funds)
Sec. 9013. Each amount designated in this Act by the
Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
shall be available (or rescinded, if applicable) only if the
President subsequently so designates all such amounts and
transmits such designations to the Congress.
(rescissions)
Sec. 9014. Of the funds appropriated in Department of
Defense Appropriations Acts, the following funds are hereby
rescinded from the following accounts and programs in the
specified amounts: Provided, That such amounts are designated
by the Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global
War on Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985:
``Retroactive Stop Loss Special Pay Program, 2009/20XX'',
$79,900,000; and
``Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, 2012/20XX'',
$500,000,000.
Sec. 9015. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act under the heading ``Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide'' for payments under Section 1233
of Public Law 110-181 for reimbursement to the Government of
Pakistan may be made available unless the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State
certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that the
Government of Pakistan is--
(1) cooperating with the United States in counterterrorism
efforts against the Haqqani Network, the Quetta Shura
Taliban, Lashkar e-Tayyiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Al Qaeda, and
other domestic and foreign terrorist organizations, including
taking steps to end support for such groups and prevent them
from basing and operating in Pakistan and carrying out cross
border attacks into neighboring countries;
(2) not supporting terrorist activities against United
States or coalition forces in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's
military and intelligence agencies are not intervening extra-
judicially into political and judicial processes in Pakistan;
(3) dismantling improvised explosive device (IED) networks
and interdicting precursor chemicals used in the manufacture
of IEDs;
(4) preventing the proliferation of nuclear-related
material and expertise;
(5) issuing visas in a timely manner for United States
visitors engaged in counterterrorism efforts and assistance
programs in Pakistan; and
(6) providing humanitarian organizations access to
detainees, internally displaced persons, and other Pakistani
civilians affected by the conflict.
TITLE X
ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
spending reduction account
Sec. 10001. The amount by which the applicable allocation
of new budget authority made by the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives under section
302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the
amount of proposed new budget authority is $0.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, from the Clerk's reading, we've
reached the limitations portion of the bill, and we would encourage
Members having amendments for us to consider in that arena, or portion,
this would be the appropriate time for them to come forward.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1950
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to share the concern of seven
Members of this House that represent Army depots and arsenals,
including Letterkenny Army Depot in my congressional district in
Pennsylvania.
The following letter fully addresses our concerns:
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, July 12, 2012.
Hon. C.W. Bill Young,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Norm Dicks,
Ranking Member, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks: As Members
with Army Depots and Arsenals in our districts, we wish to
express our concern over significant funding reductions in
this year's House Defense Appropriations Bill that will
negatively impact the Army's organic industrial base. The
Fiscal Year 2013 Defense Appropriations Bill, Sec. 8087 cites
``excessive levels of funding carryover at Army Depots'' and
reduces ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'' (OMA) by $1.207
billion and ``Other Procurement, Army'' (OPA) by $1.253
billion. This reduction of approximately $2.5 billion will
have harmful consequences far beyond what was originally
forecasted and will derail the Army's ability to maintain
equipment readiness. Ultimately, we believe this legislation
as it currently stands will cripple the ability of depots and
arsenals to support our soldiers during a time of war. We
understand the competing priorities facing the committee, but
we believe it is vital that we work together with you to
address this critical issue.
This reduction of funds will not only hurt the ability of
Army depots and arsenals to generate and maintain its
workload for the next Fiscal Year, but will also have lasting
impacts on the defense industrial base that will be felt well
beyond 2013. The cuts to OMA and OPA will cause an estimated
3,000 layoffs of specialized technicians that cannot be
easily replaced or retrained if workload returns to its
normal rate. Core depot logistics requirements will be
increasingly difficult and costly to meet and the Department
of the Army will be forced to turn to contracted alternatives
in order to reduce the backlog. This cut will make the
organic base less attractive for program managers and will
likely reverse the recent trend of depots and arsenals being
the preferred source of manufacture and repair.
[[Page H4988]]
It is our understanding that the Army did not provide a
detailed explanation for excessive levels of carryover money
until after the Appropriations Committee passed this year's
Defense Bill. Once the Army provided this analysis, it became
clear to all parties involved that the House Appropriations
Committee's proposed funding levels would not provide
adequate funding to sustain depots and arsenals throughout
Fiscal Year 2013. As we approach the debate over the Defense
Appropriations Bill on the House floor, it is still unclear
to us what possible measures will be taken, if any, to reduce
the impact of these cuts.
We look forward to further discussing this issue with you
and working with you on any potential adjustments that can be
made before this legislation is considered by the House of
Representatives. We believe that a strong organic industrial
base is critical to maintaining our national security posture
and the current Defense Appropriations Bill will result in
unrecoverable consequences for our Army depots and arsenals.
Sincerely,
Bill Shuster.
David Loebsack.
Blake Farenthold.
Mike Rogers (AL).
Ralph Hall.
Robert Schilling.
This bill includes reductions in funding for depots and arsenals due
to a perceived surplus of funded workload available for previous fiscal
years. After further analysis and additional feedback provided by the
Army, we believe these cuts, as currently structured, could have a
lasting negative impact on the organic industrial base.
It is my understanding that the House Appropriations Committee agrees
that these current general provisions should be modified and is already
developing an alternative plan.
As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I look forward to
working with the chairman to address these concerns and to ensure we
provide adequate funding for depots and arsenals. I know we are both in
favor of a strong and capable organic industrial base and value the
critical role our depots and arsenals play in maintaining the readiness
of our military.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Loebsack).
Mr. LOEBSACK. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Our depots, arsenals, and their workforce are critical to our
national security and ability to rapidly equip our soldiers. For
example, in 2003, the Rock Island Arsenal produced 500 Humvee add-on
armor kits to protect our troops within 3 months of receiving the
order.
We must strengthen our arsenals and depots so that they are able to
continue to produce the equipment that is vitally needed by our men and
women in uniform. I am strongly concerned that the effects of the
bill's reductions will be felt beyond 2013 and across the organic
industrial base, and I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work
with us. I look forward to closely collaborating with him in support of
our arsenals and depots, and I appreciate this time.
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman from Iowa.
And the gentleman from Texas, who's not here on the floor, I'd like
to talk a little bit about his situation down at the Corpus Christi
Army Depot, which is an industry leader of repair and overhaul for our
aviation helicopters, employing over 6,000 civilians, of which 56
percent are veterans. Without CCAD, the Army would be unable to sustain
maximum combat power for the warfighter.
Further, the depot in Corpus Christi's stewardship of taxpayer
dollars is evident in the cost effective repair and overhaul of rotary
wing aircraft systems. For example, in fiscal year 2011, a record
production year, more than $47 million in cost savings was documented
at the CCAD.
With today's rotary wing aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems
flying in record numbers, the work at Corpus Christi Army Depot has
become invaluable to the aircraft to remain airworthy. I am concerned
that any lapse in production of the UH-60 Black Hawk Recap, CCAD's
larger single program, would have a negative impact on supporting
components programs and major OEM contracts and employers.
