Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 109 (Thursday, July 19, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 109 (Thursday, July 19, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5027-H5072]
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 include extraneous material on the further consideration of
H.R. 5856, and that I may include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gosar). 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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 5856.
Will the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) kindly take the
chair.

{time} 1245

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 further 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. Denham (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday,
July 18, 2012, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King) had been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page
153, line 15.

Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. 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 in contravention of section 7 of title 1, United
States Code.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this is the DOMA limitation
amendment. We've seen this last year where it passed out of the House
of Representatives with a substantial vote. And it says, as it reads,
that none of the funds made available by this act may be used in
contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed here in this
Congress in 1996.
What we've seen since the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act is
an effort on the part of the executive branch to undermine, I believe,
marriage between one man and one woman within our military ranks.
We saw the President of the United States make some statements along
the way that his position was evolving on marriage that seemed to be a
signal to the Department of Defense, which issued two memoranda, one of
them on September 21, the Secretary of Defense memorandum that
identified facilities, and it says that the facilities, our military
facilities should be made, the use of them should be made on a sexual
orientation-neutral basis. That's a signal that says same-sex marriages
on U.S. military bases and U.S. facilities.
The second memorandum came 9 days later to our military chaplains,
and it says a military chaplain may officiate any private ceremony, on
or off a military installation. That's not just permission, that's
implied encouragement to conduct same-sex marriages on our military
bases, conducted by our chaplains who are, presumably, all under the
payroll of the United States Government.
This same-sex marriage that has been taking place on our military
bases, where otherwise legal around the world, contravenes the Defense
of Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act means this, actually says
specifically this: marriage means only a legal union between one man
and one woman, as husband and wife, and the word spouse refers only to
a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Pretty simple
statute being contravened by the directives of the President of the
United States as exercised through the Secretary of Defense.
And I would point out that the President has demonstrated disrespect
for the Constitution and the rule of law on multiple occasions. I just
came from the Judiciary Committee, where I reminded Secretary
Napolitano of the same thing.
Congress directs and acts within the authority of article I of the
Constitution, our legislative authority, and the President of the
United States, or his executives who are empowered by him, seek to
undermine the law of the United States, instead of coming here to this
Congress and asking for the law to be changed, or simply accepting the
idea that they've taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the
United States and the rule of law, and to take care, under article II,
section 3, that the laws be faithfully executed.
That's not happening, Mr. Chairman, and this amendment prohibits the
use of military facilities, or the pay of military chaplains, from
being used to contravene the Defense of Marriage Act. The President has
now stepped out and said that he supports same-sex marriage in the
United States. That is, apparently, the most recent evolution of his
position.

{time} 1250

But an evolving position of the President of the United States cannot
be allowed to contravene the will of the people of the United States,
as expressed through the statutes of the United States and as signed by
previous President Bill Clinton in September of 1996.
So I urge the adoption of this amendment. It prohibits the
utilization of any of these funds that are in the Defense
appropriations bill to be used to contravene the Defense of Marriage
Act.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Under Secretary of Defense,

Washington, DC, September 30, 2011.
MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS--
CHIEFS OF THE MILITARY SERVICES
SUBJECT: Military Chaplains

In connection with the repeal of Section 654 of Title 10 of
the United States Code, I write to provide the following
guidance, which hereby supersedes any Department regulation
or policy to the contrary:
A military chaplain may participate in or officiate any
private ceremony, whether on or off a military installation,
provided that the ceremony is not prohibited by applicable
state and local law. Further, a chaplain is not required to
participate in or officiate a private ceremony if doing so
would be in variance with the tenets of his or her religion
or personal beliefs. Finally, a military

[[Page H5028]]

chaplain's participation in a private ceremony does not
constitute an endorsement of the ceremony by DoD.
Clifford L. Stanley.
____

General Counsel of

the Department of Defense,

Washington, DC, September 21, 2011.
MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS--UNDER
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND
LOGISTICS; UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND
READINESS
SUBJECT: Uses of DoD Facilities

In connection with the repeal of Section 654 of Title 10 of
the United States Code, I write to provide the following
legal guidance.
Determinations regarding use of DoD real property and
facilities for private functions, including religious and
other ceremonies, should be made on a sexual-orientation
neutral basis, provided such use is not prohibited by
applicable state and local laws. Further, private functions
are not official activities of the Department of Defense.
Thus, the act of making DoD property available for private
functions, including religious and other activities, does not
constitute an endorsement of the activities by DoD.
Jeh C. Johnson.
____

TITLE 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 1--RULES OF CONSTRUCTION

Sec. 7. Definition of ``marriage'' and ``spouse''
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of
any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various
administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the
word ``marriage'' means only a legal union between one man
and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ``spouse''
refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband
or a wife.
Source: Added Pub. L. 104-199, Sec. 3(a), Sept. 21, 1996,
110 Stat. 2419.

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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment. This amendment is being offered for purely political
reasons.
As the gentleman knows, the Defense of Marriage Act is already
current law. Despite the successful repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
last year under DOMA, same-sex military spouses are not entitled to the
same benefits as other married couples. This amendment only seeks to
divide this House. He knows that current law already prohibits same-sex
spouses from independently shopping at military commissaries, using
base gyms, or benefiting from subsidized dental and health care.
I do believe we should have the debate of the effects of DOMA on our
servicemembers and their families, but introducing this contentious and
discriminatory amendment to this bill is not the place. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this divisive amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I rise in support of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman from Iowa has explained the
amendment very thoroughly. It is easy to understand. The House has
spoken many, many times strongly on the issue, so I would add my
support to the King amendment.
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 ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. 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.

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), add the
following new section:
Sec. __. Funds made available by this Act for operations
of the Armed Forces in Afghanistan shall be obligated and
expended only for purposes of providing for the safe and
orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan of all members of the
Armed Forces and Department of Defense contractor personnel
who are in Afghanistan. Nothing in this section shall be
construed to authorize the use of funds for the continuation
of combat operations in Afghanistan while carrying out such
withdrawal or to prohibit or otherwise restrict the use of
funds available to any department or agency of the United
States to carry out diplomatic efforts or humanitarian,
development, or general reconstruction activities in
Afghanistan.

Ms. LEE of California (during the reading). 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.
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, this amendment is
straightforward. It would put a responsible end to combat operations in
Afghanistan by limiting funding to the safe and orderly withdrawal of
United States troops and military contractors.
Eleven years after Congress wrote a blank check for war without end,
which I could not support, the United States is still in Afghanistan.
Ever since that vote, I have introduced this Lee amendment--that
responsibly and safely brings our troops home--on numerous occasions
and at every opportunity. It is past time that Congress caught up, had
the debate, and passed this amendment.
Today, we have 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 Congress to answer
that call.
After over a decade of war and over a half a trillion dollars in
direct costs--not a penny of it, mind you, paid for, and we talk about
deficit reduction--when we should have been actually investing in jobs
and our economy here at home, it is really time now to say enough is
enough. It is crucial to our economy and to the future of this country
to stop pouring billions into a counterproductive military presence in
Afghanistan. It is no wonder that 7 out of 10 Americans oppose the war
in Afghanistan. The American people have made it clear that the war
should end, that it should not go on for another year or 2 years and,
surely, not for another decade or more.
Mr. Chair, the costs of the war are unacceptable, particularly when
we ask what we gain by keeping our troops in Afghanistan through 2014.
The war in Afghanistan has already taken the lives of over 2,000
soldiers, has injured tens of thousands more, and has drained our
Treasury of over a half a trillion dollars. These costs will only go up
as we spend trillions of dollars on long-term care for our veterans,
which of course we must do.
As the daughter of a military veteran, I know firsthand the
sacrifices and the commitment involved in defending our Nation; but the
truth is our troops have been put in an impossible situation. There is
no military solution, and it is past time to end the war and to bring
our troops home. Quite frankly, it is time to use these savings from
ending the war to create jobs here at home. We need to provide for the
health care and economic security of our returning troops by rebuilding
the American economy.
The American people have made it clear that the war should end. Not
an extra day--not an extra dollar--should be spent extending the
decade-long war in Afghanistan. After 11 long years now, it is time to
bring our troops home.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

[[Page H5029]]

If not, the Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting
direction on the expenditure of funds.
The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
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 rise to make just a very brief announcement.
For years and years in the past when presenting the Defense
appropriations bill, it has always been my policy, if any amendment is
out of order and is subject to a point of order, to allow the
introducer of that amendment at least 5 minutes to discuss it before
raising a point of order. I hope we can do that today and expedite the
process. I would like to move this bill a little quicker than maybe we
had anticipated.
So I just make that announcement. We will continue to allow you to
have your debate time before raising the point of order, but I would
hope that everybody would be respectful of the time.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

Mr. GOSAR. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Chaffetz). The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the following:

Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be may be obligated or expended for assistance to the
following entities:
(1) The Government of Iran.
(2) The Government of Syria.
(3) Hamas.
(4) Hizbullah.
(5) The Muslim Brotherhood.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to
H.R. 5856, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year
2013.
The amendment seeks to halt any potential Department of Defense
funding from being used to aid States and organizations that pose real
threats to the international community. My amendment is simple. It
prohibits any DOD funds from being spent on the Government of Iran, the
Government of Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

{time} 1300

The cases against each of these organizations are well documented.
Each of them has either sponsored terror activities, performed terror
activities, made threats of terror activities, or engaged in atrocious
human rights violations. None of these organizations are particularly
friendly to the United States, and each of them harbors hate towards
our friend and ally, Israel.
Further, I know that some make the argument that sometimes foreign
aid eases diplomatic relations with certain entities. While I do not
discount that theorem, I do not believe that the United States should
be disbursing any funding to any entity that promotes terror and
violence. To that I say, trust is a series of promises kept, and we
need to start with upholding good behavior, and that is by honoring
previous promises.
This amendment is almost exactly the same as the amendment I offered
to the last DOD appropriations bill, only that this amendment has
included Damascus, due to the al-Assad regime's terrible atrocities of
late. That amendment was adopted by voice vote in the House of
Representatives.
I ask my colleagues to give my revised amendment the same unanimous
approval as last time. In the words of the old American adage: We do
not negotiate with terrorists.
I thank the chairman and the committee for their work, and I urge a
``yes'' vote on my amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would just like to advise him that our side
of the committee especially and enthusiastically endorses your
amendment.
Mr. GOSAR. I appreciate the gentleman, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HAHN. Today is actually my 1-year anniversary of being sworn in
to this Congress. It's hard to believe it's been a year.
One of the things I came to Congress to do was to really move us
toward ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While we look toward
the 11th anniversary of Operation Enduring Freedom, I believe it's
necessary to reflect on the staggering human and economic costs this
country has endured over the past decade. Since 2001, we've spent
nearly $635 billion on the Afghanistan war. Under FY 2012 figures, this
equates to an average of $8.8 billion a month, $2 billion a week, and
nearly $300 million a day.
With what it takes to keep this war going for a week, we can hire
45,000 more construction workers to help repair and build our own
crumbling infrastructure. With what it costs to keep this war going for
1 more month, we can hire over 250,000 new teachers, nearly enough to
hire back all of the teachers and public school officials who've lost
their jobs during this great recession. While these figures seem
astounding, they don't begin to compare to the human toll that this war
has taken on our active servicemembers and military families.
Last October, on the weekend of the 10th anniversary of this war in
Afghanistan, I visited Arlington West in California--an incredible
memorial to the men and women who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's
truly a moving experience walking through row after row of crosses in
the sand at Santa Monica Beach.
As of today, 2,041 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan, and
over 12,000 have been wounded. While many of us talk about these
figures here on the House floor, I know many of us have even more
personal experiences with families who have suffered loss or illnesses
or injuries of their loved ones.
Unfortunately, I had reason to visit Walter Reed twice in the last 6
months, and I've seen the evidence of the sacrifice that we're asking
these young men and women to bear. I think all of us should take the
time to walk the halls of Walter Reed and see the full cost that this
war has taken. My own cousin, a young man of 26, was only in
Afghanistan 3 months and was shot in his leg. It's unclear whether or
not he'll get full recovery of his leg. Last week, I visited one of my
former employees in the City of Los Angeles whose son, Ben, was in
Afghanistan. He reenlisted three times to go back. Unfortunately, this
last time, he's now lost both of his legs. His future and his family's
future has changed forever.
When you walk the halls at Walter Reed, you're made to remember the
mothers bearing the crosses of their children, armed with only the
memory of the love lost and unique responsibility that we all have to
the fallen. You're reminded of the men and women who are still here and
of the battles that they're going to have to fight long after they hang
up their fatigues and come home. You're reminded of the struggles
shared by the families--the mothers, the fathers, the sisters, the
brothers, the sons, and daughters--of these veterans who bear the seen
and unseen scars of four, five, even six tours of duty.
These scars are most evident in the recent news that 154 Active Duty
servicemembers have committed suicide in the first 150 days of this
year. This is nearly 1 per day. This is a heartbreaking statistic that
brings into stark relief the terrible toll of nearly 11 years of war.
Mr. Chairman, we need to bring these troops home. That's why I
support this amendment that provides for the safe and orderly
withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and to help bring this war
to an end. A decade at war is too long.
I want to thank Congresswoman Lee for raising this incredibly
important issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this effort and
help bring the troops home. With that, I yield back the balance of my
time.

[[Page H5030]]

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) The total amount of appropriations made
available by this Act is hereby reduced by $19,200,000,000.
(b) The reduction in subsection (a) shall not apply to
amounts made available--
(1) under title I;
(2) under title VI for ``Defense Health Program''; and
(3) under title IX for--
(A) ``Military Personnel''; and
(B) ``Defense Health Program''.

Ms. LEE of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered read.
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. Chair, I'm pleased to be joined by my
colleagues in offering an amendment to set Pentagon spending at the
levels from the 2008 financial year adjusted for inflation, or at $500
billion.
I'm offering this amendment for one simple reason: the bloated
Pentagon budget must be addressed if we are serious about solving our
Nation's deficit. Quite frankly, our real national security is about
rebuilding our economy. It's time to use these tax dollars to create
jobs here at home.
It's time to rebuild America and also to provide for the health and
economic security of our brave troops and the communities that they
live in back here at home. Even with this modest cut--and it's very
modest at $19.2 billion--the Pentagon-based budget would still be, mind
you, a half trillion dollars, excluding war funding for Afghanistan,
far outpacing any other nation in defense spending.
Americans across the country have been forced to cut back, and many
are barely able to make ends meet while Pentagon spending has doubled
over the past decade. The United States spends as much on its military
as the next 14 countries combined, and all but three of these are close
allies. Americans believe no Federal agency should be immune from cuts,
including the Pentagon. In fact, the average American would pursue a
much larger cut of over $100 billion according to a poll released
earlier this week by the Stimson Center.
Some have argued that defense cuts will result in job losses. The
Pentagon, quite frankly, is not a jobs program. Even if it were,
defense spending creates fewer jobs per billion dollars spent than
investing in other sectors: education, health care, clean energy, or
even tax cuts.
The bloated Pentagon budget has been immune from oversight and
scrutiny for too long. We couldn't even pass my amendment yesterday
calling for an audit of the Pentagon. This really has resulted in
unbalanced spending where nearly 60 cents of every discretionary dollar
now goes to the Pentagon. If we are serious about addressing the
deficit, we must take reasonable steps to rein in Pentagon spending.
My amendment makes modest cuts to defense spending while protecting
our active military personnel and retirees from misguided efforts to
cut their compensation and health care expenditures by prohibiting the
additional cuts from coming from Active Duty and National Guard
personnel accounts from the defense health program. Let me repeat: not
a single penny would come from Active Duty and National Guard personnel
accounts or from defense health programs.
President Eisenhower famously said that the United States ``should
spend as much as necessary on defense,'' which we all agree with, ``but
not a penny more.''

{time} 1310

At a time when American families, businesses, and government agencies
are facing budget cuts and tightening their belts, the Pentagon should
not be immune from the need to justify its expenses and guard against
waste, fraud, and abuse.
I am proposing a very modest proposal over the course of a decade
that would equal less than $200 billion, $200 billion. The Bowles-
Simpson Commission outlines $750 billion in suggested defense cuts in
the next decade.
President Reagan's Assistant Secretary of Defense, Lawrence Korb, has
proposed $1 trillion in cuts to the Pentagon over the next 10 to 12
years. As I said, the average American would cut 18 percent of the
Pentagon budget, or a little over $100 billion.
Finding $19 billion in savings next year is a very modest first step
after an unchecked decade of runaway Pentagon spending. While many
Americans would support a larger cut, this is a commonsense amendment
to change the direction of Pentagon spending towards a reasonable level
aligned with actual threats to our national security.
I hope my colleagues, many of whom speak out here on the House floor
frequently about the importance of addressing our deficit, will support
this amendment. If we are really concerned about the deficit, then vote
for this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this is another amendment that
slashes large amounts from our overall Defense appropriations bill.
I would say that this subcommittee is not adverse to reducing defense
spending when we can do so without having an adverse effect on
readiness or without having an adverse effect on our troops, their
medical care, and their families. I understand the gentlelady does
protect some of those issues in her amendment.
This committee has already proven that we are willing to cut defense.
In the last 2 fiscal years, this subcommittee, on a bipartisan basis
and in a bipartisan way, was able to reduce $39 billion, and we did so
very carefully by looking at every account, every project, every place
that we could find weakness in the spending, in the contracting, in
programs that were terminated or about to be terminated, and we can do
that, but just an across-the-board cut is not smart.
Here's what could happen. We could actually, with this amendment and
this reduction, we could require that we reduce or cancel training for
troops returning home from the battlefield or cancel Navy training
exercises because they are running very tight on funding already, or
reduce Air Force flight training or delay or cancel maintenance of
aircraft, ships, and vehicles. All of this relates to readiness: to
make sure that the men and women in the military are ready, that they
are trained properly, that they have the equipment, and that the
equipment is ready.
Now something new here, interesting for this year: the CBO--and
everyone understands that CBO is a nonpartisan, nonpolitical
organization--has just issued their analysis of the Department's Future
Year Defense Programs, the FYDP, and determined that Department plans
will actually cost $123 billion more than they actually project, which
means what they say we will get for the money, we won't get that for
the money.
Further cuts would make it very difficult to meet the requirements of
the Department of Defense, the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and the Air
Force. We just don't want to do that.
This is not the only amendment. We have dealt with similar amendments
numerous times yesterday, and I expect that we will again numerous
times today. This is not a good amendment, and it's one that I would
hope that the Members reject.
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 am proud to cosponsor this amendment
offered by my friend from California. As she clearly stated, this
amendment would cut $19.2 billion of Pentagon spending and bring the
overall spending down to $500 billion while at the same time protecting
our troops and their medical needs.
Even with this cut, the $500 billion that remains amounts to a
generous appropriation for the Defense Department. With this cut, the
Pentagon

[[Page H5031]]

budget would still be greater than the next 10 countries' defense
budgets combined. That's right: military spending from China, Japan,
Germany, the U.K., Russia, India, France, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil
combined would still trail our United States' military Pentagon budget
by hundreds of billions of dollars.
I just don't understand how someone can stand here and say half a
trillion dollars isn't enough. How many more outdated Cold War weapons
systems do we need? How many helicopters with unreliable mechanical
systems do we need? How many fighter jets causing pilot blackouts do we
need? How many more private defense contractors do we have to pay and
overpay?
At some point we have to say enough is enough. It's time, Mr.
Chairman, for a reality check. It's time to accept that we spend too
much on our bloated defense budget. I mean, ask any other Department or
agency if they would make due with half a trillion dollars. I think we
all know what that answer is--they would be delighted.
I urge you all, vote ``yes,'' bring some sanity back to our budget.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Brooks

Mr. BROOKS. 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 by the Department of Defense or a component thereof
to provide the government of the Russian Federation with any
information about the missile defense systems of the United
States that is classified by the Department or component
thereof.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BROOKS. I want to thank Representative Mike Turner, chairman of
the Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, and Representative
Trent Franks, cochair of the Missile Defense Caucus, for their support
of this amendment.
This amendment prohibits the administration from using funds to share
the United States' classified missile defense information with Russia.
It is similar to an amendment which passed with bipartisan support in
the House version of the fiscal year 2013 National Defense
Authorization Act.
In light of recent statements by President Obama that he wanted
``more space'' from the Russians in regards to missile defense, and his
statement that he would ``have more flexibility'' on this issue after
the elections, I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that the United States'
hit-to-kill and other valuable missile defense technologies may become
pawns in a political chess game of appeasement with the Russians.
Statements by Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov have
increased my concern. In reference to the United States' desire to
strengthen our missile defense sites in Europe, General Makarov
threatened the use of military force against the United States,
declaring that ``A decision to use destructive force preemptively will
be taken if the situation worsens.''
Mr. Chairman, if Russia's defense staff is willing to blatantly
threaten the United States, why should the United States hand them the
keys to technology that gives America's warfighter a decided advantage.
The danger to national security is obvious, but there is more to this
picture. The Congressional Research Service estimates the United States
has spent approximately $153 billion on missile defense. A vast
majority, roughly 90 percent, was spent on hit-to-kill technology. It
makes no sense to spend $153 billion of taxpayers' money on advanced
weaponry just to give it away.
This amendment builds on a letter that had broad bipartisan support
in the United States Senate and was signed by 39 senators in April 2011
expressing concern about giving the Russians sensitive missile defense
data and technologies.