I know that the gentleman from Texas looks forward to working work
with the chairman--as do I and other Members of the House that
represent depots and arsenals--and the House Appropriations Committee
as this bill moves forward to conference.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentlemen for their comments, and we
share in their support of a strong organic industrial base and a
strong, ready military.
We are pleased to work closely with members of the army depot and
arsenal delegation throughout the conference proceedings to ensure
their concerns are fully addressed and the necessary adjustments to
depot and arsenal funding are made.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Woolsey
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The total amount of appropriations made available
by this Act is hereby reduced by $181,000,000.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's transportation infrastructure
is in terrible, terrible disrepair. More than ever, we need to be
pumping resources into transportation projects and into initiatives for
that end.
We need to upgrade and modernize our roads and highways, but we also
need to build up mass transit systems, buses, rail lines, et cetera.
Doing so improves lives in our communities, allowing people to move
around more freely and easily, and it also creates jobs. And by
reducing our dependency on automobile travel, this transportation is
clean, energy-efficient, and environmentally sensitive, as well.
Luckily, we have a Federal agency, the Federal Transit
Administration, or FTA, that exists to make exactly these investments.
I'm proud to say that my home district has benefited from FTA grants to
the tune of $11 million over the last year. A new commuter train, the
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, or SMART train, that connects the major
cities in my district is just one of the local projects that is putting
FTA money to good use.
So, at a moment when our transportation needs are so great across the
country, wouldn't it make sense to increase the FTA budget? Except that
the House, expressing the priorities of its Republican majority,
recently passed a fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill that cut $181
million from current FTA spending levels. And at the same time, they're
now presenting us with a Department of Defense spending bill that calls
for $1.1 billion more in military spending over current levels.
Why are we all being asked to tighten our belts while the military
industrial complex gets to loosen theirs by a few notches year after
year after year?
If the Federal budget crisis is so dire, Mr. Chairman, so dire that
we can pinch pennies on badly needed transit infrastructure, surely we
can do the same with a bloated Pentagon budget that has been growing
out of control for more than a decade now. And that's the simple
concept behind my amendment.
In the interest of fairness and shared sacrifice, I'm proposing a
$181 million cut to the Defense appropriations bill identical to the
reduction in FTA spending passed by the House a few weeks ago. I trust
that all my Republican colleagues, each one more fiscally responsible
than the next, will jump at this chance to further cut Federal
spending.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
gentlewoman's amendment. I'm the first to admit that defense should not
be immune to reasonable, analytically-based reductions, which are what
we've already done over the past few years.
Just 2 years ago, when Congress considered the fiscal year 2011
defense budget, the Department was planning on a fiscal year 2013
budget of roughly $562 billion. Their actual request for 2013, however,
was only $516 billion, $46 billion less.
[[Page H4989]]
{time} 2000
In fact, in the past two fiscal years, our committee has produced a
defense budget which totaled $39 billion below the request.
My point is that we have cut defense, but we have done so reasonably
and without impacting readiness or threatening the Department's ability
to protect our Nation and our allies. This fiscal year 2013 budget is
the first we've seen in which there are identifiable and significant
risks associated with the budget decisions we've made.
We've talked about that a lot today, about our pivot towards the Asia
Pacific, the growing capability of China, things on the North Korean
peninsula, for example, in cutting ships and in reducing the required
Navy ship fleet size, in retiring large numbers of aircraft, some of
which have been delivered, and in significantly underfunding facility
maintenance and modernization. We have tried to mitigate these as best
we could within our given allocation. Speaking of our allocation, it is
essentially in line with both the Ryan budget as well as with the
Defense authorization bill, both of which passed the House.
Finally, in just the CBO's most recent analysis of the Department's
future-years' defense program, they determined that the Department's
plans will cost $123 billion more than they projected over the next 5
years. National security, of course, should never be subjected to
partisan politics. Instead, we should show our support for our brave
men and women, who have sacrificed so much and who continue to do so on
our behalf.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to operate or maintain more than 300 land-based
intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we would like a copy of the
amendment, please.
I reserve a point of order until we have had a chance to look it
over.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey reserves a point of
order.
The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. Our current nuclear arsenal has significant overkill that
is built into it. Our country continues to spend more and more taxpayer
money on nuclear weapons even though the President and the Senate have
already agreed to reduce the number of deployed nuclear weapons, and
even though there is a growing bipartisan consensus that the United
States has an excessive number of nuclear weapons and that the United
States spends far more than it needs to for a nuclear deterrent and
defense.
That is why I rise today to offer my amendment: to reduce the number
of deployed intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles from 450 to
300.
I believe that this is the soundest approach to both our national
security and our economic security needs. Each of our land-based
nuclear missiles costs us--and this is an incredible number--$2.4
million every year to operate and to maintain. My amendment would save
the taxpayers about $360 million next year and every year after that.
It's not just arms control groups that support this departure from
Cold War thinking. It also includes General James Cartwright, who until
last year was the commander of the United States' nuclear forces.
General Cartwright published a report in May that concluded that zero
intercontinental ballistic missiles are necessary for our nuclear
deterrent or defense. The former commander of U.S. nuclear forces
doesn't think we need ICBMs at all.
So reducing the number from 450 to 300 still leaves more than enough
missiles for an effective nuclear deterrent. That's still more than
enough missiles to annihilate any of our enemies over and over. It not
only will turn our enemies into rubble, but it will make that rubble
bounce and bounce and bounce again. That's how many nuclear weapons we
would still have in reserve.
That is a real savings, and that savings can be used for the NIH
budget. The entire budget to find the cure for Alzheimer's--5 million
Americans have it--is $450 million a year. If we would just cut out
these ICBMs--and that leaves plenty left over--it would give us enough
money to almost double the budget to find a cure for something that
really is going to kill Americans, that really does terrify them in
their homes.
So I pray that the House will accept this amendment and send us in
the correct direction in which we should be heading in terms of really
protecting the American public.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I want to compliment the gentleman on listening to what we
discussed in the last go-around and then taking a hard look at land-
based ICBMs, which I believe have always been the most vulnerable part
of the triad. The most invulnerable part, of course, is our ballistic
missile submarine--and bombers are second--but the land-based ICBMs are
vulnerable. There is no question about that, and I do believe we can
reduce the amount of money we are spending on strategic forces. I think
the focus should be, as General Cartwright has suggested, on reducing
the ICBMs.
So this is a way to start this debate, and I am going to support the
gentleman's amendment today.
Mr. MARKEY. I just want to note here that the gentleman from
Washington State did pioneering work in the 1980s in identifying the
vulnerability of the land-based ICBM fleet. That discussion continues
even today out here on the House floor.
Mr. DICKS. I recall--and you might remember--that we had a great
discussion about synergism, about the synergy of the three legs of the
triad giving some protection to the land-based missiles.
I agree with the gentleman's overall premise that we don't need as
many nuclear weapons. I can remember John Lehman--famous for his 600-
ship Navy--always saying to me, if you want to cut something, cut the
submarines, and go ahead with the aircraft carriers and more airplanes
because they're conventional weapons and, therefore, more usable.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, normally the committee is given the
courtesy of seeing amendments that come to the floor. This is the third
time today, I believe, the gentleman from Massachusetts has shown a
lack of courtesy in letting the committee have copies of his
amendments.
Let me say, as a Nation, we still believe in a nuclear deterrent. The
last time I checked, there was bipartisan support for that. Both Mr.
Visclosky and I serve on the Energy and Water Subcommittee, and part of
our jurisdiction is to make sure that the President of the United
States, our Commander in Chief, verifies that we have nuclear
capabilities. The last time I checked, the administration was
conducting what we call a Nuclear Posture Review relative to what our
position should be in negotiations with other nuclear powers in terms
of the type of weapons that are so critical to the nuclear triad.
So, with all due respect to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who
referred to a lot of what we said as the
[[Page H4990]]
fantasy land of our bill, it would be good, actually, for the Members
of Congress to have some facts from the Nuclear Posture Review before
we consider something here which might put our Nation at risk.
I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so
as well.
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.
{time} 2010
Amendment Offered by Ms. Woolsey
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. The total amount of appropriations made available
by this Act is hereby reduced by $293,900,000.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, whenever we debate the Defense
appropriations bill, I feel like I'm living in an alternative universe,
because the other 51 weeks of the year all I hear from my Republican
colleagues is that the sky is falling and we have to rein in a deficit
that is wildly out of control. When it comes to the military budget,
that rhetoric is nowhere to be heard and my friends in the majority
become the biggest spenders of all. If cutting spending is a matter of
such great urgency, then I believe the Pentagon, which has been
generously funded over the years, can pitch in its share.
Why do the programs that Americans depend on for basic needs have to
take the budget hit? For example, under the Labor-HHS appropriations
bill, the title X program is not just trimmed but completely zeroed
out. For more than 40 years, title X has been a lifesaving source of
family planning services and preventive health care for millions and
millions of low-income women. PAP tests, breast exams, early detection
of cervical cancer--uninsured women depend on title X in order to
receive these vital services at clinics nationwide. The proposed
elimination of funding would be devastating to these women and to their
families.
It's critical to point out, Mr. Chairman, by law, not a single penny
of title X money is used to perform an abortion. If, however, you want
to reduce unintended pregnancies, as the other side says it does, then
there is no more effective program than title X.
Title X was signed into law by President Nixon and has historically
enjoyed broad bipartisan support, at least until the Republican
Congress decided to launch a war on women. Now they want to eliminate
funding for the program completely. We spent just under $294 million on
title X last fiscal year. To put things in perspective, Mr. Chairman,
that's less than what we spend on any given day to continue a failed
military occupation of Afghanistan.
Mr. Chairman, if we're going to ask poor women to give up all the
benefits they receive from title X, then I think we can ask the
Pentagon to give up the exact same amount: $293 million. It's just so
big, it makes my head spin. If we did that, we would be saving the
misguided elimination of title X. That's what my amendment does,
because I believe women need to access lifesaving health care at least
as much as the military needs another $293 million. In fact, if my
Republican colleagues truly believe that the Federal deficit represents
a moral crisis demanding sacrifice from everyone, then I'm confident
they're going to support my amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I don't know how many times that
I have said this on this floor and in the committee and to anyone that
would listen: You cannot make your decisions on national defense based
on politics. You can't make your decision based on national defense
just on a number. And this number, by the way, on this similar
amendment, has changed. Where is the commitment?
The policies and the investment in our national defense must be based
on the real threat to our own security, to the security of the United
States, to the security of our troops, and to the security of our
allies and our interests, whatever they might be. Stop and think. The
threat has not diminished. The threat has not gone away.
Did anybody happen to watch Iran's exercises last week where they
fired short-range missiles, medium-range missiles, and long-range
missiles? Iran is moving to make itself a strong military capability
nation. That is a threat. Their commentaries about the United States
and to the United States, that's a threat. We have got to be careful.
China is expanding its military, expanding its technology, and
expanding its work in cyber. The threat is growing, and so this is not
the time to reduce our capability, to reduce our readiness, to reduce
our training, to reduce in preparing our troops for whatever is
required to defend the Nation that we love so much.
This amendment just can't go, and I strongly ask Members to oppose
this amendment and the message that it would send around the world that
we don't care about the threat. We do care about the threat, and we are
aware of the threat, and we know what it could mean to us.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. LoBiondo
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to operate an unmanned aircraft system except in
accordance with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, the Fourth Amendment is unequivocal that
``the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches, shall not be
violated.'' I'm a firm believer in this. I'm also a firm believer in
article I, section 8 of the Constitution that Congress shall have the
right to provide for the common defense of the United States.
Therefore, I offer my amendment to ensure that no funding will be used
to operate unmanned aerial systems, except those operations that are in
accordance with the Fourth Amendment.
We need to make sure our citizens explicitly understand that while
funding for these platforms is critical for our Nation's intelligence
activities, these normal operations will not conflict with our
constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
This language would ensure that there is no misperception about the
Department's use of these technologies, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
[[Page H4991]]
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.
Mr. LoBIONDO. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 2020
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into a contract for UH-60 Leak Proof Drip
Pans using procedures other than competitive procedures (as
defined in section 2302(2) of title 10, United States Code).
Mr. FLAKE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the reading be dispensed with.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. This bill would prohibit the use of funds in the bill to
enter into a contract with a company for leakproof drip pans unless the
contract is awarded using competitive procedures as defined by statute.
A recent article by The New York Times highlights the story of a
sole-source contract being awarded to a for-profit company to produce
leak pans used in Black Hawk helicopters operated by the U.S. Army.
These pans, according to The New York Times, cost $17,000 apiece, and
in the last 3 years the Army has purchased $6.5 million of them.
An Army spokesman is quoted in the article, saying, ``Congress
mandated a leakproof transmission drip pan,'' and that the contract was
awarded without competitive bids.
I think that we can all agree that any contract administered by the
Army or any other Federal agency should be awarded based on competitive
procedures, which are already codified in statute.
While there are no line items for these pans included in the bill
before us or the accompanying report, the Times reports that the Army
has indicated that it ``might get more pans if financing is approved.''
The Department of Defense is already in the process of slashing its
budget. They are learning to do more with less as Americans all over
the country have had to do in the past several years. If a competitor
exists who will produce these pans for less than $17,000 apiece, we
ought to make sure that they compete for the project.
The amendment before us now would not prohibit the procurement of
these pans even if it is determined that there is one company that can
supply the Army with them--now, if there is only one company--but it
would ensure that any purchase of these pans is done in a manner
consistent with competitive procedures, putting to rest any notion that
Congress has mandated sole-source contracts for private companies. This
is a good governance, commonsense amendment.
I urge my colleagues to adopt it, and I look forward, if there is any
objection--I think it's a good government amendment, but I would love
to be able--I can't reserve my time, but I would like to have a
dialogue if somebody has an issue with this amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DICKS. So what you are saying is you have got to have a
competitive procedure.