{time} 1320

These Senators were concerned, as I am, that the White House must not
use America's missile defense technologies as a bargaining chip in
negotiations with Russia.
This amendment helps the United States lead the world in missile
defense technologies, preserves investments of billions of dollars, and
ensures the viability of current and future missile defense
technologies.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague and good friend,
Congressman Turner from the great State of Ohio.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman may yield, but not specific amounts
of time.
The gentleman from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Brooks.
I just want to point out the importance of this amendment and also
reiterate that this amendment says that classified information about
our missile defense system should not be allowed to be provided to the
Russians. We have two areas of concern:
Obviously, one, Iran and their growing ICBM threat to the United
States. I previously wrote a letter with Chairman McKeon to Secretary
Panetta asking about specific information for the rising ICBM threat
with Iran.
The second aspect is that we're all aware that the President is
currently in negotiations on a secret deal with the Russians. We saw
that in the open mike discussion that the President was having with
Medvedev in South Korea, where he said he wanted greater flexibility
until after the election. Some of that flexibility should not be
disclosing classified information concerning our missile defense system
to the Russians. This amendment would say: Mr. President, you won't
tell us what your secret deal is, but that secret deal better not
include sharing classified information of the United States with the
Russians about our missile defense.
Again, Mr. Brooks' amendment is very important because it says: Mr.
President, even though you won't tell us what the secret deal is, we
will not allow you to exchange classified information and weaken the
security of the United States.

Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 13, 2012.
Hon. Leon E. Panetta,
Secretary of Defense,
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Panetta: We write out of concern with the
Administration's plans for missile defense, specifically, the
continued sharp decline in the attention and resources
invested in U.S. national missile defenses. We fear that this
situation could be severely exacerbated under current plans,
including the threat of defense sequester, which could be
prevented under recent legislation passed by the House of
Representatives. Further, we are in receipt of an $8 billion
reprogramming request that could, in view of new information,
continue to mis-prioritze scarce defense resources.
In 2009, the Administration justified a significant shift
in U.S. missile defense policy on the basis of what was
labeled ``new intelligence assessments''. Secretary Gates, in
a September 17, 2009, press conference, stated, ``our
intelligence assessment also now assesses that the threat of
potential Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile
capabilities has been slower to develop than was estimated in
2006.'' (emphasis added). It therefore follows that a shift
in intelligence could justify a further change in U.S.
missile defense strategy.
The recently released unclassified 2012 Report on the
Military Power of the Islamic Republic of Iran suggests to us
just such a shift may be at hand. For example, the report
stated, ``Beyond steady growth in its missile and rocket
inventories, Iran has boosted the lethality and effectiveness
of existing systems with accuracy improvements. . . . Since
2008, Iran has launched multistage space launch vehicles that
could serve as a test bed for developing long-range ballistic
missile technologies.''
Because of our concerns that the 2009 judgments may be
superseded based on new intelligence information, we have the
following questions, which we request be answered by you with
an unclassified written response:
1. Have key judgments about Iran's efforts to develop
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) shifted since
2009? Does Iran now intend to develop an ICBM? If so, when is
the earliest it could deploy such a capability?
2. Has Iran continued to improve its ICBM-related technical
capabilities through its

[[Page H5032]]

short-range, medium-range, and alleged space-launch vehicle
tests since 2009?
3. If Iran has now decided to develop an ICBM capability,
does that suggest anything regarding Iranian decisions to
develop a nuclear weapons program? There appears to be no
reason for Iran to develop ICBMs unless it has already
decided to develop nuclear weapons, or other weapons of mass
destruction, to put on top of those missiles.
4. Have there been any further developments that suggest
North Korea could be preparing to deploy a new road mobile
ICBM this year?
Additionally, for almost three years, the Committee has
been asking for, and repeatedly promised by your Department,
a ``hedging strategy'' for national missile defense in the
event that the Administration's plan, as articulated in the
September 2009 decision on the Third Site and the European
Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) and the 2010 Ballistic
Missile Defense Review, is delayed for technical or budgetary
reasons, or if the ballistic missile threat to the United
States emerges faster than was assessed in 2009. Indeed, in
the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act, such a plan
was required by law. The Committee has thus far received no
such strategy.
The Administration's plan for national missile defense is
almost entirely focused on assumptions for future changes to
the shot doctrine of the GMD system--which would not happen
for years under the program of record, assuming it is
possible, or the SM-3 IIB missile, which is now a year
delayed, and about which the Defense Science Board and the
National Academies have all expressed grave concerns for its
projected capability. Indeed, the Government Accountability
Office has expressed concerns about the absence of any real
Analysis of Alternatives to substantiate technical capability
and requirements for the IIB missile and therefore has warned
about the risk of delay and budget overrun. We urge the
Administration to provide the Committee all the analysis that
was prepared when the SM-3 IIB missile was recommended in
September 2009.
Committee staff were briefed in March of this year on some
elements of the ``hedging strategy'', as then under
consideration, including potential configurations of an East
Coast site consisting of 20 ground-based interceptors. The
Committee is now informed that the Department has determined
not to share even those briefing slides with the Committee.
We request you submit the hedging strategy mandated by
section 233 of the FY12 NDAA not later than the week of July
30th, in time for Committee Members to be briefed before the
August district work period and Senate consideration of the
NDAA, and we request you immediately transmit the briefing
slides of the March 6th briefing.
The Committee is in receipt of almost $8 billion in FY12
reprogramming requests, with significant sums of money
intended for missile defense capabilities and capabilities
oriented to a potential conflict with a regional threat. We
therefore believe it appropriate for our requests in this
letter to be answered prior to any decision by the Committee
on those matters.
We appreciate your willingness to work with us on these
requests in a timely fashion.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services.
Michael R. Turner,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.
____

Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 23, 2012.
President Barack Obama,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Mr. President: As you know, there is profound interest on
the subject of you and your Administration's efforts to enter
into an agreement with the Russian Federation on the subject
of U.S. missile defenses. These efforts were the subject of
considerable debate during the recent consideration of H.R.
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013.
Specifically, there is still a great deal of concern about
what you meant when you were overheard during a recent
meeting in Seoul with Russia's former President, Dmitri
Medvedev, that after this election, your ``last election,''
you ``would have greater flexibility'' to make a deal with
Russia concerning U.S. missile defenses.
One of your aides, Mr. Nabors, wrote to me stating ``[i]t
is no secret that this effort [referring to the effort to
negotiate an agreement with Russia about U.S. missile
defense] will be more complicated during election years in
both the United States and Russia.'' The inference is that
the American people may not like the deal your Administration
is planning to negotiate. If that is the case, why make it at
all?
What is it you and your administration are concerned the
American people would object to in such a deal with Russia?
Would it be limitations, unilateral or bilateral, with Russia
on the speed, range, or geographical deployment of U.S.
missile defense interceptors?
Of like concern is your apparent belief that U.S. missile
defenses are a hindrance to further U.S. nuclear arms
reductions. At present, your Administration is conducting
what's known as the NPR Implementation Study, which press
reports indicate could recommend up to 80 percent reductions
in U.S. nuclear forces, on top of the unilateral U.S.
reductions your Administration just negotiated in the New
START treaty. This review is being conducted in total
secrecy, without any information having been shared with the
Congress. Many in Congress, me included, are deeply troubled
that you may be willing to further trade or give away U.S.
missile defenses to get closer to your goal of a world
without nuclear weapons.
You may be able to put to rest such concerns if you would
simply direct your Administration to share with the Congress
the draft agreements that have been offered to Russia. For
example, according to President Putin in a March 2, 2012
interview with RIA-Novosti:
``They [referring to your Administration] made some
proposals to us which we virtually agreed to and asked them
to get them down on paper.. .They made a proposal to us just
during the talks, they told us: we would offer you this, this
and that. We did not expect this, but I said: we agree.
Please put it down on paper . . . We were waiting for their
answer for two months. We did not get it, and then our
American partners withdrew their own proposals, saying: no,
it's impossible,'' he added.
This is not the first such reference to a secret deal the
Obama Administration offered to Russia. The Russian newspaper
Kommersant reported last October that it obtained the copy of
a deal that was to be agreed to at the May 2011 08 summit in
Deauville, France.
Mr. President, the unwillingness of your Administration to
provide copies of these draft agreements to the Congress does
nothing to resolve concerns about just what your
Administration is prepared to oiler to Russia regarding U.S.
missile defenses after your ``last election.''
After all, it was not that long ago that your
Administration unilaterally withdrew from the plan to build
the European Third Site in Poland and the Czech Republic just
to earn goodwill from Russian Presidents Putin and Medvedev
during the negotiations of the New START treaty.
Additionally, your signing statement earlier this year that
you would treat section 1244 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 as non-binding, is
troubling in that this provision, which you signed into law,
only seeks to protect classified U.S. missile defense
information from disclosure to Russia or those to whom it
proliferates, like the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria.
I encourage you to direct your Administration to provide to
the Congress the draft agreements provided to the Russian
Federation. Such transparency would be the best way to
resolve concerns in the Congress about your statement to
President Medevedev--``[t]his is my last election . . . After
my election I have more flexibility''--about your intentions
for missile defense. And, I can see no reason why you
wouldn't provide to the elected representatives of the
American people that which you and your Administration have
provided to President Putin, President Medvedev and others in
their government.
Sincerely,

Michael R. Turner,

Chairman, Strategic Forces Subcommittee,
House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. BROOKS. 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, this actually may be the most
critical amendment that we will consider on this bill today. There
should be no secret deals on our missile defense with a Russian
President or any other person not involved with the security of our own
Nation. This amendment precludes that.
Mr. Brooks has pointed it out extremely well and Mr. Turner has
certainly made a very strong case. But let me add, our national defense
interests have got to be our interests, not somebody else's. Our
national defense investments must be made based on what is the threat
to our Nation, and missile defense in particular. The Iranians have
just shown a massive arsenal of missiles--short-range, medium-range,
and some long-range capability. Those missiles would have the ability
to target our troops wherever they might be in the Persian Gulf region.
They can even reach to Israel, one of our very best partners and
coalition allies.
We just can't let this happen. We can't let anyone make a secret deal
with a Russian President on missile defense. The threat is too great.
The threat is growing not only from Iran, but from North Korea. The
North Koreans have invested a lot of time, a lot of money, and a lot of
technology in developing their missiles, and I don't suspect that they
are for peaceful purposes.
We have to be always on guard that we protect Americans and our
interests

[[Page H5033]]

and our troops, wherever they might be, from hostile attacks by
somebody's missile.
So this is a critical amendment, and I think it is important that we
have a very large vote and send the message that we are not going to
toy with the defense of our Nation, especially missile defense.
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. Frankly, we don't have any problem with this amendment. I
would be very surprised if the administration would give any classified
information to the Russian Government. Now, maybe the gentleman knows
something that I don't know. And I understand that there was an
inadvertent comment suggesting that after the election there may be a
better opportunity to work between the two governments. Those things
are said at times. But I have no personal information that anyone is
saying that we're going to give them this information. So I personally
think it would be a mistake to give it to them unless it was
declassified so the American people would know what the information
was.
But in this case, just to be sure, I'm willing to go along with the
gentleman's amendment. We have to be very careful here with classified
information, there's no question about that. There's been some concern
expressed about classified information being released to the public,
which is another questionable activity.
I support the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).
The amendment was agreed to.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I rise for the purpose of a colloquy regarding
an amendment that I had intended to offer relating to military
families.
Mr. Chair, our military personnel have access to great health care
through TRICARE, but in certain cases--and many would be surprised to
learn this--TRICARE does not cover every health service. And this comes
into play sometimes with children of military families with special
needs. There's also a circumstance when someone in the military is
separating from the military but they don't have retirement benefits,
and their family, their children, may not have access to health
insurance.
I ran into this in a case back home in Tampa, Florida, at MacDill Air
Force Base, not unlike many of our colleagues here who participate in
forums for veterans and job fairs and the like. The military health
folks didn't know a lot about Medicaid or the Children's Health
Insurance Program, whether it applied to military families that they
talked to all of the time or those families that are separating from
the military and are no longer covered by TRICARE. So we tried to
investigate this with the Pentagon a little bit, but they were not able
to clarify anything for us.
I have done a little research. There was one report, entitled,
``Medicaid's Role in Treating Children in Military Families.'' That
report advised that 1 in 12 children from military families rely on
Medicaid for some health service; and for children with special needs
in the military families, 1 in 9. I was surprised to learn that,
frankly. Plus, we have many that have served in the military and have
come back from Iraq or Afghanistan and have a lot of questions about
what it means for them finding a job, finding coverage for their family
as they move on in their lives.
So I had intended to offer an amendment that simply clarifies the
fact that nothing prohibits DOD from providing that information at a
job fair, a health fair, or advising military families that the
Medicaid coverage or the SCHIP coverage could be an option. So I would
really like to work with Chairman Young, the Department of Defense, and
Ranking Member Dicks so that our military families don't have to worry
about health coverage, whether they're in the military, they have
children, children with special needs, or they're separating from the
military and they just simply need answers to questions about where
they can turn.
I yield to the chairman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for
yielding, and I want to thank her for the attention and the hard work
that she does to ensure that our military servicemembers and their
families have the very best information and resources regarding health
care.

{time} 1330

That is only fair. One of our highest priorities has always been to
take care of the health of our men and women in uniform and their
families.
I thank the gentlelady again, my neighbor in Florida, for her
advocacy on this issue and guarantee that we will be very happy to work
with her and the Department to make sure that all relevant health care
information is available to our servicemembers, our retirees, and their
families.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman. And this is
especially meaningful coming from Chairman Young. No one has been more
attentive to military families and our servicemembers--no matter what
service, no matter their veteran status--than Mr. Young, my colleague
and friend from Florida.
I thank the gentleman and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WALDEN. I would ask the gentleman from Florida if he would be
willing to enter into a colloquy.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would be happy to enter into a colloquy with
my colleague, the very distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Walden).
Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
As chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, I have
taken an interest in the use of our Nation's spectrum resources by both
Federal and non-Federal users. Spectrum is becoming increasingly
important as our Nation's needs for mobile communications grow.
Unfortunately, however, demand is quickly outpacing the supply of
spectrum.
The U.S. Department of Defense is a large user of spectrum. Efficient
use of spectrum would therefore not only greatly benefit our country in
terms of technological and economic development, but also help our
military in conducting its critical mission.
Recent discussion of spectrum policy in government has turned to ways
that governmental and nongovernmental users might share spectrum to the
benefit of both. It has come to my attention that the work of the
Department of Defense--through the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, the Joint Program Executive Office Joint Tactical Radio System,
and other programs--has been examining some of these sharing
technologies, but with mixed results. It is my belief that Congress
would benefit greatly from a report on this research. I would suggest
that the Department of Defense draft such a report that details the
status of its work on cognitive radio, dynamic spectrum access,
software-defined radio, and any other spectrum-sharing techniques and
technologies.
I would like to ask for your support, Mr. Chairman, and assistance in
working with the Department of Defense to get additional information on
the types of technologies under development and production and how much
has been spent to date for these efforts, as well.
In addition, I believe that a clearer understanding of the efforts
being pursued by the Department of Defense and the associated
organizations for joint spectrum management technology developments,
what has been deployed and what future investments will achieve is
important and should be pursued and we should fully understand what
they're doing.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I
would say to him that today, spectrum is a commodity, and the efficient
management of that commodity is critical. I agree that understanding
the Department of Defense's plans and budgets for research and
development and deployment of these capabilities is critical.
I look forward to working with Mr. Walden and the Department of
Defense

[[Page H5034]]

to understand the technologies and techniques being employed to improve
government spectrum efficiencies. I thank the gentleman for raising
this important issue.
Mr. WALDEN. I thank the chairman for his work on not only this issue
and working with us on this, but also your terrific dedication to the
country over the years, and especially in moving this legislation
forward.
I yield back the balance of my time.

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) The total amount of appropriations made
available by this Act is hereby reduced by $7,583,000,000.
(b) The reduction in subsection (a) shall not apply to
amounts made available--
(1) under title I;
(2) under title VI for ``Defense Health Program'';
(3) under title IX; and

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. LEE of California. The Lee-Van Hollen-Smith amendment would limit
Department of Defense funding to the amount authorized under the Budget
Control Act of 2011, resulting in a $7.6 billion reduction in spending
from the level authorized by the Appropriations Committee.
This amendment is cosponsored by my colleagues, Armed Services
Ranking Member Adam Smith, Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van
Hollen, and Representatives Amash, Blumenauer, Clarke, Johnson, Nadler,
Polis, Schrader, Stark, Welch, and Woolsey, among others.
As you know, Mr. Chair, last year, Congress passed the Budget Control
Act, which put in place spending caps on discretionary spending.
Despite these statutory limitations, the Appropriations Committee set
overall military spending billions of dollars above what the Pentagon
requested or what was agreed to under the Budget Control Act.
A deal is a deal. While many of us did not support the discretionary
caps under the Budget Control Act, our amendment simply brings Pentagon
spending in line with the law. Again, a deal is a deal. It does this
while protecting our Active Duty military personnel and retirees from
misguided efforts to cut their compensation and health care
expenditures, by prohibiting the additional cuts from coming from
Active Duty and National Guard personnel accounts or from the Defense
Health Program.
Let me repeat: not a single penny would come from Active Duty and
National Guard personnel accounts or from the Defense Health Program.
The Pentagon budget already consumes almost 60 cents out of every
discretionary dollar we spend, and adding billions of unrequested
dollars--mind you, unrequested dollars--at the expense of struggling
families during the ongoing economic downturn is wrong.
Once again, I just have to remind us that yesterday an amendment was
struck down, made out of order, that we still can't even get an audit
of the Pentagon; and here, once again, we're going against the law of
the land and violating a deal and asking for more money--outrageous.
At a time when American families, businesses, and government agencies
are facing budget cuts and tightening their belts, why shouldn't the
Department of Defense be asked to become more efficient and eliminate
wasteful programs?
While many of us would support a larger cut, this is a commonsense
amendment to keep spending in line with what was agreed to last year.
Remember, a deal is a deal.
I hope my colleagues, many of whom speak here on the floor frequently
about the importance of addressing our deficit, will support this
amendment. So I ask my colleagues, if we are really concerned with the
deficit, then vote for this amendment. This is money the Pentagon did
not ask for and it does not need.
Some of us really do believe that your word is your bond.
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, first, I would like to say that I
really respect Ms. Lee's tenacity and her determination. There's no
doubt that she is sincere, but I just disagree with her amendment.
Actually, except for the numbers that have changed, this is basically
the same amendment that has been offered before even today. And so
rather than repeat the arguments, I will just say the arguments are the
same.
This is not a good amendment, and I would hope that the membership
would oppose this amendment as we have others similar to this.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, we have actually completed our withdrawal
from Iraq. We are on our way to withdrawing from Afghanistan. There is
not a strategic need to increase the base budget for the Defense
Department beyond the BCA, Budget Control Act, agreement.
Our own military leaders have acknowledged that our debt and deficits
are the largest national security threat that our country actually
faces. We need to be building on the fiscal foundation the BCA laid in
order to provide for our children's futures and the military they will
need to defend their freedoms. Sticking to the BCA framework is our
strategic priority.
We should take a moment to remember where we were at this time last
year. There was a real threat of government and economic shutdown due
to the approaching debt limit. In the very 11th hour, we passed the
bipartisan Budget Control Act to forestall a sovereign debt crisis by
cutting $900 billion from the deficits and agreeing to cut another $1.2
trillion over the next 10 years.
Even still, our national debt has increased by $1.3 trillion since we
came to that agreement last August. In part, this is due to the failure
of the supercommittee to reform entitlements in our Tax Code.
In the coming months, we need to finish the job we began with the
passage of the Budget Control Act. Reforming entitlements and
instituting comprehensive tax reform as suggested by the Bowles-Simpson
plan is no longer an option but a national necessity. Changes scheduled
to go into effect in January would harm the economy and the middle
class while proving ineffective in true deficit reduction. Backpedaling
on the BCA is irresponsible.