Mr. FLAKE. That's correct.
Mr. DICKS. This is, I think, what we tried to do a few years ago on
defense-related--with private companies is to have a competitive
procedure, which I agree with. I think the gentleman is right on this.
I appreciate his amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. It has been a long-standing practice put in
place by appropriations legislation years ago that the contracts for
these pans must be awarded under a competitive process. In fact, the FY
2010 DOD appropriations bill required that the contract be competitive,
and every year the Army holds an open competition where it asks all
qualified companies to place a bid.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I don't think the amendment is necessary,
but I do agree with what it does, and I accept the amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman, and I know that we have made
efforts in the past to make sure that these are all competitively bid.
The reason I am bringing this amendment is that the Army stated in
this case that this contract was not competitively bid. We just want to
make sure, and that's why I appreciate the gentleman accepting the
amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. We do understand that the law does exist that
requires it, so we're with you.
Mr. FLAKE. Thank you.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee of California
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--None of the
funds made available by this Act may be used for any account
of the Department of Defense (other than accounts excluded by
subsection (b)) in excess of the amount made available for
such account for fiscal year 2008, unless the financial
statements of the Department for fiscal year 2013 are
validated as ready for audit within 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Accounts Excluded.--The following accounts are excluded
from the prohibition in subsection (a):
(1) Military personnel, reserve personnel, and National
Guard personnel accounts of the Department of Defense.
(2) The Defense Health Program account.
(c) Validation Defined.--In this section, the term
``validation'', with respect to the auditability of financial
statements, means a determination, following an examination,
that the financial statements comply with generally accepted
accounting principles and applicable laws and regulations and
reflect reliable internal controls.
(d) Waiver.--The President may waive subsection (a) with
respect to a component or program of the Department if the
President certifies that applying the subsection to that
component or program would harm national security or members
of the Armed Forces who are in combat.
Ms. LEE of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlelady's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I join with my esteemed
colleague, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, in offering an
amendment which hits really at the heart of the issue of fiscal
responsibility.
My amendment is short and to the point. If enacted, it would freeze
Department of Defense programs at fiscal year 2008 levels unless the
financial statements of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2013
are validated as ready for audit within 6 months of enactment of this
act.
This amendment would exempt military personnel, Reserve and National
Guard personnel accounts, as well as the Defense Health Program
accounts from this potential funding freeze. It also contains a waiver
for any potential harm to national security or combat forces.
[[Page H4992]]
Now, some of my colleagues may make the argument that the Department
of Defense is making progress on this issue in response to
congressional engagement. They might reference language in recent
Defense authorization bills requiring DOD to develop and implement
plans to achieve audit readiness by September 30, 2017.
But let me just say, Mr. Chairman, this is wholly unacceptable that
we are still just developing plans for the Department of Defense to
have much its fiscal house in order 5 years from now. This problem is
not newly discovered and further delay is really an abandonment of our
congressional duty, given the enormous and increasing proportion of
Federal dollars going towards the defense budget. In the 1990s,
Congress was promised that these financial deficiencies would be solved
by 1997. This timeline then was delayed to 2007 in the early 2000s.
Given the Pentagon's past failures to meet deadlines, why should we
believe the 2017 timeline will be honored?
Nearly 60 cents of every Federal discretionary dollar now goes
towards defense spending, and by the Pentagon's own admission, they
cannot properly account for how the money is spent.
Can you imagine? We have nonprofit organizations that get shut down
behind a few thousand dollars in unaccountable funds.
There is no doubt that these circumstances have contributed to
instances of waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon, including more
than $300 billion in major weapons cost overruns identified by the
Government Accountability Office.
It's time to finally do away with the culture of unlimited spending
and no accountability at the Pentagon. Being strong on defense does not
mean handing a free pass to irresponsible spending. I believe it's
critical that the Department of Defense be not only prepared and
validated as ready for an audit, but actually pass an audit.
Today I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and take a first
step toward compelling the Department of Defense to act with urgency on
this matter. The financial reforms necessary to abide by basic
accounting standards, laws, and regulations at the Department of
Defense cannot wait.
I deeply regret that my colleagues would invoke a point of order on
an issue of such vital importance to Congress' charge to conduct
responsible oversight on Federal expenditures. I wish that the Pentagon
would be held to the same standards as nonprofit organizations and
those in business and other entities responsible for responsibly
spending Federal dollars.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore,
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part:
``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order
if changing existing law.''
The amendment grants new authority.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order? If not, the Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment imposes a new duty on the
Secretary to validate certain data as ready for audit. The amendment
therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
{time} 2030
Amendment Offered by Mr. Wittman
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to propose, plan for, or execute an additional Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WITTMAN. This amendment directs that none of the funds made
available in this act may be used to propose, plan for, or execute an
additional Base Realignment and Closure, or BRAC, round. During the
House Armed Services Committee markup of H.R. 4310 on May 9, a similar
amendment passed with overwhelming bipartisan support by a vote of 44-
18, with 14 of 27 Democrats voting in favor of a similar amendment.
On February 27, 2012, I joined 41 fellow Members of Congress in
signing a bipartisan letter to President Obama expressing our concerns
over his administration's announcement of the intent to request two new
rounds of BRACs. Six House Armed Services Subcommittee chairmen signed
this letter also.
The 2005 BRAC is estimated to cost $36 billion, and the taxpayers
will not realize that net savings until 2018, at the earliest. Congress
has robustly funded the military construction accounts over the past 3
years to accommodate the growing Army and Marine Corps. Proposed new
rounds of military base closures by the President will require
additional expenses in a time of military spending reductions. More
BRAC rounds will cost more than it saves in the near-term and negate
the value of deficit reduction. More BRAC rounds will cost billions of
dollars and thousands of jobs.
According to the GAO in a study that was concluded in March 2012,
DOD's fiscal year 2012 budget submission to Congress on BRAC 2005 shows
that costs to implement the BRAC recommendations grew from $21 billion
originally estimated by the BRAC Commission in 2005 dollars to about
$35.1 billion in current dollars, an increase of about $14.1 billion,
or 67 percent. In constant 2005 dollars, costs increased to $32.2
billion, an increase of 53 percent.
In 2005, the Commission estimated net annual recurring savings of
$4.2 billion and a 20-year net present value savings by 2025 of $36
billion. GAO's analysis shows annual recurring savings are now about
$3.8 billion, a decrease of 9.5 percent, while the 20-year net present
value savings are now about $9.9 billion, a decrease of 73 percent. As
such, DOD will not recoup its up-front costs until at least 2018.