{time} 1340

By holding this body to the bipartisan law we passed last August and
reducing our debt by reducing the underlying bill's appropriation by a
mere $7.5 billion--in Washington, D.C. terms--the amendment before you
today will enhance our national economic security.
We need to stick to the spending caps and move on from the FY 2013
appropriation process so we can work on getting the next framework put
in place to responsibly address what has become known as the ``fiscal
cliff.''
The American people and businesses in this country deserve certainty
about their future. We need to do right by them, avoid a crisis of our
own making, and lay the groundwork for restoring our economy and
getting hardworking Americans back to work.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. STARK. I'd like to first thank my friend, Ms. Lee, for bringing
up this important amendment. She knows so well that the less experience
people in this body have had with the military, the fiercer they are.
That goes to the Republicans wanting to exceed their own funding cap in
the Budget Control Act by $8 billion. This is a moderate amendment to
bring us back under the Budget Control Act.
This is the 12th year that we've been fighting and funding a war in
Afghanistan and that area; and there's no peace, there's nothing, no
stability. The war in Afghanistan has basically

[[Page H5035]]

contributed to our instability. Nothing has happened over there. Since
2001, we have spent $600 billion or $700 billion on this Afghani war
alone, and the Defense Department appropriations bill wants another
$600 billion.
Republicans like to talk about entitlements like Medicare driving the
debt. Well, let me tell you, defense spending has become just as much
of an entitlement, with a team of lobbyists and Members of this body
who are more interested in protecting defense contractors than
protecting our country's health, education, and economic growth.
This bill ignores administration proposals to delay or terminate
military programs while providing funding instead for weapons that the
Department of Defense doesn't want, doesn't need, and won't work.
Apparently, funding wars and weapons instead of better health care,
education, and repairing our infrastructure are more important to the
Republican majority than all other issues.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and start
reining in our out-of-control defense budget.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I'm very proud to join with my
colleague from California (Ms. Lee) and Mr. Smith, the ranking member
on the Armed Services Committee, in support of this amendment.
This amendment is, in fact, different than every other amendment that
has been offered on this bill. This amendment is very simple and very
clear in its purpose: it's to make sure that this Congress complies
with the Budget Control Act agreement that was set by this body on a
bipartisan vote just last year.
I would just refer my colleagues to the Budget Control Act and refer
them to section 302, Enforcement of Budget Goals. It's right there in
plain English what the 050 number will be, the Defense appropriation
number will be. That was the Budget Control Act that was supported and
voted on by the chairman of the Budget Committee, by the chairman of
the Armed Services Committee, by the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, and by the chairman and the ranking member of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee.
In fact, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers,
said last year, when we passed it:

Tough choices will have to be made, particularly when it
comes to defense and national security priorities, but shared
sacrifice will bring shared results.

He went on to say:

The Appropriations Committee has already started making
tough decisions on spending and will continue to under the
spending limits and guidelines provided in this bill--meaning
the Budget Control Act.

That was August 1 of last year. The chairman of the full
Appropriations Committee was right last year, but the bill that's
coming to the floor today is in violation of that bipartisan agreement.
As a result of that violation, while the Defense appropriation bill
exceeds significantly what was requested by our own Defense Department
as what was necessary to meet our national security needs--because this
bill dramatically increased that level above what was requested--the
reality is the other bills that are coming through the Appropriations
Committee are taking very deep cuts--deep cuts to education, deep cuts
to health care programs. In fact, the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Mr. Dicks, described that Labor-H bill as one of the most
partisan bills that he has seen. That's true, and that is a direct
result of the fact that this bill that's before us today dramatically
explodes the Budget Control Act agreements.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would just refer the body to the statements made
by Admiral Mullen recently, who of course was the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, pointing out that our military strength depends on our
economic strength and our economic strength depends on our long-term
fiscal health and the soundness of our fiscal policy. And I quote
Admiral Mullen, who said:

Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.

He went on to say:

Everybody must do their part.

He said:

We can no longer afford to spend taxpayer resources without
doing the analysis--this is Admiral Mullen--without ensuring
every dollar is efficiently and effectively invested. We can
no longer go along with business as usual if we are going to
get our fiscal house in order.

That is why this body, on a bipartisan basis, agreed to the Budget
Control Act. So it's very unfortunate that this bill now comes to the
floor in violation of an agreement, in violation of an understanding
that in order to get our fiscal house in order, we had to make tough
decisions on defense and nondefense alike.
By violating the agreement in this regard, what the committee is
saying is they're willing to make really tough decisions. In fact, they
make irresponsible decisions with respect to the nondefense domestic
spending, and we doubt we'll even see a Labor-H bill on the floor of
this House, it's so bad. The reason it's so bad is because, in part,
that Budget Control Act was violated and so much was added to the
Defense Department, again, as my colleagues have said, more than
requested by our military leadership and more than requested by the
Defense Department.
I agree with Admiral Mullen, who said we all need to share in this
responsibility. I agree with what my Republican colleague said just
last year when we passed the Budget Control Act. Let's stick to an
agreement and let the people know that when this body comes to an
understanding after a hard compromise, we stick with it for the public
good.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5856, the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2013. Until we
can rein in defense spending and treat it like all other federal
programs facing damaging funding cuts, I cannot support yet another
bloated defense budget. Republicans talk about how entitlements like
Medicare are driving the debt. But it is clear that defense spending
has become just as much of an entitlement, complete with a team of
lobbyists and members of this body that are more interested in
protecting defense contractors than protecting our country.
This bill marks the 12th fiscal year the United States has been
fighting and funding the War in Afghanistan. During this time, we have
pursued a variety of strategies and plans--none of which have delivered
peace and stability to Afghanistan or the region. The War has, however,
contributed to fiscal instability in our own country. Since 2001, we
have spent $634 billion on the Afghanistan War alone. This
appropriations bill is going to cost another $608.2 billion that we do
not have. Yet the cycle continues.
This year's bill exceeds the Republicans' own funding caps set by the
Budget Control Act by almost $8 billion. This bill ignores
administration proposals to delay or terminate several military
programs while providing funding for weapons programs the DoD said it
doesn't want or need. Apparently, funding wars and weapons instead of
better health care, education, and repairing our crumbling
infrastructure are more important to the Republican Majority. It is
unconscionable for us to be cutting these vital programs at the same
time we're increasing the defense budget. That is why I joined with
Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) to offer an amendment to cut that $8
billion from the defense appropriations bill.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and join
me in voting against this out of control defense spending bill.
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.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman, Mr.
Young, in a colloquy if he will so engage.
Mr. Chairman, I commend you and your committee for your hard work
putting together this bill. The efforts

[[Page H5036]]

by your committee and your staff to provide our warfighters with the
tools they need to keep our Nation secure are our first priority, and I
thank you for your service doing just that.
I applaud your work also to mitigate risk associated with shrinking
budgets. I believe this bill shows your leadership to make the tough
decisions to fund our Department of Defense at the appropriate levels
even during this time of fiscal austerity.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONAWAY. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I want to thank him very much for the comment.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank you
specifically for your work addressing the wasteful pursuit by the
Department--specifically the Navy--to stand up an alternative energy
industry. These efforts go against the primary mission of the
Department and are a colossal waste of taxpayer money, especially as we
are scrubbing every penny inside the Pentagon.
The Navy claims that its pursuit of a green fuel source that is
produced in the United States would help protect it from price shocks
and volatility within the oil markets. I have yet to hear an argument
that supports how spending, on average, $26 a gallon for biofuels would
protect our fuel budgets when we could be paying $3.60 a gallon. This
argument simply doesn't add up.

{time} 1350

Prices, Mr. Chairman, would have to rise eightfold for this equation
to work.
The Navy claims that development of biofuels will limit the number of
deaths associated with fuel convoys in theater. Yet, this is a specious
argument. Convoys will still be needed to haul biofuels across
dangerous areas to supply our needs, just like conventional fuels. And
if they're less efficient, more convoys would in all likelihood be
needed.
The Navy also claims that buying biofuels and sailing their Green
Fleet will end up saving American taxpayer dollars and ultimately lead
our military to energy independence. Throughout hearings in the House
and the Senate Armed Services Committee, witnesses failed to offer any
verifiable analysis that shows the costs of achieving this goal or when
these goals can be achieved.
Mr. Chairman, time and time again, with this current administration
we've seen instances of shortsighted, unrealistic expectations like
this and its sister project, Solyndra, at the Department of Energy
where venture capitalists are making a fortune off frivolous spending
of taxpayer dollars on projects that belong in the private sector.
The Department of Defense should be in the business of prosecuting
wars and keeping this country safe, not wasting dollars on the pursuit
of green fuel. I would argue that Department leaders should focus on
buying the cheapest most readily available fueling which keeps our
ships steaming and our planes flying.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONAWAY. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Thank you for yielding.
I appreciate the gentleman's attention to this matter, and I support
his efforts to prioritize spending within the Defense Department. I
look forward to working with him to ensure that our scarce defense
dollars are spent in a responsible manner, and I thank the gentleman
for raising this issue.
Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of
my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH. 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 for the administration of the Armed Services
Vocational Aptitude Battery for the student (high school)
testing programs.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KUCINICH. Just so you know, and I want the chairman and the
ranking member to know, in offering this amendment, it's not my
intention to wipe out military recruiting. It's very important for
people to be able to serve our country. It's an honorable profession.
It's essential to America.
What this amendment is about really is about upholding the right of
parents to be able to determine whether or not their young person
should have to take a test that would be given to them under the
auspices of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Test. This is a test
that is administered annually to 1 million military applicants, high
school and postsecondary students.
But it's more than just a test. Here's the kind of information that
students who take this test divulge: Social Security number, gender,
race, ethnicity, birth date, statement of future plans, and most
significantly, their aptitude on a battery of subcritical tests.
Now, if you ever wanted to make a case for the danger of Big
Government being able to reach into schools, think about this. You've
got the largest organization in the government administering tests to
high school kids and basically getting all the information they want
about these young people, and without their parents' consent. I have a
problem with that, and we all should have a problem with that.
Now, if someone can tell me that you'll fix this and provide for an
opt-in or opt-out, or tell me that, you know, Dennis, you're right; any
young person who could end up in military service, their parents ought
to consent to whether or not they should be able to take the test and/
or whether the results of the test should be released.
This is about privacy. It's about parental rights, and it's also
about not letting Big Government become Big Brother, gathering
information about our children at a very early age in order to have
some higher purpose.
It might be very altruistic here. We've got to be very careful about
this system we've set up. This Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Test
is administered in recruiting centers. That's true. Fine. But it's also
offered to high schools and postsecondary students. And according to
the Pentagon, the Career Exploration Program is designed to help
students explore civilian and military careers.
But the rise of this test in high schools has led countless students
and parents to feel that they're being unfairly, potentially illegally,
and oftentimes unknowingly recruited.
The Department of Defense claims it's just a tool to screen students'
enlistment eligibility and determine their interests and skills for
nonmilitary careers, but Mr. Chairman, more than 90 percent of the
scores being sent are sent directly to military recruiters. So it's
obvious this is a recruiting tool. Fine.
How about letting the parents know about it? How about giving parents
a choice, because most of the times you're talking about somebody
that's under 18 years old?
So I don't oppose military recruitment. I want that understood. But I
am concerned that this test is being administered to kids in our public
schools in a way that circumvents parental consent. The vast majority
of students think they're taking the test and that it's required by
their high school. Parents aren't informed that children are given the
test. Why? Because their consent isn't required.
Let's get the parents in on this.
Now, my dad encouraged me to be in the military. I had a heart
murmur. I couldn't serve. All my brothers and my sister did. But you
know what? We had some feedback with our parents about this.
You give a kid a test, that puts that child on a track to military
service, parents don't know about it? Are you kidding me?
Parents have a right here, and we have to restrain the impulse of a
big government organization to gather information about these kids that
ordinarily the government would never be entitled to.
So I want to make sure that my friends in the majority and my friend,
who's the ranking member, understand that my amendment in no way stops
consenting adults from pursuing a career in the military or from taking
the test at a recruiting station or processing station. It doesn't
prohibit military recruiter presence in our schools.

[[Page H5037]]

We dealt with that in No Child Left Behind. I was on the other side on
that, but my amendment doesn't stop that.
But it stops the administration of this test in schools, so it can't
be used as a recruiting tool disguised as a test that targets children
who are legally too young, too young to consent to a career in the
Armed Forces.
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
gentleman's amendment. This amendment would basically prohibit funds
from being used to administer the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude
Battery test. This amendment would negatively impact both the education
and recruiting communities.
This test is administered free of charge on a voluntary basis. It's
on a voluntary basis to high school and college students as part of a
comprehensive Career Exploration Program. This program integrates
student aptitudes and interests to help them explore postsecondary
opportunities, including college, technical schools, and civilian as
well as military careers.
As education resources grow together, many schools rely on this free
test to provide a valuable career exploration experience. And we, as a
Nation, benefit from this test. Through this amendment, the gentleman
would effectively prohibit high schools from offering this test, which
would be unfortunate, and we are strongly opposed to the bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The amendment was rejected.
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 take this time to advise
Members of something that they might be exposed to here shortly.
Recently, I had an opportunity to experience what I call ambush
journalism on an issue that--I really found it hard to believe that
this investigative reporter would raise the issue.

{time} 1400

He was very upset because of the amount of money we spend to return
our ``killed in action'' heroes back to their families at their home
bases after they arrive in the United States at Dover. I was really
shocked that that would be a concern to anybody because I believe that
those heroes should be treated with the utmost respect.
I told this distinguished gentleman that I would do everything that I
possibly could to make sure that the proper respect and dignity were
awarded these heroes as their remains return home to their families.
This gentleman thought that Congress actually set the schedules and
decided which airplanes fly the soldiers back home. I explained the
law. I explained that that was not the case. I explained that the
Pentagon had a lot of people who did administrative things like that,
including scheduling.
I expect that many of you might also face this same investigative
reporter and be asked the same question. I just want you to be aware
that that is the issue. I don't understand why anybody would want to
deny a hero killed in action dignity and respect as he returns home to
his family. It is just exasperating to me, I will say, Mr. Chairman. I
just wanted Members to be aware. You may be faced with this very same
question, with this very same issue. I hope you're not, but you might
be; so I bring this to your attention just in case.
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 have had a chance to talk to the distinguished chairman
of the Defense Subcommittee, Mr. Young of Florida, about this issue. I
can tell you, based on long experience, that no one cares more about
our wounded warriors and also of those who have lost their lives and
are coming home for the last time.
I think the way that the Department of Defense handles this is
appropriate. They are trying to get these bodies back to the parents or
to the families as expeditiously as possible. Obviously, Congress
doesn't tell them how to do this. Obviously, we fund that program. I
just appreciate Mr. Young's history of concern about our troops. I know
that he stood up to a journalist, as most of us have had to do from
time to time, who thinks he knows all the answers but who has not
gotten all of the information.
As was suggested, the decisions about how to do this from Dover to
the home are made by the Department of Defense. I think that it is done
appropriately, and I think it is done in a dignified way and in a way
that all of us can be proud of. So I appreciate what Mr. Young has done
here. I just want him to know that I support him and will be glad to
talk to any reporter.
I see the distinguished chairman of the authorizing committee is here
as well. Maybe it's necessary to have another meeting and to bring in
some of the senior Members of the House and those who are leaders in
defense to talk to this reporter and to try to make him understand how
this actually functions.
I just want my good friend Mr. Young to know that we support him.
This is not something that he has day-to-day responsibility for, and he
should not be blamed in any way. Again, we just know that he and his
wife, Beverly, have been such great supporters of the troops, so to
have any insinuation here is just not appropriate.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise with great pride to stand with
Chairman Young in order to reaffirm my commitment and the commitment of
the members of the Armed Services Committee to the dignified and
respectful transportation of the remains of our war casualties to their
final resting places.
The current process of airlifting our fallen warriors was initiated
by the Committee on Armed Services and legislated in 2006 following a
series of unfortunate cases in which the transfers of remains simply
did not meet the high standard that the people of our Nation demanded.
As awareness grew, it was very quickly clear that the routine treatment
of our warriors on their returns home was not meeting the expectations
of families and communities across the Nation.
Without this law, the Department of Defense would be required to
transport them by the cheapest means, in other words, to transport
remains without an escort and in the cargo holds of commercial
airliners along with the suitcases and FedEx packages. No one wants to
see that. That is not how the American people wish to treat those who
have made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf.
The soul of a nation can be measured by its commitment to honor those
who have sacrificed all to defend that nation. If a nation takes a
bookkeeper's approach to measuring that commitment, then, in this
Nation's case, the cost of Arlington, of all the national cemeteries,
of the cemeteries we maintain overseas, of the efforts made to account
for our war dead and missing is too high. When it comes to upholding
the traditions so intrinsically linked to the values treasured by the
American people, our Nation will never be accused of possessing a
bookkeeper's mentality. There is only one standard for the treatment of
our fallen heroes, and the American people will demand that the
standard will be met in the most dignified and respectful manner
possible.
I commend the gentleman from Florida for taking a moment to reaffirm
the commitment of the Congress and the American people on this
important issue. I cannot understand anyone who would challenge him on
his devotion to our servicepeople. He and his wife both have dedicated
the ultimate measure to seeing that our servicepeople are given the
respect and the things that they need. I don't know anyone who has
visited the hospitals more or who has really cared about our people. I
commend the chairman for this, for his

[[Page H5038]]

devotion to those who wear the uniform.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. As a United States marine who served in Iraq and
Afghanistan and who saw the bodies and the flag-draped caskets with
dignity and respect get put into the backs of airplanes and sit off of
the battlefield in those two theaters, I want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for standing up for the fact that we accept them back into
our arms in this Nation with the same dignity and respect.
I would like to go a little bit further.
Beyond saying this isn't Congress' job, if it were not for Congress,
the bodies of our dead military men and women who come back to this
Nation would be in the cargo holds of commercial airliners. As the moms
and dads watch their sons and daughters get forklifted off a commercial
airline cargo hold and set on the ground--with no military escorts and
with no flag-draped coffins--that is what we should be ashamed of. I
would say that this is an issue that resonates with anybody who has
worn a uniform or with any family who has had to receive the remains of
a loved one.
Those who die for this Nation should be handled by honor guards, not
by forklifts. It's harsh but true that the people who question the
necessity of this process need to examine their souls and ask
themselves if they are even worthy of the freedoms that are protected
and secured by our military heroes. There is no extravagant cost. There
are no luxury accommodations. Those who pay for our freedom with their
lives deserve to be treated with respect and handled as the heroes that
they are.
There are plenty of places in the defense budget we can find savings,
but the idea that someone would suggest the way we treat our war dead
is a waste of money and resources should be ashamed, and he should not
bring that up to any more Representatives in the future.
I again want to thank Chairman Young for his extraordinary service
and for the way that he honors our wounded and our KIAs.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1410

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I wish to engage in a colloquy with Chairman
Young and Ranking Member Dicks.
Yesterday, the House adopted an amendment I offered with
Congresswoman Buerkle directing the National Guard to conduct a
capability assessment of the medical equipment in its domestic Humvee
ambulances. This will pave the way for the retrofitting of Humvee
ambulances that lack adequate cardiac monitoring and resuscitation
equipment. As you know, the National Guard's mission includes
responding to terrorist attacks, homeland security emergencies, natural
disasters, and providing defense support to civil authorities. This
equipment will allow the Guard to effectively carry out their mission.
But the retrofitting of currently-owned Humvee ambulances is not
enough. To purchase ambulances in the future that lack cardiac
monitoring and resuscitation equipment is, frankly, irresponsible. Mr.
Chair and Mr. Ranking Member, the adjutant generals in eight different
Sates, including Washington, New York, and my home State of Oregon,
have indicated that this equipment is necessary to their missions, and
could make the difference between life and death in an emergency
situation.
Mr. Chair and Mr. Ranking Member, both Congresswoman Buerkle and I
appreciate your support for our amendment yesterday and your commitment
to all who serve in our Nation's National Guard. Congresswoman Buerkle
and I had another amendment to ensure that this important lifesaving
equipment would be included in Humvee ambulances purchased for the
Guard in the future. In lieu of that amendment, I ask if you will work
with Ms. Buerkle and me to ensure that future Humvee ambulances
purchased for Guard use contain adequate cardiac monitoring and
resuscitation equipment?
I would be happy to yield to the distinguished chairman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I
thank the gentlelady for raising this issue.
The attention and hard work to ensure the proper equipping of Humvee
ambulances in units of our National Guard is extremely important. In
today's wars, because we have these increased benefits, we have better
training, we have better medicines, we're able to move soldiers from
the battlefield almost as soon as they're hurt. Lives are being saved.
Troops are surviving who in previous wars would not have survived. So
the gentlelady's work is a very important part of this capability.
I agree that the Humvee ambulances and National Guard units should be
outfitted with proper medical equipment to effectively accomplish the
assigned missions, and that any new purchases of Humvee ambulances
should include the equipment necessary for mission accomplishment. The
capability assessment that the National Guard will soon conduct will
greatly assist this effort. I thank the gentlelady for her advocacy in
this extremely important issue of saving the lives of our heroes on the
battlefield.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. BONAMICI. Yes, I will yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I agree with my colleague and look forward to working with
you on this issue. Our National Guard and Humvee ambulances must have
the cardiac monitoring and resuscitation equipment and capabilities
needed to respond to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and homeland
security emergencies. This should be given careful thought when the
Department of Defense makes future purchases. I might point out that
this probably comes in other procurement for the Army, but also that
the committee has provided $2 billion in National Guard equipment so
that this money goes through and the National Guard actually gets to
decide what that equipment is.
We look forward to working with you, with the Army, and the National
Guard to see if there's an answer to this problem.
I appreciate the gentlelady yielding.
Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
I sincerely thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
attention, cooperation, and willingness to work on and address this
very important issue. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran

Mr. MORAN. 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, memorandum of
understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant
to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to Rosoboronexport.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about what is happening in
Syria today as we speak.
What began as peaceful demonstrations against a nonrepresentative
minority government quickly became violent when Bashar al-Assad chose
the path of violence over an inclusionary government. Since the
uprising began in March of last year, at least 16,000 Syrians have been
killed, countless thousands have been seriously injured, and at least
200,000 people have been displaced.
In neighborhoods like Homs, as well as in defenseless refugee camps,
women and children are being attacked, sexually assaulted, and
summarily executed. Accused civilian sympathizers are being brutally
tortured, I won't even go into the manner in which they are torturing
them with all the acid burns, and sexual assaults, and so on.
And, this country's violence is only going to get worse. We read what
happened yesterday when some of President Assad's closest military
advisers,

[[Page H5039]]

including the minister of defense, were assassinated in Damascus. As
the unrest spreads, as all this violence continues, the international
community has had to sit on the sidelines, unable to take action
because of Russian opposition at the United Nations. Mr. Chairman,
perhaps one reason the Russians oppose more forceful steps against
Syria is because they are the regime's principal weapons supplier. They
have a vested economic interest. That's why they won't cooperate with
the rest of the international community who is trying to act
responsibly.
Just last year, Moscow sold Damascus $1 billion in arms. In
particular, a Russian state-owned firm, known as Rosoboronexport, has
provided Assad's regime with mortars, sniper rifles, attack
helicopters, and even recently agreed to provide advanced fighter jets.
In a recent letter from the Pentagon to the Congress, the Pentagon
wrote that there is evidence that this Rosoboronexport's arms are being
used to kill the civilians in Syria. As we speak, more Russian arms,
including refurbished helicopters, are steaming towards Syria on a
ship. I raise this ongoing humanitarian disaster in Syria and the role
of this particular Russian firm in it because the U.S. Government has
substantial business dealings with Rosoboronexport, and that makes us
in some ways complicit in what is happening.
To date, the Department of Defense has purchased 23 Mi-17 helicopters
from Rosoboronexport for use by the Afghan National Security Forces.
Just this past weekend, DOD agreed to purchase 10 more, which will not
be delivered until 2016, 2 years after we've left Afghanistan. I don't
know about you, but I'm nervous about how those helicopters might be
used 2 years after we've already left the country. Who are they going
to be used by? And who are they going to be used against?
Even more distressing is that DOD is buying these helicopters for our
Afghan allies from Syria's main arms supplier through a no-bid
contract. It's an earmark for the Russians, no less. There has never
been competition for supplying rotorcraft for the Afghan National
Security Forces. If there had been, our American firms would have won
it.
Mr. Chairman, I should think it's troubling to all of us that we are
purchasing helicopters from a Russian firm that is directly complicit
in the deaths of thousands of innocent Syrian men, women, and children.
This has got to stop.
What this amendment would do is to simply say no more purchases from
this Russian arms supplier. We don't need to be purchasing any more
helicopters for years in advance when we're not even going to have a
military presence in the country.

{time} 1420

The Russians have vetoed U.N. resolutions designed to stop this
violence in Syria. They are preventing an expansion of the current U.N.
mandate. Our financial support for Rosoboronexport, has to be stopped.
We have to divest ourselves from dependence on this state owned arms
supplier.
This amendment would stop our business dealings with Syria's
principal arms supplier. Otherwise, our condemnations of Syria's regime
ring hollow.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the American taxpayer and for this
amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in support of my colleague's bipartisan
amendment, which prohibits any funds provided in this act from being
used to fulfill the Defense Department's current contract with
Rosoboronexport, the Russian state arms dealer currently providing
weapons to Syria for Mi-17 helicopters for the Afghan security forces.
This amendment builds upon the bipartisan support of the amendment
added to the House authorization bill that prohibits future contracts
along the same lines and requires future contracts to be competitively
bid so that U.S. manufacturers can compete on these taxpayer-funded
deals.
For over a year now, we have seen Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
respond to peaceful demonstrations by the Syrian people with a brutal
crackdown. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, over
17,000 people have been killed by the regime since violence began there
in March 2011. Fighting this week has further intensified in and around
Damascus, and there are reports, after similar violence in Houla and
Qubair, that more than 100 civilians have been massacred in Tremseh.
This is on top of torture, sexual violence, inference with access to
medical treatment and many other gross human rights violations
perpetrated by the al-Assad regime.
At the same time, Russia continues to provide that regime with the
means to perpetrate widespread systemic attacks on its civilians. Last
year alone, they reportedly sold Damascus $1 billion in weapons. In
January, they signed a deal with Damascus to supply Syria with 36
combat jets.
Last month Secretary of State Clinton expressed concern that Russia
is sending attack helicopters to Syria. The New York Times last
Saturday, in an article on the defection of Syrian Air Force Captain
Akhmed Trad, detailed the use of rocket-equipped Mi-17 helicopters by
the regime. Earlier today, Russia, along with China, vetoed a U.N.
Security Council resolution that would have sanctioned the Assad regime
for the continued use of heavy weapons.
Yet, incredibly, the U.S. Defense Department has purchased 21 Mi-17
helicopters for the Afghan security forces and is reportedly purchasing
10 more through a no-bid with that Russian company, even though it
supplies arms to Syria and was, for years, on the U.S. sanctions list
for providing illegal nuclear assistance to Iran.
If U.S. taxpayer dollars are going to be spent providing helicopters
to the Afghans, those dollars should be spent on American systems that
create jobs here at home. There are American companies available to
manufacture the aircraft, which would increase interoperability with
both the U.S. and NATO forces and support American manufacturing. The
Defense Department is reportedly already training the Afghans how to
fly and maintain American-made helicopters.
At the very least, there should be an open competition for
procurement of these helicopters, a competition we believe superior
American manufacturers would win. In any case, the American taxpayer
dollars should not be used to subsidize al-Assad's murderous regime in
Syria.
This amendment will end this no-bid contract, stop the use of Federal
dollars to subsidize the massacres being perpetrated by the al-Assad
regime. I urge you to support this bipartisan 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 have had the opportunity to
discuss this amendment numerous times with Mr. Moran and with our
colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, and I would like to say
that I am here to support this amendment.
However, I would like to engage Mr. Moran and ask if he would be
willing, as we move forward--I know we can't do it on the floor today--
to include a national security waiver in this language when we get to
conference. As we go through the process, would the gentleman have any
difficulty supporting us in that effort to get a national security
waiver?
I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, first of all, for your
support of this amendment as well as your leadership of this committee.
I think this is an excellent idea. Perhaps, if we were to get into
conference with the Senate on this bill, which I expect we will, we
could add that national security waiver at that time and, thus, we
would not be compromising the things that don't need to be discussed on
the floor.
But I think that's an excellent suggestion, and I appreciate the
gentleman's deference to concerns that HASC might have. With that, I do
appreciate the very distinguished chairman's support.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman very much, and I do
support this amendment.

[[Page H5040]]

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I support the amendment as well, and I appreciate the work
of my friend and colleague from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and Congresswoman
Rosa DeLauro on this issue.
There are some reasons why these Mi-17 helicopters are sold to the
Afghans. It's not just a blunder. It's because of the altitude of the
country. There is a legitimate national security issue here that has to
be addressed, and I think we do have helicopters, maybe not Black
Hawks, but CH-47s, that can go to a higher altitude. I don't know how
much more expensive they are or anything about it.
But I just want to point out that, because I don't want people to
have the impression that they just did this maliciously. There were
some legitimate reasons for this.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. 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 yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I very much thank my friend
and colleague, the ranking member of the committee.
That is an important point to make. The Pentagon not only has to be
concerned about the operability in Afghanistan, which is quite
different.
Mr. DICKS. Very unique.
Mr. MORAN. It is very unique. Plus, the Afghans need helicopters they
can maintain after we leave. They are used to maintaining Russian
helicopters. During the occupation, they learned that. I understand
they are easier to maintain than some of ours.
But notwithstanding that, I think the gentleman would agree that
there is reason for some apprehension after we have left the country to
continue supplying these helicopters.
Mr. DICKS. There ought to be a competition. I mean, there is no
reason that this should be sole-sourced. There should be an opportunity
for American contractors to compete, and one thing we're going to have
to work on is logistics and their ability to handle equipment. That's a
very weak point right now with the Afghan military.
Mr. MORAN. The other point, if the gentleman would further yield, is
this firm is not someone we ought to be dealing with unless we
absolutely have to. These are people that have violated our concerns
about providing nuclear capacity to Iran. They have been cited about
that. They are supplying a billion dollars of arms to Assad; and its
principal reason, I suspect, because it's a state-owned firm, that
Russia won't comply with the rest of the world.
It does need to be seen in that context, as well, to send this kind
of a message. It's not a message I am necessarily sending to the
Pentagon. It's a message we're trying to send to Russia: Let's get on
board.
Mr. DICKS. In that respect I am totally supportive of what the
gentleman is trying to accomplish.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.

{time} 1430

Mr. ELLISON. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to see that
there's broad bipartisan agreement on this issue. It's always a great
benefit when we can work things out--and occasionally we do, just as
we've seen. So that's a good thing. But I do have an obligation to
speak up for constituents of my own on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I have to say on the record that there have been more
than 17,000 people killed in Syria over the last 14 months. That's when
a nonviolent uprising began in response to Bashar Al-Assad's brutal
torture and murder of teenage kids in the city of Dara'a. Violence
against civilians has escalated rapidly in months. There have been
large massacres in the villages of Houla, Qubair, and possibly Tremseh.
The international community, including the Arab League, has
overwhelmingly condemned Al-Assad's violent repression. One country--
Russia--has refused to stop arming Al-Assad and his murderous campaign.
In fact, a Russian cargo ship could deliver military helicopters to
Syria this week. Rosoboronexport is the Russian weapons dealer arming
the Al-Assad regime. There's substantial evidence Al-Assad is using
weapons from Rosoboronexport against innocent civilians in Syria. I was
surprised to learn that our own government is buying Russian-made
helicopters from Rosoboronexport.
Put simply, our government is supporting Syria's arms dealer, which
is enabling the Syrian regime's bloody crackdown. This should stop.
That's why I urge all to support this amendment, which it looks like
there's broad agreement on. American taxpayers should not be supporting
Syria's arms dealer. If the military wants to buy helicopters, it
should by American ones and create jobs at home, not in Russia. Our
amendment does the right thing. It ends the U.S. purchases from
Rosoboronexport. I'm proud that it has strong bipartisan support, and I
urge all of my colleagues to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MORAN. 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 Virginia
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Turner of Ohio

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. 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--
(1) reduce the nuclear forces of the United States in
contravention of section 303(b) of the Arms Control and
Disarmament Act (22 U.S.C. 2573(b)); or
(2) implement the Nuclear Posture Review Implementation
Study or modify the Secretary of Defense Guidance for
Employment of Force, Annex B, or the Joint Strategic
Capabilities Plan, Annex N.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Turner-
McKeon-Thornberry amendment. I, as chairman of the House Strategic
Forces Subcommittee, am offering this amendment, along with the House
Armed Services Committee chairman, Mr. McKeon, and the vice chairman,
Mr. Thornberry.
For 66 years, the U.S. nuclear deterrent has kept us and our allies
safe from large-scale war under a remarkably consistent policy
supported by Presidents of both parties. Now, however, President Barack
Obama appears to be unilaterally changing it--for reasons not yet
explained.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon and 31 other
committee members and I recently wrote to the President, expressing
concern over reports that he is directing a review of U.S. nuclear
weapons strategy that could result in U.S. reductions of up to 80
percent. We asked to understand what the President is doing, and why.
We've received nothing back from the President.
The Obama administration reportedly is weighing at least three
options for reducing U.S. nuclear forces: Cutting to roughly 1,000 to
1,100; 700 to 800; or 300 to 400. Our arsenal now includes about 5,000
warheads, with approximately 2,000 deployed warheads permitted under
the new START Treaty. The remaining 3,000 are kept in storage as a
hedge against advancements by other nations. Russia has 4,000 to 6,500
warheads and China is reported to have more than 300, though no one
outside of the Chinese Communist Party knows for sure how many they
have. These countries, as well as India; Pakistan, which is building a
stockpile expected to soon surpass Britain; Britain itself; France;
North Korea; and perhaps soon Iran have active nuclear weapons
modernization programs. Only the United States does not.
Now, the President may soon seek to have the U.S. make the deepest
reductions in its nuclear forces in history. The new strategic review
could be on the President's desk within the next

[[Page H5041]]

month. It is unclear whether he expects the cuts to be unilateral or
within the framework of a treaty with Russia or China and others. At
least one of the President's senior advisers has suggested that these
reductions could be unilateral. It's worth noting that the impetus for
this review is outside the norm. It is unexplainable. Traditionally, a
President has directed his military advisers to determine, chiefly,
what level of our nuclear force is needed to deter a potential
adversary from attacking us or our allies. The answer to that question
should be what drives the strategy, not a President's political
ideology.
For example, this is how Secretary Powell stated that President Bush
looked at the issue. He stated:

President Bush gathered his advisers around him and he
instructed us as follows: ``Find the lowest number we need to
make America safe, to make America safe today, and to make
America safe in the future. Do not think of this in Cold War
terms.''

The House Armed Services Committee has been asking questions, holding
briefings with the administration, even hearings about the details that
we need to explain what the administration is doing. Unfortunately, the
only information we have at this point is what we're learning from the
media. Why would the administration be unwilling to share even the
basic terms of reference for this review, known as Presidential Policy
Directive 11? Why wouldn't it share other basic instructions from the
Defense Department? The President, after all, is directing a strategic
review that could border on disarmament and significantly diminish U.S.
strength.
It is not even clear that the unilateral reductions to the U.S.
nuclear forces that are currently required by the New START agreement
are in the best interests of our national security. And the Defense
Department refuses to tell Congress how it plans to implement that
treaty. The Senate was ultimately comfortable with those reductions
once the President promised to provide his own plan for modernization
of our U.S. nuclear deterrent. The President's most recent budget,
however, abandons the nuclear modernization funding that he promised.
Case in point is the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement
Nuclear Facility, the construction of which the President pledged a
little more than a year ago to accelerate and which in this year's
budget he deferred for 5 years, which basically means that this project
will be canceled. Thus, the President leaves the United States with
virtually no militarily significant plutonium pit production capacity,
which other nuclear weapons state still possesses. And he wants to seek
steep new reductions in the U.S. nuclear forces. This can only be
described as a bait-and-switch strategy.
Any further reductions must be met with ample justification for how
U.S. nuclear security will be enhanced. Simply saying that U.S. should
``reduce the roles and numbers'' of its nuclear weapons is nothing more
than putting hope in the place of our strategy.
Our military leaders share these sentiments. General Chilton, in
talking about the number of warheads that we currently have, said:
``The arsenal that we have is exactly what is needed to provide the
deterrent.''
Clearly, any further reductions will undermine the deterrent that has
kept our country safe. Our nuclear weapons provide for the safety of
this Nation and our allies around the globe. A number of countries with
the capability and resources to do so have not pursued this.
We ask for support for this in Ronald Reagan's ``peace through
strength'' policy.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. As you know, the New START, or strategic arms reduction,
is a nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and
Russia. On December 22, 2010, the Senate increased our national
security by providing its advice and consent to ratification of the New
START Treaty with Russia. With the New START Treaty, the United States
and Russia will have another important element supporting our reset
relationship and expanding our bilateral cooperation on a wide range of
issues.
As the President said during the end of the last Congress, the treaty
is a national security imperative as well as a cornerstone of our
relations with Russia. Under the terms of the treaty, the U.S. and
Russia will be limited to significantly fewer strategic arms within 7
years from the date the treaty entered into force. Each party has the
flexibility to determine for itself the structure of the strategic
forces within the aggregate limits of the treaty.