Implementation of the 2005 BRAC round was officially completed on
September 15, 2011. This took 6 years to fully execute. Strategically,
as we draw down from over 10 years of combat operations in the Middle
East and shift our focus to balancing the Middle East threat with the
emerging security issues and presence of forces in the Asia-Pacific,
additional rounds of BRAC at this time cannot be justified. After 10
years of war and a substantial 2005 BRAC round, we now have a well-
trained, battle-hardened, combat-tested, efficient, streamlined all-
volunteer force that is now more joint than ever. This is simply not
the time for an additional BRAC round.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I want to associate myself with the remarks of
Mr. Wittman. He is right on. And I just want to emphasize how strongly
I agree with what he has to say, and I strongly support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Woolsey
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The total amount of appropriations made available
by this Act is hereby reduced by $1,700,000,000.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, a few months ago, the Republican majority
passed their budget blueprint which, unbelievably, called for the
complete elimination, over 10 years' time, of funding for the Social
Services Block Grant. This program is designed to help people in
desperate straits, people who have fallen on hard times, people who
need a hand up from their government in their hour of need. But the
majority said, Sorry, we can't afford that.
[[Page H4993]]
The country, they say, just can't afford day care for children and
adults, special services for people with disabilities, substance abuse
assistance, low-income housing, home-delivered meals, employment
services, and other support that people need when they have fallen on
hard times and what people need when they're working very hard to
become self-sufficient. That kind of compassion is too expensive,
apparently.
But this week, when we're deciding how much to spend on our war
machines and our Department of Defense bureaucracy, the sky is the
limit. Money is no object. Well, those aren't the values I was taught.
That's not the kind of country I want to live in.
The Pentagon has received more than its fair share of taxpayer
dollars over the years. And, frankly, they haven't always been the most
careful stewards of the people's money. They haven't always had the
best accountability and oversight. They haven't always delivered the
best bang for the buck, Mr. Chairman.
Recent polling indicates that Americans overwhelmingly want defense
cuts, but instead we've got a defense spending bill that is larger than
last year's and larger than what the President requested. I say it's
time that the Pentagon contribute its fair share. My amendment calls
for a $1.7 billion cut to Defense appropriations--an amount equal to
the cut we have asked of the Social Services Block Grant program for
next year.
If you believe that human dignity and basic compassion are more
important than throwing money at wasteful weapons, then I hope that you
will support my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the
gentlelady. She is certainly determined. This is the third or fourth
amendment on the same subject, just by changing the numbers. I'm not
going to make the same arguments about the threat and about the need to
defend our country. Again, you have heard that many, many times. But it
is serious. It is serious.
The numbers keep changing. I don't know why they keep changing, but
the fact that they keep changing indicates to me that there's not
really a real determination here on the number. But there is a
determination on my side and from my viewpoint and, that is, the threat
cannot be ignored, the threat is growing, and this is not a good
amendment and I ask that our Members oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
{time} 2040
Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___ . The amounts otherwise provided in title IX of
this Act are revised by reducing the amount made available
for ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' and the
amount under that heading for payments to reimburse key
cooperating nations for logistical, military and other
support by $650,000,000, respectively.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the Chair.
I thank the chairman, and his staff especially, for working with me
on this amendment, which I would like to associate my previous remarks
in a previous amendment on Pakistan to this amendment. Basically the
intent is to cut half of the money that goes to Pakistan under title IX
in this legislation.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to thank the gentleman for working with us. As we discussed
earlier during our debate, we would work together to find a solution
that would be acceptable. You have done that, I congratulate you, and I
support your amendment.
Mr. POE of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the
purpose of engaging in a colloquy with Chairman Young.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Chairman, as you well know, 40-millimeter
cartridges provide sustained coverage for our ground troops and have
played a significant role in providing protection for our troops in
Afghanistan. They are produced in a joint effort between the Iowa Army
Ammunition Plant, which I represent, and facilities in Florida,
Wisconsin, and several other States.
In Iowa, 75 employees work on a state-of-the-art production line to
load, assemble, and pack the 40-millimeter ammunition. This state-of-
the-art equipment allows this work to be done safely, at a high-quality
rate, and in a cost-effective way for the taxpayers and the Army.
The Army's budget request included 40-millimeter funding levels that
are considered the minimum level necessary to sustain our capability
and the highly skilled workforce needed to produce them. A reduction in
funding could result in a break in work that would result in lost
capabilities, lost jobs, and delays and quality concerns when the line
is restarted.
Mr. Chairman, I know we share a commitment to maintaining the
workforce, capabilities, and lines that produce the 40-millimeter
ammunition, and I very much appreciate your and Ranking Member Dicks'
work with me over the last several weeks. I look forward to continuing
to work with you to address this matter going forward so that we can
ensure the final 2013 defense bill supports the 40-millimeter
ammunition workforce and supply chain.
I thank you for the cooperation.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LOEBSACK. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for his work on this
important issue.
The gentleman is correct. Our Nation's ability to produce the 40-
millimeter ammunition is a critical readiness issue. I am very proud of
the work that is done in Florida and other States to support production
of this ammunition. This is a matter of importance to the readiness of
the Army, and the readiness of all of our Armed Forces is a matter of
top priority to me and it is a matter of great importance to both of
our districts.
I'm committed to ensuring that the funding necessary for production
of 40-millimeter ammunition in 2013 is available and that the supply
chain and workforce associated with the 40-millimeter ammunition
remains strong.
I look forward to working with the gentleman from Iowa to ensure that
the final bill reflects that priority.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Bilbray
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to remove any portion of the Mount Soledad Veterans
Memorial in San Diego, California.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It just
says you will not use Federal funds to tear down the war memorial on
Mount Soledad. It is very simple. It is basically a war memorial that
was originally built in honor of the veterans of Korea.
[[Page H4994]]
Mr. Chairman, when I was a young teenager, a young child, I still
remember as my father and I drove up the coast from San Diego, he would
point up at this memorial and say that is the only war memorial to
Korea. At the time, I believed him. As far as I know, at that time, it
was. Since then, the war memorial has been surrounded by over 3,000
plaques; many show the Star of David, many show crescents, and many
show crosses. But there are those that have taken offense to the fact
that this war memorial happened to be a cross, the universal sign of
memorial.
All I have to say is that if we don't support this amendment not to
tear down this one memorial, then I ask this body to be serious about
the fact that in the United States, we have over 4 million crosses as
memorials in this country. We have over 455,000 emblems that may be
interpreted any way you want. We have 40,000 Stars of David as
memorials on veteran property. In fact, in Normandy, England, Mexico
City, and Panama, we have 130,000 crosses or other symbols that might
be projected as being religious.
Sadly, what we've got going on in San Diego is those who claim, in
the name of religious tolerance, to want to destroy war memorials if
anyone takes offense to this. All this says is we're not going to tear
down the 4 million crosses on our veterans' memorials across this
country and we're not going to tear down or use any funds from this
budget to tear down the war memorial that stands on top of Mount
Soledad at La Jolla, San Diego, California. It's very simple and very
clear.
I hope that my colleagues can say, in the spirit of tolerance, no one
means to go out and be so intolerant as to tear down war memorials just
because somebody may claim that it may have a religious connotation.
God knows we don't want to start tearing down those 4 million crosses
that exist today or those thousands of Stars of David that proudly sit
today on veterans' and Federal property.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. We are happy to support your amendment.
Mr. BILBRAY. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the
minority's consideration.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee of California
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b),
appropriations made in title IX of this Act are hereby
reduced in the amount of $20,843,869,000.