{time} 1440

We should carry out our commitment to the New START treaty and not
restrict our country's obligation to implement it. I urge my colleagues
to oppose the amendment.
I would say to the gentleman, if there is one thing--and I stand here
as a member of this subcommittee for 34 years--that we can reduce, it's
strategic weapons. We have never used one, except in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. And we can have a credible deterrent with a much smaller
force. In fact, I agree with General Cartwright that we could use our
strategic ballistic missile submarines and our long-range bombers, the
B-2s and hopefully a new bomber, and reduce dramatically the number of
land-based ICBMs.
We simply don't need, and we can't afford to have and continue to
produce all of these nuclear weapons that will, more than likely, never
be used. They are a good deterrent and they have been an effective
deterrent. Thank God for that. But the Cold War is over, and we are in
a position today where we must reduce the size of our nuclear weapons
force.
I yield to the gentleman. I've been here a long time. I went through
all the arms control debates, and I know something about this subject.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Sir, thank you for yielding me time. And I know
you certainly do know about this topic, which is why I know that you
also know that we use our nuclear deterrent every day. While we stand
on this floor and speak with the freedoms that we have, our nuclear
deterrent keeps us safe. Abandoning our nuclear deterrent would not
make us safe.
Mr. DICKS. Regaining my time, just for a second, I worked to convert
the B-2 bomber from a nuclear weapon carrier to a conventional carrier.
Do you know why a conventional bomber is, I think, more of a deterrent
than a nuclear bomber? Because with a conventional bomber, you can use
bombs. You can go in, and with the JDAMs that we put on those bombers,
in one sortie, you could take out 16 targets. That is real deterrence.
And that is having a conventional force that is usable.
Nuclear weapons are not going to be used, and that's why both sides
can have a much smaller force. We can bring the number of nuclear
weapons down. At some point, it becomes ridiculous to have that many
warheads when there aren't that many targets, and we're not going to
use them.
I know the gentleman is all wrought up about this and protecting our
great deterrent, which has been a very valuable thing to our national
security. But I have to tell you, if there is one thing that we can
reduce by agreement with the Russians, it is nuclear weapons.
I will yield to the gentleman again if he wants to say anything else.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. To respond to the gentleman, again, our nuclear
deterrent is used every day. Every day, it keeps us safe because it
ensures that our country----
Mr. DICKS. It isn't used every day. It's available every day.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. This is my time. The time that I am speaking is
my time. You yielded me some and you kept your own.
Mr. DICKS. I yield.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. The reality is that our nuclear deterrent is used
every day. And when you say that nuclear weapons won't be used, you can
only say that with respect to our heart, the heart of this country, the
heart of this country that wants to make certain that freedom is safe
and our allies are safe.
We can't say that for others. Iran and North Korea are pursuing
nuclear weapons not because they just want the increased power, they
want that technology. They want that ability to have weapons of mass
destruction.
Mr. DICKS. I reclaim my time.

[[Page H5042]]

The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Washington has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. DICKS. You don't need thousands of these weapons. A couple
hundred, frankly, could take out Iran and almost any country you can
imagine. So, again, we can't afford to do everything. We are in an era
where we're dealing with terrorists, and we need to have special forces
that can be utilized. We need to have these very effective drones. We
need to look at the threats that are out there today and equip our
military accordingly.
This is not our responsibility. The Senate handles advice and consent
on treaties. We should stay out of this. In my judgment, this amendment
is unnecessary.
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. We support the amendment.
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. On behalf of the Appropriations
Committee, we appreciate his work.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his
work on this on the appropriations side.
This is an important issue, and this really goes to the heart of our
national security. My amendment does nothing, by the way, to prohibit
the implementation of New START. But the thing that is important here
is that there are those who talk about nonproliferation, and I think we
are all wanting nuclear weapons to be restricted and to stop their
growth. But there's a difference between nonproliferation and
disarmament of the United States. Only the United States is reducing
our nuclear weapons. In New START, Russia wasn't required to reduce at
all. Only the United States was reduced.
You have India, you have Pakistan, you have Iran and North Korea.
North Korea already is a recognized nuclear weapons state. Iran is
seeking nuclear weapons. And both of those nations are seeking ICBM
technology for the purposes of placing the United States at risk.
Secretary Gates, upon his departure, was saying that North Korea is
becoming an absolute threat to mainland United States with its nuclear
weapons and its ICBM technology.
We can only be confident that others will not use nuclear weapons to
the extent that we can stand strong as a nuclear weapons state. That
needs to be derived from what is the threat and the number of weapons
to ensure that we have both survivability and the ability to place
their assets and their nations at risk.
A couple of hundred--and all due respect to the ranking member--is
based upon no science whatsoever. Our commander of U.S. Strategic
Command, General Chilton, who has been through this science and who is
charged with keeping the United States safe, said that the arsenal that
we have is exactly what is needed today to provide the deterrent.
Our concern is that the President, on his road to zero, has made it
clear that even though it will have no effect on reducing the nuclear
arsenals of other nations, he would move to unilaterally reduce ours.
That's why we're on this floor, not as the Senate, but as the House to
say we are going to restrict funding to prevent the President from
unilaterally disarming us.
If the President is committed to a road to zero, show us any evidence
that he is able to persuade anyone else to reduce their nuclear
weapons, because we don't have any evidence of anyone else reducing
except the President's trying to reduce ours.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. 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 Ohio will be
postponed.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Let me begin again by thanking
Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks for their continued leadership
on this bill and this very important piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday, Representative Baca and I offered an
amendment that directs $10 million from the Defense-Wide Operations and
Management account and moves it to the Strategic Environmental Research
Program and the Environmental Security Technology Certification
Program.
These funds would provide the Research and Development Programs
additional resources for competitive grants that allow our communities
to provide clean water. It is critical that Congress support DOD
efforts to develop innovative solutions that use the best technology
available to us for problems like the perchlorate contamination that
areas in my district in California deal with.
Perchlorate is a chemical used to produce explosives that, when found
in groundwater, can be harmful to women, children, and the elderly. In
fact, one-quarter of Inland Empire aquifers, including basins from
surrounding counties, contains high concentrations of perchlorate.
Just this week, the U.S. Geological Survey released findings from a
statewide assessment of groundwater quality that high levels of
perchlorate were discovered in 11 percent of wells and moderate
concentrations in 53 percent of wells. That is statewide, Mr. Chairman.
Groundwater contamination and other contamination from former defense
sites are becoming increasingly problematic throughout the Nation.
Based on those facts, I would like to yield to the chairman for the
purpose of entering into a colloquy, with hopes that we can work on
this issue in the future.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The committee does, in fact, recognize that these R&D programs
provide necessary resources that help invest in innovative new
technologies which benefit local communities that are dealing with
these contamination issues through competitive grants.

{time} 1450

We look forward to working with Mr. Miller to see how we can properly
address the needs of communities looking to provide clean water to all
of their citizens.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I thank the chairman for agreeing
and committing to work with me on this issue. I'd like to thank
Representative Baca for his leadership in support of this issue, and I
yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Tonko

Mr. TONKO. 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 pay a contractor under a contract with the
Department of Defense for costs of any amount paid by the
contractor or any subcontractor of the contractor to an
employee performing work under the contract or any
subcontract under the contract for compensation if the
compensation of the employee for a fiscal year from the
Federal Government for work under Federal contracts exceeds
$230,700, except that the Secretary of Defense may establish
one or more narrowly targeted exceptions for scientists and
engineers upon a determination that such exceptions are
needed to ensure that the Department of Defense has continued
access to needed skills and capabilities. This section shall
apply to contracts entered into during fiscal year 2013.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the FY13
Defense appropriations bill.
My amendment is a modest, straightforward reform to fix the current
cap

[[Page H5043]]

on Federal salaries paid to government contractor executives. This is
part of a bipartisan reform that I and our colleague, the gentlewoman
from California, have been working on for the past 2 years; and despite
significant bipartisan progress in the Senate, this issue has never
once been allowed so much as a vote in the House. I expect today will
be no different.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chair, it was once my understanding that the
highest individual salary funded by the American taxpayer was that of
the President of the United States at a total of $400,000; but it turns
out that the leader of the free world isn't actually the highest paid
executive on the taxpayers' payroll. The highest Federal Government
salaries are actually earned by private sector executives who can be
paid nearly $770,000 in taxpayer dollars under current law. That's
nearly twice the salary of the Commander in Chief and more than three
times the salary of the Secretary of Defense. In fact, gaping loopholes
in the law mean that many can earn far more. Let me emphasize that
these are federally funded salaries for private sector executives--
funded 100 percent by the American taxpayer.
You won't find these exorbitant pay rates on government pay
schedules, and they certainly aren't subject to the pay and hiring
freeze. In fact, just weeks ago, top government contractors got a
$70,000 raise on the taxpayers' dime for no reason other than the
current law demanded it. That raise alone, $70,000, is more than the
salary of most Federal employees. That raise brought the current cap on
Federal reimbursements for contractor compensation up to nearly
$770,000, an incredible 10 percent raise for the top echelons of the
contractor workforce that is estimated to outnumber Federal civilian
and military personnel by more than 2-1.
To put that delta into perspective, compare the 10 percent contractor
increase to the 1.7 percent raise that this bill proposes for our women
and men in uniform. Compare it to the total pay freeze under which our
civilian personnel are operating. If you believe that reining in
personnel costs is a smart way to reduce the deficit, then you cannot
possibly argue that we should maintain a blank check for the estimated
7 million contractors on the Federal Government payroll.
This problem started in the late 1990s with a law that created the
current, deeply flawed formula to reimburse government contractors for
the pay of their top executives. The so-called ``cap'' under this law
has grown by leaps and bounds each year, increasing by more than 75
percent in just the last 8 years. That is an unsustainable and
unjustifiable trend that must be put to a stop. In a year where we can
agree on so little, I have found that many of us can agree on this.
From 2001 to 2010, spending on service contractors rose by 137
percent, making it one of the Pentagon's largest cost drivers. Given
the rampant growth in contract spending, the Army estimated earlier
this year that limiting contractor compensation to even the salary of
the President--that's $400,000--would have saved the taxpayers $6
billion in fiscal year 2011 alone, or a savings of approximately 15
percent in contract services. Six billion dollars--that's only for the
Army, and that's only in 1 year. Imagine what we could be saving
government-wide.
Our amendment is a modest, bipartisan proposal that reins in the most
excessive government salaries by revising the cap to a set level of
$230,700--or the salary of the Vice President of the United States. The
cap would apply to all defense contractors and subcontractors. However,
it also reaffirms the authority of the Secretary of Defense to create
exceptions to the cap in certain circumstances.
This authority was established in last year's defense authorization
to preserve flexibility for our military in maintaining access to
individuals--particularly scientists and engineers--who possess unique
skills and capabilities critical to the United States' national
security.
To reiterate, this amendment does not grant new authority to the
Secretary of Defense. It is not legislating in an appropriations bill.
It merely reaffirms the current authority of the Secretary codified in
title 10. To be clear, this amendment deals exclusively with taxpayer
dollars spent to reimburse contractors.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

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 appropriations 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 changes the application of existing law. I ask for a
ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
If not, the Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language conferring
authority on the Secretary of Defense to establish certain exceptions.
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.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support an amendment by my good
friend and colleague from New York to cap excessive contractor
compensation. Ballooning contractor costs are wasting taxpayer dollars
and weakening our national defense.
While our government employees accept pay freezes, the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy raised the cap on executive compensation for
contractor executives by 10 percent to nearly $770,000. This, my
friends, is a no-brainer: we can't afford to pay contractors twice the
President's salary.
Now, mind you, this does not mean that the CEOs can't make more than
$770,000. They can, in fact. In fact, they can be paid much more by
their shareholders. We want to reduce the amount of money they make to
no more than that of the President.
Throughout this budget process, defense contractor CEOs have
threatened to fire people if they do not get what they want through the
suspension of sequestration, saying that they can't afford to continue
their operations unless the Department of Defense is spared from the
chopping block. But if you look at the Forbes magazine list of the top
compensated CEOs, you see that it is the taxpayers who can't afford
them.
The Federal Government's top contractors make anywhere from $5
million to $56 million each year. While these costs are not all coming
directly from the Treasury, we contribute, nonetheless, in cost
overruns and single-source contracts that make them all too big to
fail.

{time} 1500

Last year we passed language that capped some of their compensation,
but excluded scientists and engineers from these caps because we were
worried that we would not be able to get the talent we need. But when
you think about it, this argument is ludicrous. The U.S. Government
isn't their only client, but we're expected to pay the whole cost for
the talent they need to win contracts with us.
The Senate agrees. The Armed Services Committee unanimously passed a
bill that would include this cap on contractor compensation.
``Unanimously'' means it was bipartisan.
What we're asking contractors to accept, the same salary as the Vice
President, isn't unfair or unprecedented. It's time that we stop asking
taxpayers to pay excessive contractor compensation.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 18 Offered by My Coffman of Colorado

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall
be available to continue the deployment, beyond fiscal year
2013, of the 170th Infantry Brigade in Baumholder and the
172nd Infantry Brigade in Grafenwohr, except pursuant to
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, signed at Washington,
District of Columbia, on April 4, 1949, and entered

[[Page H5044]]

into force on August 24, 1949 (63 Stat. 2241; TIAS 1964).

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, the Cold War ended more than
two decades ago, and the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union no longer
exist.
While the United States is spending 4.7 percent of our economy on
defense, only 4 out of 28 of our NATO allies are spending even 2
percent of their economy on defense. Our allies in Europe have
drastically reduced their national defense spending because they take
for granted that the United States will continue to be the guarantor of
their security. Now it is time for our NATO allies to provide more of
their own security and not be so reliant upon the United States.
We face difficult budget challenges here at home. The resources that
we are currently spending on maintaining a military presence in Europe
are needed to meet much more significant security challenges elsewhere.
The Pentagon has recently stated that the American military presence
in Europe is a diminishing priority and has proposed removing two
combat brigade teams in fiscal year 2013. This bipartisan limiting
amendment to the Defense appropriations bill will force the Department
of Defense to follow through with withdrawing two brigade combat teams
from Europe and will deny the ability for the Pentagon to reverse this
decision later.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I
appreciate him bringing this amendment to the floor.
I think it's telling that our friends in European NATO countries,
since 2008, have reduced their defense spending 12 percent. They're
having tough times. They're retrenching. They recognize the new posture
in terms of security. We should do the same thing. We should do the
same thing. Absolutely.
It's ironic that this Chamber is going to be considering massive cuts
in food stamps to have more responsibility and accountability that some
of us think are draconian. But for heaven's sake, why can't we, 60
years after World War II, almost 25 years after the collapse of the
former Soviet Union, can't we help Europe assume a little larger role
for their own defense? For whom are these troops positioned in terms of
some sort of military posture?
I think most of us agree that it's highly unlikely they'll be used in
combat. Any cost that would be incurred by accelerating it is money
that's going to be spent anyway, notwithstanding all the costs to keep
them there.
So I think the gentleman is spot on. I'm happy to cosponsor the
amendment. I'm happy to speak in support of it. I hope this body
approves it in a small way to help the Europeans assume their own
responsibility and for us to be able to focus on things that are more
important for us.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Would you explain--you say here you have these two
brigades, except pursuant to article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
Could you explain what the impact of this is, the treaty commitments
here?
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. To the gentleman from Washington, I believe
that this certainly does not disallow us to maintain rotational forces
in Europe. There is no provision within the NATO Charter that requires
the United States to maintain a permanent military presence in Europe.
Mr. DICKS. It says:

None of the funds appropriated in this act shall be
available to continue the deployment beyond fiscal year 2013
of the 170th Infantry Brigade in Baumholder and the 172nd
Infantry Brigade in Grafenwoehr, except pursuant to article 5
of the North----

Is there some commitment in the North Atlantic Treaty that requires
us to have these two brigades there?
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. To the gentleman from Washington, there is
no requirement where we have to maintain a permanent military presence
in Europe.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman 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 rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
I believe that this amendment is unnecessary because the Department
of Defense is currently in the process of reducing the number of troops
in Europe. The Department has already announced the closure of Army
garrisons in Schweinfurt, Bamberg, and Heidelberg by fiscal year 2015.
Furthermore, the Department has begun the process of deactivating two
infantry brigades, the 170th Infantry Brigade and the 172nd Infantry
Brigade, each with 3,850 soldiers. I think this is what the gentleman
intends. In addition, the U.S. Army in Europe will see a reduction of
approximately 2,500 soldiers from enabling units over the next 5 years.
Reducing end strength of any military service is an art form, as
projecting future needs for future conflicts is a very difficult task.
Reducing end strength should be part of a deliberate and thoughtful
plan that incorporates current and future national security needs of
the Nation.
I believe adding an arbitrary cap to the number of servicemembers
assigned to Europe could put our national security at risk. I urge all
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I rise in agreement with the ranking member on
the issue of this amendment.
The subject matter of this amendment is really wholly inappropriate.
It is the movement of brigades. From a policy perspective, we should
not, on this bill or on any bill, be dictating the movement of
brigades.
Should we get out the map of the world and see where all of our
brigades are and have a debate in Congress as to how they be moved
about? No. That is something that is supposed to occur in consultation
with the experts in full, and participation of the Department of
Defense, the Secretary of Defense. And no disrespect to the authors,
but they have no expertise or experience in how the positioning of our
brigades should go for our overall national security.
Mr. Coffman has previously authored an amendment that was on the
National Defense Authorization Act that used language of permit the
reassignment or the removal of brigades. But this is directive. This
says these brigades shall be moved, and it does so under the assumption
that there will be cost savings. But we all know that when you actually
move a brigade, there are a number of costs that are incurred that are
greater than any savings that you would have in offset.
It's been said that the Soviet Union no longer exists. You're right;
the Soviet Union no longer exists. But we have commitments in the
Middle East and our assistance to Africa and our relationship with
Israel. These troops are not there standing guard against the Soviet
Union that's not there anymore. They're in active deployment under the
Secretary of Defense with the current threats that we have for our
national security.
Certainly, as the ranking member has indicated, there's ongoing
assessments as to where these brigades should be assigned and where
their responsibility should be, and those should be left to our
oversight of the Department of Defense and the Secretary of Defense,
not to our directive of the moving of brigades.

{time} 1510

There are some concerns that even the language of this and the
directing of movement of brigades might be logistically implausible.
One of the reasons we don't direct these things is that we don't really
have the ability to understand all of the cascades of effects that
occur.
Now, I certainly understand the call for increased spending from our
NATO partners. That is certainly something that this body should do;
but in calling for our NATO partners to increase their participation in
the expenditures of NATO in their own defense, we should not be
directing the Secretary

[[Page H5045]]

of Defense to actually move brigades. It is an expertise we don't have
in a debate that should not be happening from a policy perspective on
this floor.
With that, 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. It is rare that I disagree with my good friend from
Ohio, but I do. I think that it is appropriate to move forward in this
direction.
As my good friend from the State of Washington indicated, we are
probably going to do this, I think he mentioned, by 2015. The point
here is that this reassessment has been proceeding at a glacial speed.
It is important for us to be on record to move this forward. There are
major things that we are going to have to do. This is relatively small
potatoes compared with what we are going to have to do if we are going
to meet our challenges both in terms of a different security
arrangement with regard to the threats that the United States faces and
our fiscal problems.
Now, we have had this sitting on the back burner for years. We are,
if anything, late to the party; and of course, as long as they are
there, that is a disincentive for our NATO allies to step up and to do
what they need to do in their own defense. We have plenty of assets
around the world. We have opportunities with naval and air strikes. The
notion that we are going to be throwing ground forces that are
stationed in Europe into the fray in Israel or in some battle in
Africa, I think, is near-fetched at the least. Look at what we have
done in the past and how we've gone about it.
With all due respect, I think, in a world where we have the
capacity--as we have shown--to be able to stage and move troops when
needed, this is a small step in the right direction. I think my friend
from Ohio is overstating the case in the notion that somehow it costs
money to do the redeployment so we should just keep them there. We are
going to be redeploying them anyway, so the costs of redeployment are
going to be incurred sometime this decade or sometime this century, but
it costs money to keep them there.
I have a nephew who makes a very good living teaching Americans in
Europe in military schools. I think it's time for my nephew to come
home and teach in the United States. I think there are more cost-
effective ways for us to meet our security obligations. I do think it
is time for our European friends and allies to step up. We can no
longer be paying almost half the defense costs of the world when many
of the others in that mix are people who are our friends and allies. I
think this is a small step in the right direction. I urge the adoption
of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in order
to engage in a colloquy.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. RICHARDSON. I would like to thank Chairman Young and Ranking
Member Dicks for ensuring that this legislation, the fiscal year 2013
Defense appropriations bill, would not include any reductions in the
number of C-17s that are used and serviced by our armed services.
The C-17 is the Air Force's premier strategic transport aircraft, and
it remains the military's most reliable and capable airlift aircraft.
The C-17 flies more than 80 percent of all U.S. airlift missions while
comprising only 60 percent of the airlift fleet. The C-17 has proven
capable of delivering more cargo, troops, and non-war humanitarian
missions than any other aircraft that we have.
Mr. Chairman, this aircraft was instrumental in saving lives during
the devastating earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan last year. In
addition to that, it was instrumental in aiding in the humanitarian
efforts that I witnessed personally in Samoa. Some of the other
missions include the delivery of 10,005 tons of disaster relief
supplies and the carrying of 13,812 passengers in response to the
earthquake that struck Haiti in 2010. In 2009, I worked with
Congressman Eni Faleomavaega to help get disaster relief supplies to
American Samoa after an earthquake and tsunami that ravaged that
island. The 10-day relief mission was conducted with the C-17 aircraft.
The C-17 provides rapid-response capability for relief missions
anywhere in the world, including--but not limited to--serving those who
serve us.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to these humanitarian efforts, the C-17
leads in providing positive economic benefits to our country. The C-17
is built in Long Beach, California, which I happen to have the
privilege to represent with my colleague Mr. Rohrabacher. The
production of the C-17 is responsible for over 13,000 jobs in
California, and it provides $2 billion in economic benefit. Nationally,
the production of the C-17 has suppliers in 44 States, all of which we
represent here. It supports more than 30,000 jobs and has an $8.4
billion economic impact.
While we are looking for ways to rein in spending, the C-17 remains
critical to our national security, to our humanitarian relief missions,
and to our economy. My effort today is to make sure that we have an
adequate number of C-17s that are available, serviced and maintained
for our Armed Forces.
Will the chairman and ranking member continue to work with me to
ensure that there is a sufficient and well-maintained fleet of our C-
17s in our armed services?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I also thank her for her strong support of the C-17, and she is right
on with regard to the vital role it plays in our Nation's defense.
This committee has been a strong advocate for the C-17. Our bill
fully funds the C-17 and ensures that no action can be taken by the Air
Force to reduce the C-17 fleet.
I again thank the gentlelady for her very timely comments on this
important issue.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I was a very strong proponent of the C-17 even when
Douglas Aircraft in Long Beach was building this airplane. I had a
chance to go there when they were doing the wooden mock-ups and when
they brought in the load masters, who made it such that the plane was
built in a way that it could load cargo faster than any other airplane
in history. We have 54 of these at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in the
great State of Washington. We are very proud of the C-17. It is now
built by the Boeing Company.
I just want you to know that we are a very strong proponent. We had
some great work done in the nineties in upgrading the software when we
had major software issues. We also had a dramatic workforce out there
that really used all of the tools of lean production. So the C-17 is a
very high priority, and we will certainly do everything we can.
I wish we'd built more of them, frankly, while we had the line open,
but we did everything we could. We are at a point now where the line is
closing down except for foreign sales. We have a number of foreign
sales; and if at some point we need to come back to it, I certainly
would be open to that.

{time} 1520

Ms. RICHARDSON. I would like to thank Chairman Young and also Ranking
Member Dicks for their response and their commitment to this program.
Yes, in fact, we have been utilizing foreign sales, and given the
current occupations in this country, we stand ready to continue to
build them to protect this country.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H5046]]

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, it is fortuitous now that I rise for
the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida
on an issue that deals directly with the C-17, I might add.
I rise today to voice my concern over recent and devastating
wildfires that have enveloped massive amounts of land throughout our
country. The ruin caused by these wildfires has consumed 2.1 million
acres, destroyed over 1,600 homes, killed 7 people, and threatened many
more. This recurring problem, caused by dry conditions, hot weather,
and ample fuel, tests the limits of our current Federal, State, and
local firefighting resources.
When homes and lives are on the line, I believe we should take all
possible action to protect lives and property, including the deployment
of Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve resources when appropriate.
We oftentimes think of the Department of Defense as an entity that
should be aimed at defending our Nation from foes abroad, but the fact
is that there are enormous resources held by the Department of Defense,
such as cargo planes that are capable of assisting in many other
efforts, including firefighting efforts, which threaten the lives and
property of our people.
For example, one specific concept, named the Precision Container
Aerial Delivery System, or PCADS, needs only an additional $2.6 million
in funding to complete its already years-long evaluation of this
technology. Unfortunately, however, DOD has not committed this meager
sum to finish evaluating PCADS, despite the authority to do so.
What are PCADS? They essentially allow any military cargo plane that
has a ramp in the back--mainly, our C-17s and our C-130s--to assist in
wildfire efforts without having to modify the airplane at all. This
means the C-17s and the C-130s, of which we have right now many
stationed all over the country, could be deployed to help extinguish
wildfires at a relatively low cost, creating a new and enormous
firefighting capability. As I say, it's at a minimal cost.
Basically what we're talking about is a huge container system in the
back that is made out of cardboard and a water balloon, which will
permit putting them onto the C-17s and the C-130s to rolling right on
1,000 pounds of water per container. These C-130 pilots and C-17 pilots
are already trained to drop these things, and without modifying the
airplane, they could become an enormous resource to fighting fires
throughout our country without adding any extra cost after this $2.6
million for the final test.
I, therefore, have one simple request: to the extent that the
Department of Defense is capable of exploring new, innovative, cost-
effective, and promising firefighting technologies that can be used for
our civilian population, but especially for the firefighting
capabilities that can aid in support, as I say, firemen's requests
throughout our country and from the State and Federal level, I urge the
Department of Defense to do so to the degree that it can.
I now yield to the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
California for bringing this to our attention and for supporting
innovative and cost-effective ways for our government to protect our
people and their possessions from wildfires. I, too, believe the
Department of Defense should seriously consider promising and cost-
effective firefighting technologies where appropriate.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. This has been a subject I've been very interested in as
former chairman of the Interior Appropriation Subcommittee where we
have to fund the efforts for firefighting, which are very massive.
I have tried to work with the Defense Department. The biggest problem
we face is that OMB, when you want to lease these airplanes--we're
looking mainly at the C-130J here--lease them for firefighting purposes
and then have them deployed with the National Guard in California or
somewhere on the west coast, you get into the fact that if you try to
lease them, the budget control people want to put the whole burden on
the first year. This is why leasing has become difficult. We've got to
work out a way to get these airplanes.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from California has
expired.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, 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 gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. In the past, in order to achieve the goal that you
have outlined, we needed to reconfigure the inside of these C-130s and
have special C-130s deployed.
This new PCAD system, which we can roll on enormous amounts of water
in these little container systems, which is 1,000 pounds of water per
container, can be dropped without reconfiguring the C-130s or the C-
17s.
Mr. DICKS. I'm very interested in this, and I want to talk to my good
friend about this. I would like to work with you on it.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have one last note. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. There's been a series of tests to show this is very
effective. One more series of tests will cost $2.6 million and can
deploy these. I believe it will increase the value of our C-130s and C-
17s to the point that we can actually maybe charge a little bit more
money when we sell the C-17s, which will be far more than the $2.6
million for this final test. It will pay for itself, not to mention the
property damage that we can protect against.
Mr. DICKS. I look forward to working with the gentleman on this
issue, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. RICHARDSON. I would like to engage in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member
Dicks for including language in the conference report that recognizes
the importance of increasing the fair opportunity for numbers of women
and minorities in officer positions and within the Special Operations
Forces.
Minorities and women to have an opportunity to fairly compete--and I
stress, ``compete''--are often underrepresented in the leadership ranks
within our Armed Services. African Americans account for 12 percent of
the U.S. population but represent just 8 percent of Active Duty
officers. Likewise, when it comes to Hispanic Americans, it's even
worse. Hispanics make up 15 percent of the U.S. population but number
only 5 percent of the officer corps.
While the number of women in officer positions has seen increases,
there is still a lack of women in top officer positions. In 2009, there
were 40 individuals who held the highest rank in our Armed Services.
Mr. Chairman, do you know how many of those were women? I'm sad to
say, just 1 out of 40. This shows that there is considerable room for
improvement.
Having served on the Transportation Committee with Mr. Cummings, much
work was done on the Coast Guard side, but really should be equalled
throughout the Armed Forces.
I was planning on offering an amendment to the Defense appropriations
bill that would make it explicit that it is the sense of Congress that
efforts should be made to increase the number of women and minorities
in officer positions, but it would be subject to a point of order.
However, I've worked with Chairman Young and his staff that going
forward we would continue to look at ways to increase women and
minorities within the leadership ranks and to give them an opportunity
again to compete for fair positions.
Chairman Young, will you continue to work with me on this very
important issue?
And I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I
thank her for calling attention to the fact that the subcommittee in
our report said

[[Page H5047]]

this is an issue worthy of attention. Our language in the report said:
urges the services, and specifically our Special Operations Forces, to
conduct effective outreach and recruitment programs to minority
populations to improve diversity in the military.
Absolutely. We agree with you totally. That is the intent of our
committee. It becomes the intent of the Congress. We will continue to
work with you to make sure that we do better at every opportunity.
I thank you for raising this issue today.

{time} 1530

Ms. RICHARDSON. I thank the gentleman for his response, his
leadership, and his commitment on this issue
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DICKS. I want the gentlelady to know that we worked with Mr.
Young on a number of insertions of report language in the report
because of our concern about this issue as well. This is something
where we always have to be vigilant because the people kind of forget
what the legal responsibilities are. These are statutory
responsibilities.
I appreciate the gentlelady from California bringing this to our
attention. We'll work with her on this issue.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also Ranking Member
Dicks.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Berg

Mr. BERG. 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 reduce the number of the following nuclear weapons
delivery vehicles of the United States:
(1) Heavy bomber aircraft.
(2) Air-launched cruise missiles.
(3) Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines.
(4) Submarine-launched ballistic missiles.
(5) Intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BERG. Mr. Chairman, I have the distinct honor to represent
several military installations in my State of North Dakota, including
the Minot Air Force Base, the home of the 91st Missile Wing and the 5th
Bomber Wing, which relates to the amendment I have to offer today.
The amendment, which I offer today, along with my colleagues Mrs.
Lummis of Wyoming and Mr. Denny Rehberg of Montana, is very
straightforward. It prohibits the fiscal year 2013 funds from being
used to implement plans under the New START Treaty to reduce the number
of nuclear weapons and their delivery system, which significantly
reduces America's ability to develop and use our nuclear defense
capabilities.
We all know that during the 2010 lame duck session the Senate
ratified the New START Treaty, and President Obama made a promise to
Congress that as long as he was President we will continue to invest in
nuclear modernization.
Mr. Chairman, since then, he has backed away from his promise, and we
all heard the President's unsettling off-mike comments that he would
have more flexibility after the November elections.
The treaty provides for 7 years for the United States and Russia to
reduce the number of deployed ICBMs, deployed submarine-launched
ballistic missiles and deployed heavy bombers equipped to carry nuclear
armaments to no more than 700 weapons.
I know that many of us may not agree on the appropriate level of
deployed nuclear weapons or our view on the New START Treaty. However,
we need to make one thing clear: nowhere in the New START Treaty does
it require reductions from the United States to make these cuts prior
to fiscal year or during fiscal year 2013.
Furthermore, we're still waiting on the administration to tell us
exactly how sharp the cuts in our deployed nuclear weapons could be
under the New START Treaty.
The Associated Press has reported the Obama administration is going
beyond the level laid out in the New START Treaty and is considering as
much as an 80-percent reduction in our current nuclear arsenal.
It appears that the administration is planning drastic cuts to our
nuclear arsenal and could be planning to move away from our nuclear
triad strategy altogether. All three legs of our Nation's nuclear triad
are complementary to the defense of our Nation.
Drastic cuts in our overall level of our Nation's nuclear arsenal
puts our national security at risk and sharp reductions to any one leg
of the nuclear triad would destabilize a sound defense strategy.
Therefore, since the President made an agreement to modernize our
arsenal, and Congress is still waiting to hear what those specifics
are, Congress should not provide funding to facilitate these
reductions.
I urge adoption of these amendments.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERG. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank
him very much for bringing up this issue. I believe that the Berg
amendment recognizes the world as it really is, the threats that we
potentially face. I think he has done the Congress a real service today
by emphasizing this issue with his amendment, and I support his
amendment.
Mr. BERG. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. The New START Treaty limits the total number of weapon
delivery vehicles by 2017. According to the Air Force, they are funded
for New START implementation, but are awaiting final force structure
decisions to determine numbers of weapon delivery vehicles to be
reduced in FY 13.
We should carry out our obligation under the New START Treaty and not
restrict the Department's obligation to implement it. I urge my
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I want to make it clear to my colleagues just what we're talking
about. Under the New START we will have 520 ICBMs with 420 warheads. We
will have 60 bombers, 42 B-52s and 18 B-2s that are nuclear capable,
and they have many warheads. We have 240 sub-launched missiles. The
number of subs are not restricted, but we have 14 Trident submarines.
I would, with all due respect, just say this, this is one area where
we can, if we can come down on a mutual agreement with the Russians to
a lower level, we can save ourselves the money of not having to replace
all of these weapons systems. A lot of very thoughtful people have
looked at this issue, and they believe that the two most survivable
legs of the triad are the ballistic missile submarines and the bombers.
The land-based missiles are vulnerable. Now, we had great debates over
the MX missile. We got into how many RVs coming in to take out an
existing missile, usually it's two, so the enemy would be using up
weapons.
But the point of it all is, the last thing that we're going to be
using is nuclear weapons. It just is not going to happen; it would
destroy the world. So we can come down to a lower level and still have
a credible deterrent. We can't afford to do everything.
The most important thing today, I think, is to build up our Special
Forces, build up our intelligence capabilities, and look at the threats
that we're facing out there with al Qaeda and the terrorists. Frankly,
nuclear weapons are a relic of the Cold War, and we should bring down
the size of this.
General Cartwright, one of the most thoughtful former members of the
Joint Chiefs, has suggested that we go to a DYAD, just having ballistic
missile submarines and bombers. That's something that we should
consider. The Markey amendment would have started us in a way of
reducing the number of land-based missiles.
I just think it's not right for us to get in the middle of this. The
Senate had long hearings. They went through a process of ratification.
This treaty was ratified by the United States Senate.

[[Page H5048]]

Again, I just think if there is one area where we can make some
reductions, it's in the area of nuclear weapons. We're just not going
to need as many as we've had in the past, and we can have great
deterrents at a lower level. I hope we can reach that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5
minutes.

{time} 1540

Mrs. LUMMIS. I'm pleased to work with Representative Berg on this
amendment, which will protect our nuclear triad from the reductions
scheduled under this treaty for the term of this 2013 budget year. Each
leg of our nuclear triad--bombers, submarines, and land-based
missiles--complement each other and they strengthen each other.
As a lifelong resident of southeast Wyoming, I have come to
understand and appreciate the role of our intercontinental ballistic
missiles. The 90th Missile Wing in Cheyenne keeps 150 of our ICBMs at
nearly 100 percent alert. The bombers and subs have their own unique
strengths, but no other leg of the triad comes close to this alert
level. The constant alert, wide geographic dispersion and immediate,
global response capability of our ICBMs make them an indispensable part
of our triad.
ICBMs are the most cost-effective leg of the triad as well. At less
than $3 million per ICBM, they are less than a third of the cost of a
sub-launched missile or a nuclear bomber. It's because of ICBMs that we
can say with confidence that we are fielding a nearly unbeatable
nuclear force.
Those that want to slash our nuclear force forget that it was
American strength that ended the Cold War. It was American strength,
including the Peacekeeper and Minuteman III missiles, that allowed us
to negotiate landmark reductions in American and Russian nuclear
arsenals. Remember, we were able to retire the Peacekeeper missile
silos in Wyoming. It was a victory for global stability; but we did it
through American strength, not through unilateral disarmament.
That's what makes the New START Treaty so troubling. It is bilateral
in name only. The United States bound itself to unilateral reductions
in strategic nukes, but Russia can still expand its strategic arsenal.
Russia can stack their bombers to the hilt with warheads and call it a
single-delivery vehicle. Russia can deploy an unlimited number of the
tactical nuclear weapons under which they hold an advantage. Russia can
develop new, long-range nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. With New START,
we negotiated away American strength and received little in return.
It is dangerous to assume that our nuclear competitors have the same
motives and ideals that we do. If we roll over and capitulate to the
demands of our competitors, we cannot assume that Russia, China, and
Iran will follow. But if we maintain our strengths and our unbeatable
nuclear posture, we will be far more effective at securing the peace
that we all want.
Again, I want to thank Representative Berg and Mr. Rehberg. I
encourage you to vote against unilateral disarmament. Vote for our
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. This debate has taken on the characteristics of ancestor
worship, and I understand it. I know it's hard for individuals to let
go of the Cold War, to let go of an era where foreign policy was
characterized by this bitter rivalry between the United States and the
Soviet Union. The reality: We won. It's over. We didn't just win. It
was basically a world where there's unipower now. It's us.
The Chinese only have 40 to 50 nuclear missiles. The Russians have
already dramatically reduced their weapons. The likelihood of a nuclear
war between the United States and Russia is negative zero. And yet
there are Members that don't want to see any reductions in our nuclear
weapons force, notwithstanding the fact that those extra expenditures
then would have to come out of other budgets, including the budget for
the National Institutes of Health to find a cure for cancer or
Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. And so we have this curious disconnect
between the reality of the world that we live in today and the
understandable but erroneous commitment that many Members on the other
side have to a relic of a Cold War-era rivalry that no longer can
withstand fiscal scrutiny.
So let's just take this debate about whether or not the United States
is vulnerable.
Each one of our submarine-based nuclear weapons systems have 96
independently targetable warheads onboard. That is: each one of our sub
commanders can destroy the 96 biggest cities in China; each one of our
sub commanders can destroy the 96 biggest cities in Russia; each sub
commander, with their first nuclear weapon, could destroy Tehran; each
sub commander could destroy Pyongyang and still have 95 independently
targetable nuclear weapons onboard that one submarine, much less every
other submarine that we have out there.
And so to have an amendment that says, after New START was agreed to
between Russia and the United States, after the Air Force and the Navy
signed off on New START, to have Members of the House proposing that
notwithstanding that agreement that was reached that does enhance
American national security by reducing the likelihood that there would
be a conflict between the United States and Russia, as low as that
likelihood is, that we have this micromanagement that comes in of our
military.
But it's more than that. Let's admit it. It's all about jobs. You're
thinking about the defense bill as a jobs bill, and I understand that.
But whenever we're talking about the defense bill, those jobs that are
created should relate in some way to American national security. And
what the Air Force and the Navy are saying is that they do not believe
they need more nuclear weapons. In fact, they can agree to and have
already accepted the reduction in nuclear weapons that is in the New
START Treaty.
And so I understand from a jobs perspective why you want to lock in
jobs that may have been created a generation ago in the height of the
Cold War, but we have to redeploy for the 21st century not only
militarily, but also into what strengthens us domestically in terms of
medical research and educational programs.
So I can't really understand why we're even debating this issue.
There is a treaty between our two countries. Our military has signed
off. Our military says it actually enhances our security.
And I agree with the gentleman from Washington State: This is an area
where we should actually give some respect to the United States Senate
that ratified the treaty, to each one of your Joint Chiefs that signed
off on it, and not allow a jobs bill to trump our national security;
and that if you can find programs that actually enhance our security
and you want to spend the money on it, let's debate that. But this is
an area that is already resolved.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Berg amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chair, we've got to do everything we can to stop New
START in its tracks.
President Obama, with the support of the Senate put the United States
on a dangerous path of unilateral disarmament. New START forced the
United States to reduce our nuclear arsenal, while actually allowing
Russia to increase theirs.
And for Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana--home of the 341st ICBM
Missile Wing--this does more than threaten our national security. For
the Great Falls community, it threatens the foundation of our community
and economy.
Last week, I heard from community leaders and activists in Great
Falls. They made it clear that New START, and the deeper cuts it
foreshadows, is a bad idea.
Today, the House of Representatives has an opportunity to protect our
nuclear deterrent and derail this harmful treaty. I urge ``yes'' vote.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

[[Page H5049]]

Mr. BERG. 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 North Dakota
will be postponed.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOLT. I wish to engage in a colloquy with the ranking member of
the Committee, but let me begin by thanking the gentleman from
Washington and Chairman Young for accommodating my request, for the
second year in a row, for an additional $20 million to be included in
the appropriations bill for suicide prevention and outreach programs.