(b) The reduction in subsection (a) shall not apply to the
following accounts in title IX:
(1) ``Defense Health Program''.
(2) ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities,
Defense''.
(3) ``Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund''.
(4) ``Office of the Inspector General''.
Ms. LEE of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, once again, is
very straightforward. It reduces the overseas contingency operations
account, which is currently funded at $85 billion, by $21 billion.
{time} 2050
That leaves $64 billion in reserves, more than enough funds for the
safe and swift withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
This amendment allows Congress the opportunity to stand squarely with
the war-weary American people who want to bring our troops home. It is
clear that the American people have been far ahead of Congress in
supporting an end to the war in Afghanistan. The call has been growing
across this land to bring this war to an end, and it is past time for
the Congress to answer that call here today.
I want to thank all of the cosponsors of this bipartisan amendment
and all of my colleagues who have worked on this issue throughout the
year and supported my legislation, H.R. 780, to responsibly end the war
in Afghanistan.
Our brave troops have done everything that was asked of them and
more. Asking our troops to remain in Afghanistan for another 2 years
when there is no indication that circumstances on the ground will
change is unconscionable.
As we send our men and women in uniform back into danger on multiple
tours, they are bearing an overwhelming and unfair burden of sacrifice
while so many of us go on with our daily lives. An alarming number of
troops are coming back home with post-traumatic stress disorder,
suicide cases are rampant, and sadly, each day we continue to hear more
and more about our veterans and the terrible toll this has taken on
their lives.
Mr. Chairman, the costs of this war are unacceptable, particularly
when we ask what the added benefit is of keeping our troops in
Afghanistan through 2014. The war in Afghanistan has already taken the
lives of over 2,000 soldiers, injured tens of thousands more, and
drained our treasury of over $500 billion. And those costs will only go
up as we spend trillions of dollars on long-term care for our veterans,
which of course we must and we should do.
Instead of spending over $85 billion in Afghanistan this next year,
we should restrict funding to the safe and responsible withdrawal of
all of our troops and use the tens of billions of dollars in savings
right here at home, investing in jobs and education and health care and
mental health care.
The situation on the ground in Afghanistan, whether we leave in 2013,
2014, or 2020, whether 100 more United States troops die or 1,000, let
me just say, not an extra dollar should be spent extending the decade-
long war in Afghanistan. We have the power of the purse strings in this
House. For those who believe that enough is enough, they should vote
for this amendment.
As the daughter of a military veteran, I know firsthand the
sacrifices and the commitment involved with defending our Nation. But
the truth is that our troops have been put in an impossible situation;
there is no military solution. It's past time to end the war and bring
our troops home. And quite frankly, it is time to use these tax dollars
from ending the war to create jobs here at home and economic security
for the American people. It's time to rebuild America, and also to
provide for health care and, of course, as I said earlier, the economic
security of our troops.
Today, once again, we have the opportunity to stand with 7 out of 10
Americans who oppose the war in Afghanistan. The American people have
made it clear that the war is no longer worth fighting. And I'll say it
again, not an extra day, not an extra dollar should be spent extending
the decade-long war in Afghanistan.
I knew 10 years ago that this would be a war without end. I could not
support it then. More Members of Congress are beginning to see that
this was a blank check to wage war forever unless we end it now. So
after 11 years, yes, we should bring our troops home. We can do that
responsibly by voting ``yes'' on the Lee amendment today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, in working with the
administration, the Department of Defense, and our commanders in the
field in Afghanistan, we have come to a proper amount to be funded for
this purpose. It's already included in this bill. I think to change the
formula now from one that has been agreed upon by the administration,
the Defense Department, and the commanders in the field who have the
responsibility for operating this entire Afghan operation, I just
oppose this amendment. I think it's the wrong thing to do.
It's very balanced. It's agreed to by the parties that have the
responsibility. I just hope the Members will vote ``no.''
[[Page H4995]]
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I'm proud to cosponsor the amendment
offered by my friend from California.
If approved, this amendment would accomplish two goals: One, to end
this war, and two, to save the taxpayers $21 billion, something I think
both sides of the aisle could agree on.
Let's be clear about what this amendment really does. It fully funds
a safe and responsible redeployment of our troops from Afghanistan.
It's not cut and run; it's funding redeployment.
The Afghan people do not want us there. The American people don't
want us there. Yet, we are spending $10 billion a month for a decade-
long war that's failing to advance our national security objectives.
Why would we want to continue down this road, especially at such a
great cost in blood and treasure? More than 2,000 servicemembers have
been killed, and $548 billion in taxpayer money has been spent.
This amendment provides sufficient funding to ensure that every man
and woman in uniform leaves Afghanistan safely. At that point, we can
look away from defense spending to a national security policy based on
the other two Ds: diplomacy and development. We can turn away from
military force and toward SMART Security, an agenda that keeps America
safe by alleviating human need and investing in human capital in
Afghanistan and around the developing world.
Since 2004, Mr. Chairman, I have come to the House floor 437 times
during Special Orders to call for an end to the wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq. Since I am retiring at the end of this term, this will be my last
debate and last vote on defense spending. I hope it can be my legacy
and yours to finally reorder our national security priorities and put
an end to the war in Afghanistan. We owe it to the next generation, and
we owe it to Americans in Afghanistan, together.
Let's bring our troops home in a safe and responsible way. Let's vote
``yes'' on Congresswoman Lee's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
Mr. KING of Iowa. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to administer the wage-rate requirements of
subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code,
with respect to any project or program funded by this Act.
Mr. KING of Iowa (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Iowa?
Mr. DICKS. I object.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue reading.
The Clerk continued to read.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this is the Davis-Bacon limitation
amendment that I believe most Members of this Congress have seen that
applies to this appropriations bill.
We have an existing code called the Davis-Bacon Act. What it does is
it requires that any construction projects that have Federal dollars in
them--$2,000 or more--be constructed under what the bill says are
prevailing wages. While prevailing wages in 1931 might have been a
legitimate evaluation, today, it's a federally mandated union scale
determined by a formerly smoke-filled room of people from the
administrative side and the construction side of the industry.
I've spent my life in the construction business. I've been involved
in the construction business since 1970, and I've worked on all sides
of this that I can imagine. I've been a recipient of Davis-Bacon wages;
I've paid Davis-Bacon wages; and I've done a fair amount of reporting
of those wages into the bureaucrats.
This law is the last remaining Jim Crow law in the U.S. Code. It was
written to protect union workers in New York City from the southern
African Americans who were brought up to do a Federal building in that
city back during the Depression.
{time} 2100
And in 1931 there was a Senator James Davis of Pennsylvania and
Representative Robert Bacon of New York, Long Island, who, I might add,
decided that they wanted to protect the unions in that locale, and so
they brought this legislation to Congress and passed it. It has long
been union scale, not prevailing wage. And, yes, merit shop employers
have an opportunity to introduce those wages that they actually pay,
the earned wages they actually pay; but, in the end, it's a formerly
smoke-filled room, people deciding it doesn't cost us anything, if it
raises our bottom line, we all put our add of our margin on top of
that. So we'd kind of like to be able to outcompete the rest of the
industry for the opportunity to hire the workers that will receive the
highest pay.
This is irresponsible on the part of a Congress that now we're
finding ourselves nearly $16 trillion in national debt. We have a
budget crunch like we've never seen. We've seen a President that's
driven this national debt up about $1.33 trillion just in the last
budget that the President offered. And we're looking at taxpayers that
have had enough.
We need a balanced budget amendment to the United States
Constitution. We don't need irresponsible spending. We don't need wage
protectionism.
By the way, Senator Davis and Representative Bacon were both
Republicans. They were two of the more misguided Republicans in the
history of this country, and I regret that I, as an Iowan, have to
stand here and inform this body that it was Iowa President Herbert
Hoover that signed the bill on March 3, 1931.
I'm pledged to undo this, to repeal Davis-Bacon in the end, because
we believe in competition. We're a free and fair competition country
that believes in free markets.
I have listened to the gentleman from Massachusetts in the past who
has said that anytime that you have two consenting adults that are
conducting any activity that doesn't hurt anyone else, they should be
able to do so without Federal interference. If that's the case, tell me
why I can't climb in the seat of my son's excavator and say, ``Just pay
me 10 bucks an hour, Dave. That's enough. I need the therapy to get
away from this insanity of this overspending government that we have
here in this Congress.''
So I urge the adoption of this wage limitation so that we can build
five bases, not four; five barracks, not four; five military hospitals,
not four. We can do five of everything instead of four if we just let
competition set the wages.
The quality will be there. The gentleman's about to tell you that
it's not. I will tell you, if I spend my life in this, we meet
specifications. The high quality of the work is there.
The other side of that's just an argument for union wage
protectionism. We need to protect the taxpayers.
And the unions are fine. If they want to organize, I encourage them
doing so. But they need to do so without Federal protection. Compete in
the competitive world on low bid like the rest of us, where you have to
meet the specifications and the quality of work.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. The House has spoken on this issue repeatedly. There's
been a very substantial majority in favor of retaining Davis-Bacon and
opposing the gentleman's amendment.
[[Page H4996]]
Some Members continue to try to repeal Davis-Bacon, despite the House
record of supporting the protection on labor standards. I have been a
longtime supporter of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements. It
helps ensure that local projects provide local jobs with affordable
middle class wages.
The law protects the government from contractors trying to win
Federal contracts by bidding too low to attract competent workers. And
we have seen time and time again where you have prevailing wages. The
State of Washington has its own prevailing wage standard in our State;
and we find that on these projects, you get better work and the work is
done at a higher quality.
So, again, I oppose this amendment. And as I said, we have had
several votes on this this year, and every time it's been defeated. I
hope that we can again defeat the King amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recognition and would want to join
with the ranking member, Mr. Dicks, in my strong opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
We had a similar debate during the consideration of the Energy and
Water bill. And one observation I would make is we do have a disparity
in this country, and it continues to grow, despite how hard the average
American works.
The problem today for that average American is that for 1 hour's
worth of work--it could be pushing paper, it could be waiting tables at
a diner, it could be working at a steel mill, it could be laying brick,
it could be a contractor, it could be a manager, it could be a CEO--is
less for 1 hour's worth of human labor in the United States today than
it was in 1977 when I came to Washington, D.C. on a congressional
staff. That is not the country my parents left me.
I think it is wrong to offer an amendment to further suppress the
wages hardworking Americans are trying to earn to make sure that they
can buy a house, they can send their children to what are increasingly
expensive public institutions because of the lack of State support for
them, and who now hold retirement programs that are probably about 40
percent less in value than they were in 2007.
This is a bad amendment, and I strongly oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. LEE of California. Let me just say that I rise in strong
opposition to this amendment.
Some Members here continue to try to repeal Davis-Bacon, despite the
House being on record supporting the protection of labor standards.
All of us, or at least the majority of us, have been in support of
prevailing wage requirements. It helps to ensure that local projects
that provide local jobs have these jobs that have affordable, middle
class wages with benefits. The law protects government from contractors
trying to win Federal contracts by bidding too low to attract competent
workers.
This amendment should be opposed. If we really want people to move
toward achieving middle class standards, if we want to keep the middle
class with good jobs, good-paying jobs with benefits, then there is no
way we should repeal Davis-Bacon.
People are losing the American Dream quite quickly here in our own
country, unfortunately. And here we go again trying to erode one of the
basic protections of working men and women.
So I hope we oppose this amendment, maintain standards of prevailing
wage for our workers, and ensure that they too have the opportunity to
achieve the American Dream.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KING of Iowa. 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 Iowa will be
postponed.
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 Ms. McCollum of Minnesota.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Kingston of Georgia.
An amendment by Mr. Quigley of Illinois.
The first amendment by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee.
An amendment by Mr. Pompeo of Kansas.
The first amendment by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
An amendment by Mr. Amash of Michigan.
The second amendment by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee.
An amendment by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island.
The first amendment by Ms. Woolsey of California.
The second amendment by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
The second amendment by Ms. Woolsey of California.
The third amendment by Ms. Woolsey of California.
The second amendment by Ms. Lee of California.
An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. McCollum
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) 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 166,
noes 250, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 472]
AYES--166
Ackerman
Altmire
Amash
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Black
Bonner
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Buchanan
Campbell
Cantor
Carnahan
Carney
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clay
Coffman (CO)
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Courtney
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Farenthold
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Graves (GA)
Griffith (VA)
Gutierrez
Hanna
Hartzler
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hurt
Israel
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jordan
Keating
Kind
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kucinich
Labrador
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Levin
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Olver
Paul
Paulsen
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Quayle
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Roby
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schilling
Schmidt
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Sutton
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waxman
Webster
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Young (IN)
NOES--250
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Capito
Capps
Capuano
[[Page H4997]]
Carson (IN)
Carter
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Fattah
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Harper
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Hultgren
Hunter
Issa
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kline
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Moore
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stark
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Akin
Becerra
Boren
Cardoza
Conyers
Filner
Hahn
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Polis
Reyes
Sewell
Stivers
Welch
(2135)
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Ms. FUDGE, Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, Messrs.
RANGEL and BACHUS, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, and
Messrs. DOGGETT and SCHIFF changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. LUETKEMEYER, WEBSTER, WALDEN, PRICE of North Carolina,
SCHWEIKERT, COFFMAN of Colorado, Ms. JENKINS, Ms. PELOSI, Messrs.