{time} 1550

The committee last year honored this request, and I think it's a
clear demonstration of the committee's intent that the Department do
more and more to end this epidemic of suicide among our Active-Duty,
Guard and Reserve force.
I do have a clarifying question I would like to pose to the gentleman
from Washington.
Is it the committee's intent that the $20 million in this legislation
in additional suicide prevention funds be made available for successful
suicide prevention programs, such as New Jersey's Vets4Warriors peer-
to-peer counseling and outreach program?
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOLT. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I can assure the gentleman from New Jersey that the
committee intends to fund those programs that most effectively minimize
suicides. And I'd point out that in most of these situations, this
money is going to be competitively awarded. But I'm sure that the
gentleman's New Jersey program will compete very well.
Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman.
I would also like under general leave to insert in the Record a
letter from the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the
Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, and the Marine Corps League to
Secretary Panetta concerning this Vets4Warriors program.

June 15, 2012.
Hon. Leon E. Panetta,
Secretary of Defense,
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: As a group of the nations' leading
veteran service organizations we take very seriously our
commitment to the men and women who serve in uniform. They
have answered the call and put their lives in mortal danger
to protect the nation from adversaries and to advance our
national security interests. One of the most important things
we can do to honor their service and give something back to
those who have given us so much is to ensure that they have
healthy conduits to alleviate their mental and psychological
anguish.
Unfortunately, the nation has not yet succeeded in bringing
this to pass. Though many programs and alternatives have been
explored by the Departments of Defense and Veterans' Affairs,
few or perhaps none have been as successful as the
Vets4Warriors program. The program is based on the New Jersey
Vet2Vet program, a nationally-recognized peer support program
that has received critical acclaim for over 7 years.
Vets4Warriors, the nascent program of the Army National
Guard--a mere six months old--is showing incredible promise
and we are confident that it will be as successful nationally
as Vet2Vet has been in New Jersey.
Already, this program has received over 7000 calls and
nearly 500 inbound contacts through other means such as
Internet-based chats. Vets4Warriors provides effective, on-
going peer support for men and women from all service
branches--past and present. Any military personnel, family
member or veteran can call this toll-free line 24/7 and have
the call answered immediately by a carefully trained veteran
peer counselor. We believe there are none better positioned
to understand and assist with the rigors of military life
than someone who has lived it. The calls are all confidential
and can be anonymous. The peer counselors are able to triage
the callers' needs, provide crisis intervention, local
referrals for any needed services such as mental health,
financial counseling, legal aid, or a host of other possible
needs. At all times, a licensed mental health professional is
immediately available to the peer counselor, should the
situation warrant it. The goal is to create a stigma-free
environment that encourages service members to contact
Vets4Warriors when any concerns arise and the peer counselors
help prevent these problems from becoming crises. There is
also a formal relationship with the National Veterans Crisis
Line, so calls to Crisis Line that are not crises are
transferred to Vets4Warriors and crisis calls to
Vets4Warriors can be ``warm transferred'' to the Veterans
Crisis Line. Vets4Warriors strives to use all existing
resources and not duplicate any of them.
These and other characteristics make this program unique
and successful. However, what truly sets their work apart is
that they show their commitment to individuals by proactively
reaching back to each person that contacts Vets4Warriors to
make sure they are getting the help they need, preventing
problems from becoming crises. Vets4Warriors has made
approximately 8400 follow-up calls to veterans who have
contacted them--about 900 or 11% more than their incoming
call volume. Every single call is logged into a database, so
there is extensive information available on who is calling,
why they are calling and the outcomes of the calls.
Vets4Warriors employs 27 veteran peer counselors
representing all branches of service, so callers may even
choose a peer counselor by their military experience. The
same peer counselor will maintain contact with the caller
over weeks or months, until the issues are resolved. They
will also become advocates for the callers, should that be
necessary. To our knowledge, no other program provides this
kind of personal investment in the service member and offers
the variety of services needed to meet the diverse needs of
our military members and their families.
It is because of the enormous success of the program that
we are so determined to ensure it receives the funding it
needs to achieve long-term success. Recent developments have
made us very concerned that the program will not be budgeted
for in 2013, and we urge you to make funding this program a
top priority. The investment is marginal, yet the impact is
huge. The health and readiness of the military depends on
personnel that are resilient against the stressors of
military service, both on and off the battlefield. Having
seen it first-hand, we believe Vets4Warriors is a tremendous
program that must be given a legitimate opportunity to
succeed. With your support, we have every reason to believe
that it will make a measurable difference in the lives of
many veterans, military personnel and family members, and we
strongly urge you to ensure full funding for the program.
Respectfully,
Stewart M. Hickey, National Executive Director, American
Veterans, Forbes Boulevard, Lanham, MD.
Barry A. Jesinoski, Executive Director, Disabled American
Veterans, Maine Avenue, SW., Washington, DC.
Michael A. Blum, Executive Director, Marine Corps League,
Merrifield, VA.
Peter S. Gaytan, Executive Director, The American Legion, K
Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Robert E. Wallace, Executive Director, Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the U.S., Maryland Avenue, NE., Washington, DC.

In this letter, the five veteran service organizations note that of
all the suicide prevention programs and alternatives explored by the
Department, ``perhaps none have been more successful than the
Vets4Warriors program.''
I raise this letter, Mr. Chairman, because just this past week, the
National Academies of Science released a report on the DOD and the VA's
response to this explosion of PTSD cases and suicide-related mental
health problems for veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.
We want to make sure that the successful programs are recognized; and
to date, no servicemember or veteran who has used these Vets4Warriors
or vet-to-vet program has taken his or her own life. They have been
successful.
One of the shortcomings in our government's approach to dealing with
the suicide epidemic among servicemembers and veterans is the
assumption that only programs within the DOD and within the VA are
capable of dealing with this crisis. Our experience in New Jersey
strongly suggests otherwise, and I ask the gentleman from Washington
and the chair of the committee for their help in prodding the National
Academies and the government at large in evaluating the potential
positive role that community-based programs like Vets4Warriors can play
in helping defeat the suicide epidemic among our troops and veterans.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. The gentleman from New Jersey has my assurance we will
work with him on this issue. And I would just say that our chairman has
been a great leader on this issue. No one has done more than Bill Young
on this. I look forward to working with him and trying to make sure
that this program is completely and thoroughly evaluated by the Army,
by the National Guard, and by the VA.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H5050]]

Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I appreciate the comments of Mr. Dicks, our former chairman, and
would say that I agree strongly with him, as I do most of the time. We
have a great history of working together for many, many years. We will
be very happy to work together with you on this issue because it is a
very, very important concern to all of us and to all the members of our
committee and I know to all the Members of this House of
Representatives.
Mr. HOLT. Reclaiming my time, I would reiterate my thanks to the
chairman and to the ranking member for the strong attention and
sensitive attention that they have given to this matter.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flores

Mr. FLORES. 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 enforce section 526 of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17142).

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment which
addresses another misguided and restrictive Federal regulation.
Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act prevents
Federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of
fuels unless their life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are less than or
equal to emissions from an equivalent conventional fuel produced from
conventional petroleum sources.
The initial purpose of section 526 was to stop the Defense
Department's plans to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-liquid jet
fuel. This restriction was based on the opinion of some
environmentalists that coal-based jet fuel might produce more
greenhouse gas emissions than traditional, petroleum-derived fuels.
My amendment is a simple fix, and that fix is to not restrict our
fuel choices based on extreme environmental views, bad policies, and
misguided regulations like those in section 526.
Placing limits on Federal agencies' fuel choices is an unacceptable
precedent to set in regard to America's petroleum independence and our
national security. Mr. Chair, section 526 restrictions make our Nation
more dependent on unstable Middle Eastern oil. Stopping the impact of
section 526 will help us promote American energy, improve the American
economy, and create American jobs. In addition, and probably most
important, we must ensure that our military has adequate fuel resources
and that it can rely on domestic and more stable sources of fuel.
With increasing competition for energy and fuel resources and with
the continued volatility and instability in the Middle East, it is now
more important than ever for our country to become more energy
independent and to further develop and produce all of our domestic
energy resources.
In some circles, there is a misconception that my amendment somehow
prevents the Federal Government and our military from being able to
produce and use alternative fuels. Mr. Chair, this viewpoint is
categorically false. All my amendment does is to allow Federal
purchasers, particularly our military, to be able to acquire the fuels
that best and most efficiently meet their needs.
I offered a similar amendment to the CJS appropriations bill for FY
2013, and it passed with strong bipartisan support. My identical
amendments to four other FY 2013 appropriations bills also each passed
by voice vote. My friend, Mr. Conaway, also had language added to the
defense authorization bill to exempt the Defense Department from this
burdensome regulation.
Let's remember the following problems with section 526: one, it
increases our reliance on unstable Middle Eastern oil; two, it hurts
our military readiness, our national security and our energy security;
three, it prevents the increased use of some sources of safe, clean and
efficient American oil and gas; four, it hurts American jobs and the
American economy; five, last and certainly not least, it costs our
taxpayers more of their hard-earned dollars.
My amendment fixes those problems. I urge my colleagues to support
the passage of this commonsense amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, everyone in this House would sleep much
easier at night if our airplanes flew on sunbeams and our ships steamed
on rainbows, but they don't. They use diesel, and diesel they must have
if they are to continue to protect this Nation.
I rise today in strong support of this amendment to lift the
restrictions on the military's procurement of alternative fuels
enshrined in section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act. I
would also like to thank my colleagues, Mr. Flores and Mr. Hensarling,
for their work with me on this issue.
Section 526 prohibits the military from purchasing alternative fuel
products that have ``life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions''--that's a
mouthful--that are ``less than or equal to such emissions from
conventional fuel.'' Mr. Chair, this prohibition makes no sense to me.
Several months ago, Secretary of the Navy Mabus said:

Our dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuel is rife
with danger for our Nation, and it would be irresponsible to
continue it. Paying for spikes in oil prices means we may
have less money to spend on readiness, which includes
procurement. We could be using that money for more hardware
and more platforms.

{time} 1600

If protecting fuel supply lines and avoiding price volatility are
truly the goals of the military--and I do believe that these are worthy
objectives--then lifting the restrictions imposed by section 526 should
be a no-brainer.
Section 526 puts technology like coal-to-liquids, gas-to-liquids, oil
shale, and oil sands out of reach for the United States military. These
technologies are capable of meeting the Department's objectives for
safeguarding production and reducing price volatility, and in most
cases are far more advanced than the exotic biofuels project that the
Navy is currently pursuing.
This amendment will offer us a stark choice: The military can meet
its strategic fuel supply concerns or operational planning can take a
backseat to environmental posturing.
Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will spend their
time talking about how dirty fuel derived from coal-to-liquids or oil
sand technology is. They will offer up and knock down straw men dealing
with global warming and carbon footprints. But what they will not talk
about is the critical need for our Department of Defense to procure the
cheapest, most readily available fuel that fulfils its strategic
requirements.
I offer my full-throated endorsement for the Department's work to
increase its energy efficiency, to reduce the need for fuel convoys,
and to limit vulnerabilities in the fuel supply chain. However, those
aren't the issues that we're dealing with with this amendment. The
question this amendment asks is: Is it appropriate for Congress to
continue to prohibit the military from purchasing certain domestically
available synthetic fuels?
The Department of Defense's singular objective is to protect this
Nation. Department of Defense leaders have made it clear that foreign
sources of oil and price volatility present an obstacle to fulfilling
that obligation. Lifting the restrictions contained in section 526 will
free the military to utilize any technology it believes can help to
confront that danger.
I urge my colleagues to join me to lift this irresponsible
prohibition and provide the military with the options it needs to
manage the long-term, strategic risks facing our Nation.
I thank my good friend for offering this amendment, and I look
forward to its passage.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H5051]]

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I rise to support this very, very popular
amendment.
Mr. Flores offered the same amendment to each fiscal year 2012
appropriations bill, and all were accepted by a voice vote. Also, each
fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill that has already passed the House
includes this amendment. All passed by voice vote, with the exception
of CJS, which had a rollcall and a positive vote of over 250 votes
``yes.'' Fifteen Democrats supported the amendment.
Mr. Conaway offered an amendment to the FY13 Armed Services Committee
bill which has the same effect. The amendment was accepted into the
House bill. This obviously is a very popular amendment, and I'm happy
to be supportive of it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I have a question to the author of the amendment and
to those who are supporting it on the other side.
In listening to your discussion, you seem to be in a posture of the
military--Navy in this case, and I suppose other branches--having
access to alternate fuels. You spoke specifically of coal-based fuels.
Are you speaking of all kinds of alternative fuels and that the
military should pursue those fuels so that they might be available to
pursue them in their development phase as well as when they are fully
developed?
Mr. FLORES. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FLORES. All my amendment does is remove any external restrictions
from the Department of Defense being able to acquire fuels. It doesn't
restrict their ability to acquire alternative fuels, such as the Green
Fleet.
Now, I have issues with paying $56 a gallon for fuel, but I'm willing
to battle that at a future date. I'm not endorsing the use of those
expensive fuels. I think they're irresponsible uses of taxpayer funds
when the purpose of the military is to defend our country, not to be
trying to promote alternative fuels.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Reclaiming my time, sir, in listening to your
discussion about the coal-based fuels, clearly those are in the
development stage; they're not yet in place. I would assume that in the
development stage, the U.S. military would be purchasing those for the
purposes of testing as well as providing an early market, a development
market, for those fuels. Therefore, I would assume that that same logic
would apply to other kinds of biofuels, would it not?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FLORES. The logic applies. But again, I think it's an order of
magnitude.
For instance, technology to do coal-to-liquids fuels was used by the
Germans in World War II. It's been tried in the past. It's still not
cost effective. I think there's an order of magnitude. For instance, if
the military can do it for, let's say, 50 percent more than it costs
for conventional fuel, that's one thing; but if it has to pay 10 times
more for biobase fuels, that's another issue.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, reclaiming my time, and thank you, sir, for the
information.
The point here is that in the early development of all of these
fuels, whether they are coal-based or other kinds of biofuels, there is
a higher cost in the early stages that presumably and hopefully and, in
fact, must be reduced if the Navy is to procure those fuels for the
normal utilization of their fleet, or whatever the fuel might be used
for. Therefore, in listening to your discussion, which I do support, I
think it's important to understand that in the early development there
is going to be a higher cost which could not and should not carry
forward for the normal use of those fuels.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment. It's been argued that section 526 harms our military
readiness. This is simply not the case, particularly according to the
Department of Defense.
The Department of Defense has stated this month, very clearly, the
provision has not hindered the Department from purchasing the fuel we
need today worldwide to support the military missions. But it also sets
an important baseline in developing the fuels that we need for our
future.
DOD, the Department of Defense, supports this section and recognizes
that tomorrow's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are going to
need a greater range of energy sources. In fact, the Department says
that repealing this section could, and I'm quoting the Department,
``complicate the Department's efforts to provide better energy
solutions to our warfighters and to take advantage of the promising
developments in homegrown biofuels.'' I would also emphasize the impact
it would have on our economy and the creation of new jobs in our
economy.
I believe the amendment would damage the development of biofuels,
given the fact that the Department of Defense is such a huge procurer
of energy, at the worst possible time for our economy. It could send a
negative signal to America's advanced biofuel industry and could result
in adverse impacts to the U.S. job creation efforts, rural development
efforts, and the export of world-leading technology.
I would also emphasize to my colleagues the section does not prevent
the sale of fuels that emit more carbon, nor does it prevent the
Federal agencies from buying these fuels if they need to.
Government policies should help drive the development of alternative
fuels that cut carbon emission, not increase it. I think that's a
commonsense approach.
Again, I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment and, I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the
Flores amendment that will prevent funds in H.R. 5856--the FY13 Defense
Appropriations Act--from being used to carry out Section 526 of the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
Section 526 prohibits all federal agencies from contracting for
alternative fuels that emit higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions
than ``conventional petroleum sources.'' This means that if a federal
agency--particularly the Department of Defense--attempts to utilize an
alternative fuel that even has one scintilla more carbon emissions than
conventional fuels, it is prohibited from doing so. As a result,
Section 526 limits innovation from DoD to improve clean carbon capture
technologies for alternative fuels, thereby increasing our dependence
on foreign oil, and will only further increase fuel costs.
The amendment intends to remove the handcuffs placed on the agencies
under this bill by Section 526. This means that the DoD will still be
able to purchase Canadian fuels with traces of oil sands that may
create more of a carbon footprint than completely conventional fuel.
Mr. Chair, I support a full repeal of Section 526 because the cost of
refined product for DoD has increased by over 500% in the last ten
years when volume only increased by 30%. Furthermore, within the last
month, the U.S. Navy spent $26 per gallon and the U.S. Air Force just
spent $59 per gallon for bio-fuels used for the Administration's Great
Green Fleet Demonstration while conventional fuel bears less of a cost
on the Pentagon.
When defense spending is already facing $600 billion in sequestration
cuts, we must find commonsense ways to best utilize taxpayer dollars.
This amendment takes a very important step of achieving this goal by
prohibiting funding to carry out Section 526 for the upcoming fiscal
year at the DoD.
With that in mind, I commend my colleague from Texas--Bill Flores--
for his continued leadership on this important issue. I urge this body
to support this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
The amendment was agreed to.
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. I rise for the purpose of a colloquy
between my friend, the chairman from Florida, and the ranking member,
my friend from Indiana.

[[Page H5052]]

I was planning to introduce an amendment on this issue, an amendment
that would require the Department of Defense to buy American flags that
are made in America by American workers using American-grown and
manufactured materials.
Wherever an American flag is flown, it's a symbol of the freedoms men
and women throughout our history have marched, fought, and died to
secure.