NEUGEBAUER, RYAN of Wisconsin, YOUNG of Indiana, KEATING, Ms. CASTOR of
Florida, and Messrs. RUPPERSBERGER, GARRETT, HURT, GOODLATTE and ISRAEL
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 472, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kingston
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Kingston) 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 202,
noes 216, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 473]
AYES--202
Ackerman
Alexander
Amash
Andrews
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Burgess
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Flake
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garrett
Gibson
Goodlatte
Gosar
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Israel
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kucinich
Labrador
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Nadler
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Olver
Owens
Pascrell
Paul
Pelosi
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rehberg
Reichert
Ribble
Richmond
Roby
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Waxman
Webster
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
NOES--216
Adams
Aderholt
Altmire
Amodei
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Black
Blackburn
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carson (IN)
Carter
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Holden
Hunter
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mack
Manzullo
Marino
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Napolitano
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Renacci
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Scalise
Schock
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Visclosky
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--13
Akin
Bachmann
Boren
Cardoza
Filner
Hahn
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Polis
Reyes
Sewell
Stivers
[[Page H4998]]
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2140
Mr. WOMACK 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 473, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Quigley
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Quigley) 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 60,
noes 359, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 474]
AYES--60
Amash
Becerra
Benishek
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Campbell
Carson (IN)
Conyers
Cooper
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Flake
Frank (MA)
Garamendi
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinojosa
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Kucinich
Labrador
Lee (CA)
Lowey
Lummis
Markey
McClintock
McCollum
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Napolitano
Paul
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Price (NC)
Quigley
Ribble
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Schrader
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Speier
Stark
Tipton
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walden
NOES--359
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Himes
Hinchey
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Visclosky
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
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)
NOT VOTING--12
Akin
Boren
Cardoza
Filner
Hahn
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Polis
Reyes
Sewell
Stivers
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2145
Mr. ELLISON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER changed her 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 474, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) 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 145,
noes 273, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 475]
AYES--145
Altmire
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanna
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Lance
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lummis
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Paulsen
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schwartz
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
[[Page H4999]]
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Yoder
NOES--273
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Cicilline
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Denham
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
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rangel
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--13
Akin
Boren
Cardoza
Filner
Hahn
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Polis
Reyes
Sewell
Stivers
Sullivan
{time} 2149
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 475, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Pompeo
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Pompeo) 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 137,
noes 282, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 476]
AYES--137
Adams
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Biggert
Black
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Cohen
Conaway
Cravaack
DeFazio
Denham
Doggett
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith (VA)
Gutierrez
Hensarling
Himes
Hinojosa
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Jordan
Kind
King (IA)
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Neugebauer
Nugent
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Speier
Stearns
Stutzman
Terry
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
Westmoreland
Woodall
Yoder
Young (IN)
NOES--282
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bono Mack
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinchey
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Israel
Issa
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stark
Sullivan
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
[[Page H5000]]
NOT VOTING--12
Akin
Boren
Cardoza
Filner
Hahn
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Polis
Reyes
Sewell
Stivers
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.
{time} 2154
Mr. POE of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 476, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the first 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 150,
noes 268, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 477]
AYES--150
Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Bachmann
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Jones
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Labrador
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--268
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
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)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
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
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Visclosky
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--13
Akin
Boren
Cardoza
Filner
Hahn
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Polis
Reyes
Sewell
Stivers
Tsongas
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.
{time} 2158
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 477, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Amash
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Amash) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186,
noes 233, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 478]
AYES--186
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
[[Page H5001]]
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Tipton
Turner (OH)
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--233
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Heck
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--12
Akin
Boren
Cardoza
Filner
Hahn
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Polis
Reyes
Sewell
Stivers
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.
{time} 2201
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 478, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) 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 228,
noes 191, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 479]
AYES--228
Ackerman
Adams
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Burgess
Camp
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DesJarlais
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Graves (GA)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Labrador
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lummis
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Yoder
NOES--191
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Hunter
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Pitts
Platts
Pompeo
Quayle
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
[[Page H5002]]
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--12
Akin
Boren
Cardoza
Filner
Hahn
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Polis
Reyes
Sewell
Stivers
{time} 2206
Mr. POE of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 479, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cicilline
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Cicilline) 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 149,
noes 270, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 480]
AYES--149
Ackerman
Adams
Amash
Baldwin
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Coble
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
DeFazio
DeLauro
DesJarlais
Doggett
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Fattah
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Graves (GA)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hurt
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kind
Kucinich
Labrador
Landry
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lummis
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rohrabacher
Ross (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schrader
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Yoder
NOES--270
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McDermott
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--12
Akin
Boren
Cardoza
Filner
Hahn
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Polis
Reyes
Sewell
Stivers
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.
{time} 2209
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 480, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Ms. Woolsey
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) 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 114,
noes 302, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 481]
AYES--114
Amash
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Buchanan
Campbell
Capuano
Carnahan
Castor (FL)
Chu
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
DeFazio
DeGette
Deutch
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Goodlatte
Graves (GA)
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Keating
Kucinich
Labrador
Lance
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Ribble
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
Schwartz
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Yoder
[[Page H5003]]
NOES--302
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Cicilline
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinchey
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tonko
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--15
Akin
Boren
Braley (IA)
Cardoza
Filner
Hahn
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Polis
Reyes
Sewell
Stivers
Turner (NY)
Visclosky
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.
{time} 2213
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 481, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the second 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 136,
noes 283, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 482]
AYES--136
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--283
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
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
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
[[Page H5004]]
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--12
Akin
Boren
Cardoza
Filner
Hahn
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Polis
Reyes
Sewell
Stivers
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.
{time} 2216
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 482, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Ms. Woolsey
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) 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 106,
noes 311, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 483]
AYES--106
Amash
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Braley (IA)
Campbell
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Deutch
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Goodlatte
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Keating
Kucinich
Labrador
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Markey
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Ribble
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--311
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Cicilline
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
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
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tonko
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--14
Akin
Boren
Cardoza
Filner
Hahn
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
McCaul
Polis
Reyes
Rokita
Sewell
Stivers
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2219
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 483, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 483 on H.R. 5856, I
mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Ms. Woolsey
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the third amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) 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 91,
noes 328, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 484]
AYES--91
Amash
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Braley (IA)
Campbell
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Deutch
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Keating
Kucinich
Labrador
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McGovern
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Peters
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Waters
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
[[Page H5005]]
NOES--328
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Cicilline
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
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
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McDermott
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tonko
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--12
Akin
Boren
Cardoza
Filner
Hahn
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Polis
Reyes
Sewell
Stivers
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2222
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 484, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee of California
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the second 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 107,
noes 312, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 485]
AYES--107
Amash
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Braley (IA)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Paul
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--312
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
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
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
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 (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
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
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
[[Page H5006]]
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--12
Akin
Boren
Cardoza
Filner
Hahn
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Polis
Reyes
Sewell
Stivers
{time} 2225
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 485, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King) 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 182,
noes 235, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 486]
AYES--182
Adams
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
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, Gary
Mulvaney
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ross (FL)
Royce
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Walberg
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--235
Ackerman
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Duffy
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heck
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hultgren
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
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
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--14
Aderholt
Akin
Boren
Cardoza
Filner
Hahn
Hirono
Hunter
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Polis
Reyes
Sewell
Stivers
{time} 2229
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 486, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Westmoreland) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, 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.
5856) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, had come
to no resolution thereon.
____________________