{time} 1610

There's no greater symbol of our country, our unity, our freedom, and
our liberty than our flag.
The Veterans Administration is already required, by law, to purchase
100 percent American-made flags of American-made materials to drape the
caskets of each deceased war hero.
I understand that there are already requirements prohibiting the
Department of Defense from purchasing certain items not produced in the
United States, but there are no requirements for the Department of
Defense to purchase American-made American flags.
I believe it's important that every American flag the Department of
Defense buys should be made in America by American workers with
American materials. It's as simple as that.
At a time when our domestic manufacturing sector is struggling, and
millions in our country are out of work, it's a slap in the face to all
Americans to have their tax dollars spent on flags that are made
overseas.
I ask the gentlemen here today with me, do you share my concerns
about this issue? Will you and the ranking member, Mr. Chairman, work
with me to address this omission, and help to ensure that the brave men
and women in uniform receive American-made American flags?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for discussing this with
us earlier on. We have had a very good conversation, and I would say
that I am strongly supportive of what the gentleman has just said.
I believe that the American flag should be made in America, with
American materials, whatever they might be. And so I do share that, and
I guarantee him that we will continue to work with him to find a
workable solution to see that this does happen.
I thank the gentleman for raising the issue. I thank him, again, for
discussing this early on with me, and I'm here to be supportive.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Reclaiming my time, thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I look forward to working with you.
I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the
ranking member.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and would
associate myself with the remarks of the chairman.
I really appreciate the gentleman raising this issue before the body,
and certainly want to work with Mr. Thompson, as well as the chairman
of the committee, on this very important issue, and certainly pledge
myself to do that.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Indiana, and look
forward to working with both of them and others in the House to ensure
that we can bring this to resolution.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Runyan

Mr. RUNYAN. 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 Operation and Maintenance funds made
available in this Act may be used in contravention of section
41106 of title 49, United States Code.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the
committee for allowing me to bring this forward.
Congress has a responsibility to see that funds are spent
appropriately by the Department of Defense to support missions and
provide for our national security.
The Department has been using foreign-owned aircraft to carry
equipment in and out of Afghanistan, totaling over $140 million year-
to-date. These missions could have been completed by American carriers.
American carriers are regulated by the FAA and have a much better
safety record than foreign airlines. And U.S. government dollars go to
develop U.S. jobs.
The U.S. government specifically designated the Civil Reserve Air
Fleet, or CRAF, to supplement national security air transport needs
through partnership with private U.S.-based airlines. The program
allows civilian airlift capability to integrate with military command
structures on short notice.
Using foreign-owned aircraft is not only disadvantageous for our
military carriers but also for U.S. commercial airlines that have
dedicated aircraft to CRAF. It removes the incentive for American
carriers to hire American workers and use American mechanics and
suppliers, and ultimately harms a vital national security program.
This amendment requires that the Department of Defense use American-
owned and operated aircraft whenever possible to move cargo and
passengers. It ensures that troops in the field get what they need by
allowing the Department to use foreign carriers when necessary. It
strengthens this vital national security program and assures that
American dollars are spent on American services.
Current law, the Fly CRAF Act, is not being complied with to the
extent, again, of $140 million. It has gone to foreign carriers this
year, and unapproved carriers are being assigned CRAF missions. This
``leakage'' from CRAF programs is a threat to the viability of our CRAF
carriers, the program, and ultimately, our warfighters.
I would encourage all Members to support this 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 rise in support of this
excellent amendment, and I thank Mr. Runyan for offering it today. And
so I do accept the amendment.
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. Runyan).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI. 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 $12,670,355,000.
(b) The reduction in subsection (a) shall not apply to the
following accounts in title IX:
(1) ``Afghanistan Security Forces Fund''.
(2) ``Defense Health Program''.
(3) ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities,
Defense''.
(4) ``Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund''.
(5) ``Office of the Inspector General''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered by Mr. Jones
and myself. The current Overseas Contingency Operation budget is based
on the assumption that we will have 68,000 troops in Afghanistan
throughout the entire fiscal year 2013. However, this is not the plan
that our Commander in Chief has put forth, nor is it the plan that many
of us who would like to see the war come to a quick end would support.
As President Obama has repeatedly stated, we are winding down this
war. After withdrawing the surge troops by the end of this summer, that
will bring us to 68,000 troops at the beginning of the 2013 fiscal
year. We will continue to bring our troops home from Afghanistan, and I
quote the President, ``at a steady pace.''
This amendment captures the billions of dollars that we will save by
pursuing this steady drawdown of troops, as opposed to maintaining
troop levels at 68,000 throughout the entire fiscal year 2013, and then
presumably, on October 1, bring 28,000 troops home.

[[Page H5053]]

This amendment would cut $12.67 billion from the Overseas Contingency
Fund.
Let me be clear about what this amendment does not do. It does not
cut funding for troops on the ground in Afghanistan. I believe, as do
all of my colleagues who have advocated for an accelerated end to this
war, that our troops in harm's way should have all the resources they
need to safely execute their mission. And I am committed to ensuring
that our troops on the ground have the best equipment and the
compensation that they deserve.
This amendment does cut the OCO funds that are unneeded and would not
be used if we pursue the President's steady drawdown plan. In these
fiscal times, stringent as they are, we should not be paying for things
that we're not going to buy and that we don't need, and we certainly
don't need to further pad the OCO budget.
The committee has already approved an extra $3.25 billion cushion on
the OCO fund that was not even part of the President's request. We have
already spent half a trillion dollars of taxpayer dollars on the war in
Afghanistan, and the Department of Defense can't even account for many
of those funds, lost due to contractor fraud or Afghan corruption.

{time} 1620

When we take into account the long-term costs of this war, such as
servicing our debt and caring for the wounded warriors, the costs are
even more staggering.
Many of us support a quicker timeline of withdrawing troops from
Afghanistan than the President has proposed. After a decade of war, we
recognize that our core national security objectives have been met in
Afghanistan and that there is no U.S. military solution to the
remaining challenges in the Afghanistan nation.
We began our military operations in Afghanistan to eliminate those
international terrorist organizations that threaten the United States.
Thanks to the remarkable bravery and competency of our men and women in
uniform, al Qaeda has been virtually eliminated from Afghanistan;
terrorist training camps have been demolished; and Osama bin Laden is
dead. Thousands have given their lives to accomplish this, and tens of
thousands have suffered life-altering wounds. It is now time for our
troops to come home.
It is also time for this House not to waste further money. This
amendment is not about ending the war. It is about reducing the deficit
by $12.67 billion. We can do that by capturing the billions of dollars
saved by the President's proposed troop drawdown and by redirecting
those funds towards reducing the deficit and by bolstering our fiscal
security here at home.
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. First, I would like to say that I understand
the sincerity of the gentleman's presentation. It is very much like a
number of other amendments that we have had.
Mr. Chairman, in Afghanistan, we are in a very critical position. I
think it's important that we allow the military commanders--those who
are commanding our troops, those who are leading our troops into
combat--to tell us how we achieve our goal and then how we depart from
Afghanistan. We need their advice.
I will tell you that I have been to Afghanistan, but I've seen more
of the war at the hospital at Walter Reed in Bethesda. I've seen too
many young folks--men and women--who are quadruple amputees, triple
amputees, and who have more serious mental issues and traumatic brain
injuries. From my weekly visits there, I can tell you that this is a
mean, mean, nasty war with a mean, mean, nasty enemy.
We have got to let, not politics, but the wisdom, the vision, the
knowledge, the advice of our military commanders in the field who are
responsible for this operation make our decisions. Their advice is not
compatible with this amendment, so I do strongly oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentleman.
My apologies to Mr. Jones who was about to stand up and speak on this
issue.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your sincerity and your extraordinary work
on the issue--a very, very difficult issue. I share with you the
obvious compassion that you have for our troops--those who are there
and those who have been wounded. However, if I might pose a question:
The Commander in Chief, who presumably had the advice of the generals
on the ground and in the Pentagon, has stated clearly that at the
beginning of the next fiscal year, which would be October 1 of this
year, there would be 68,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan and
that there would be a steady drawdown, or a steady pace, so that at the
end of the fiscal year there would be some 40,000 troops, which would
be September 30, 2013. Now, a steady drawdown would assume that you
would take 28,000 troops, and you would remove them on a steady basis
so that, over the course of that year, you would have half the troops
in the country and the other half would be gone. That being the case,
you don't need to budget for all 68,000 being there the entire year. In
fact, you budget for something between 40,000 and 68,000. However, the
appropriation that we have before us actually assumes that all 68,000
are going to be there until October 1 of 2013. That's not what the
President has said. That's apparently not what the generals are
planning and what the planning and execution is.
So what this amendment simply does is to recognize what it is that
the generals intend to do as commanded by the Commander in Chief. Now,
we may disagree with that, but the advice just given to me by the
chairman is that we ought to pay attention to the generals, who are
apparently saying a steady drawdown. There is $12.5 billion at stake
here, and what we are trying to do is to capture that. Now, at least
there would be concern that something would go awry and that the
drawdown wouldn't occur. The appropriation actually places a $3.2
billion cushion for unexpected contingencies.
So what are we doing here? Do we care about the deficit or not? My
amendment simply speaks to: let's be wise with the taxpayers' money.
Let's not appropriate money that should not or is not apparently going
to be necessary, and if there is a contingency, there is a $3 billion
cushion built into this budget and into this appropriation already.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I strongly support the effort by my
colleague from California.
I would say to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee that
it's certainly the case that, once the society through which democratic
processes has determined what it wants to do in a military area, then
we need the technical advice from the military experts. But there is a
prior question with regard to Afghanistan: Should we be staying there?
It wasn't up to the military--and they never claimed that it was--to
go in on their own. They went in pursuant to a vote of this House and
of the Senate. It is the duty of the Members of this House to decide
whether, in taking all of the factors into account, the time has come
to wind it down or not. Once a decision is made, then we listen to the
military.
Clearly, what is at stake here in this amendment is not simply a
technical question of the way in which the logistics of a drawdown are
handled but, really, whether or not the House wants to affirm that the
time has come to begin a steady withdrawal. I might also add I would
like to go more quickly than this amendment would allow, but we
probably won't have the votes for that.
I disagree with the notion that this is a matter on which the elected
representatives of the American people must defer to military experts.
Yes, we will once we have made the democratic decision about what to
do. But with all

[[Page H5054]]

of the factors taken into account, the time has come, just as this
House authorized the military to go in, to reaffirm the decision that
the time has come to begin to withdraw. So I very much support the
gentleman's amendment in that particular context.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JONES. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I join my friend from California (Mr.
Garamendi).
The President has said, with the advice from the military, it is time
to bring the war in Afghanistan to an end and to bring our troops home.
I have the greatest respect for the gentleman who is the chairman and
who was just here, Mr. Young.
I've signed over 10,474 letters for those who have given their lives
for this country. Many families are divorced. And I take the pain home
every weekend. No, it's not like being in Afghanistan, but I don't
forget the war. I don't think many of my colleagues here forget the
war. I want to make that clear.
I go to Walter Reed and Bethesda--now that they've been
consolidated--and I've seen four kids that have no body parts below the
waist. One of them is from Florida. He is Corey Kent. I never will
forget him. He is the first one I ever met who had no body parts below
his waist. He is 23 years of age, and he is a private in the United
States Army.

{time} 1630

I look at all the waste in Afghanistan. It is a country that will
never change, no matter what you do. History has proven that. What Mr.
Garamendi's amendment says is let's stick to the plan that's been laid
out by the President with the advice of the military.
I worry about the wounded. The $12 billion that Mr. Garamendi is
talking about saving could be spent to take care of the wounded.
Mr. Chairman, there is a book called ``The Three Trillion Dollar
War,'' written by Dr. Joe Stiglitz and coauthored by Professor Linda
Bilmes at Harvard University. Dr. Stiglitz is now saying, no, it's not
the three trillion dollar war when you factor in all the pain and the
wounded from Afghanistan. I would rewrite the title of the book to be
``The Five Trillion Dollar War.''
Are we prepared for that tsunami that is coming? No. We are a country
that is financially broke, but we owe those who have given so much.
That's all this amendment is doing. It's saying let's follow the plan
by the President and advice from the generals. Let's save $12 billion,
spend it on the wounded and take care of their pain for the next 25 or
30 years.
I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will look
seriously at this amendment. Let's do what is right first for the
wounded and their families; and, secondly, let's do what's right for
the taxpayers and their families and bring this war to an end. If we
don't do it here in Congress, there will be no end. It will be 2014,
2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018.
Let's pass this amendment. Let's say to the President, Sir, we trust
you. You listened to the generals, and this is the plan to bring an end
to Afghanistan because it is a corrupt country, and nothing will change
no matter what we do or how many lives we expend or how much money we
expend. It will never change.
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. Garamendi).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. 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 California
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) Appropriations made in this Act are hereby
reduced in the amount of $1,072,581,000.
(b) The reduction in subsection (a) shall not apply to
amounts made available for--
(1) accounts in title I;
(2) ``Other Department of Defense Programs--Defense Health
Program''; and
(3) accounts in title IX.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. MULVANEY. The amendment is fairly simple. It's an amendment to
seek to freeze defense spending for 1 single year. It is not a cut.
Only in Washington, D.C., could we spend more money from one year to
the next and call it a cut.
This is not a ``cut'' amendment. This is an amendment to freeze
spending for 1 year. It is an amendment to set the base defense
spending levels at $518 billion, the exact same amount as last year's
appropriation that was approved just a few months ago. It is $2 billion
above what the Pentagon asked for. It is also $2 billion above what the
President asked for. While the amendment gives control to the generals
over the spending, it still protects military pay, the Defense Health
Program, and the war budget.
We've heard arguments in favor of a 1-year freeze before. This
amendment is entirely consistent with the Simpson-Bowles plan, and it
is entirely consistent with the Domenici-Rivlin plan.
What arguments will we hear against it? We may hear, as we've heard
earlier today, that the defense budget has already been cut $39 billion
over the last 2 years. This is the base defense budget for the last 2
years and the base defense budget in this year.
The base defense spending has gone up from 2011 to 2012. If the bill
passes unamended, it will go up again this year. Only in Washington,
D.C., is that considered a $39 billion cut.
We may hear that the CBO says that the Pentagon is still $9 billion
short based upon a report they released earlier this month. I have the
report. The report reads:
To execute its base-budget plans for 2013, the Department would
require appropriations 1.4 percent less than last year's appropriation.
We may also hear the argument that this amendment would compromise
our defense in some fashion. That can only be true if the same exact
appropriation that we passed just 6 months ago put our defense at risk,
because this is the exact same spending level as we established 6
months ago.
The one thing we do know is that even with this amendment, if this
amendment would pass, we will be spending more on defense spending than
the Pentagon asked for and that the President asked for, and we will be
spending exactly the same as we did last year.
We've heard a lot in the last day or two about ``austerity.'' It's
another word that, I think, has lost its traditional meaning. It means
something different in Washington than it does back home.
``Austerity,'' to me, means spending less. Total discretionary
spending will be up this year. Total mandatory spending will be up this
year. Total government spending will be up this year. We are still
facing a $1 trillion deficit by the time that this year is over. We
need to do better in getting our spending under control. It is easy to
cut things that we do not like on both sides of the aisle; it is hard
to cut things that we like.
The defense of this Nation means a tremendous amount to me, as I know
it means to every Member of this Chamber. If I thought for a second
that this amendment would put a single soldier at risk, if I thought
for a second that this amendment would put a single citizen at risk, I
would take it down immediately. All it does is freeze spending from
last year. If we cannot do that simple task, do we really think we have
an honest chance of solving our debts and our deficit problems?
With that, 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
amendment.

[[Page H5055]]

Mr. Chairman, respectfully, I think this is an appropriate time to
remind our colleagues that under the Constitution, national defense is
the top priority of the House and Senate. Article I, section 8 gives
Congress specific authority to declare war, raise and support armies,
provide for a navy, establish the rules for the operation of American
military forces.
It was in this context that, under Chairman Young, our subcommittee
carefully reviewed, over many months, the President's budget and
Secretary Panetta's new strategic guidance for the Defense Department.
Frankly, we found the administration's approach lacking in many
respects. In several key areas, the subcommittee was concerned that the
level of risk tolerated by the Armed Forces was unacceptable. We've
talked a lot about that on the floor over the last couple of days.
As the Constitution requires, we made adjustments, which is our duty
and obligation. Yet even within the allocation that is $3.1 billion
higher than our President's request, our subcommittee could have done
more for our national security and for our troops, with more resources.
I want our colleagues to know that our subcommittee clearly
recognizes the size and nature of the Nation's deficit and debt. That's
why we found areas and programs for reduction that were possible
without adversely impacting the warfighter or any efforts towards
modernization and readiness.
Exercising our mandate to adhere to sound budgeting, we reclaimed
funding for programs that were terminated or restructured since the
budget was released by the President. We achieved savings from
favorable contract pricing adjustments and schedule delays. We cut
unjustified cost increases or funding requested ahead of need. We took
recisions and surplus from prior years.
Even with these steps to stretch our defense dollars, there remains
capability gaps:
In the Navy, we've heard a lot about that over the last couple of
days. Our fleet needs more ships. They've got more responsibilities in
the Asia Pacific;
The Air Force tactical fighters are aging rapidly. They've had a lot
of activity in Iraq and Afghanistan;
The Army is struggling to modernize its ground combat inventory;
The Marines need their version of the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter;
We need to be prepared to respond to every future crisis. Who knows
where that may be.

{time} 1640

Syria is engulfed in a civil war. North Korea is unpredictable.
Russia wants to reclaim its former glory. China is on the fast track to
a stronger military. Iran is working night and day to acquire nuclear
weapons. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups continue to
plot and plan.
Obviously, the future is challenging, to say the least; and we do our
troops and our citizens a disservice if we do not prepare for the next
crisis. 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.
The Department of Defense has already sustained significant budget
reductions. Cuts to the military have accounted for over half the
deficit reduction efforts achieved so far, nearly $500 billion, even
though national defense accounts for only 20 percent of the entire
Federal budget, which is sharply reduced from the 40 percent or more
before and during Vietnam.
These are real cuts, not simply reductions to planned future
spending. But given the military's urgent needs, their vital role in
maintaining global stability, and this House's responsibility to
protect America and Americans, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to join
my colleague from South Carolina in an effort to make a small reduction
in the Appropriations Committee's recommendation. Our colleague from
New Jersey is right, the Constitution gives this power to the Congress,
not to the Appropriations Committee, to the entire Congress.
The cuts that are being talked about consist, in the numbers--that I
have seen in light of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee--are
entirely due to the fact that we have had a drawdown of the troops in
Iraq. Now I shouldn't stop at the fact that we did reduce the money
we're spending in Iraq, because that's the problem with this budget.
Yes, we have threats. The problem with this budget is it is dealing
with the current threats, and it's dealing with past threats. This
budget fully funds a capacity to win a thermonuclear war with the
Soviet Union. I do not think that's a significant threat today.
This continues the commitment made courageously by Harry Truman in a
bipartisan way to defend Western and Central Europe against Stalin and
his hordes because we went into Europe 65 years ago when the Communists
were menacing and the European nations were weak, and we said we will
protect you. We are still doing that. They're not weak, and they're not
threatened; but we are still protecting them.
Look at the budgets as a percentage of gross domestic product from
all of those wealthy nations in Western Europe. They are less than half
of ours.
On the other hand, the French are now contemplating reducing the
retirement age for certain people who worked a certain amount of years,
the official retirement age, from 62 to 60, while we're being told we
may have to raise ours. How come the French can do that? Very simple:
we've picked up their tab.
Yes, there are problems with China, there are problems with Iran,
there are problems with North Korea. Tens of thousands of troops in
Western Europe have got nothing to do with that. Yes, we should have a
nuclear capacity and the submarines and the airplanes are important,
but we've got three ways to destroy the Soviet Union, which no longer
exists, and it's replaced by a much weaker Russia.
Couldn't we say to the Pentagon--and I know there is a great
reluctance here to appear to be anything but totally deferential to
them--couldn't we say to them, you've got three ways to win a
thermonuclear war with the Soviet Union. Could you pick two and save
much less than this $1 billion.
There is also the question of the culture. The general response of
this Agency when an agency is inefficient is to crack down. When the
Pentagon is inefficient, the money keeps going.
I am told there are cuts. It was my understanding this budget, the
base budget, leaving aside the war in Iraq, which has wound down, is
larger than it's ever been. No, these are cuts from what the Pentagon
was supposed to have.
Let's understand also this has now become a zero-sum game. Unless you
are prepared to ignore the deficit problem, every dollar you put into
the Pentagon over and above what I believe is needed is coming from
somewhere.
I don't know how Members can go to people who are on Medicare and
explain to them that there are going to be these cutbacks, or to tell
people on Social Security who have been doing physical labor all of
their lives not to work another year or two, and then put money in the
Defense budget that is not necessary.
We are told that, well, we have to be able to protect ourselves.
Against whom do we need it all?
One of the things, we are told we need more ships because we have got
to protect the shipping lanes between here and China. These are, of
course, shipping lanes on which the Chinese make an enormous amount of
money.
The notion that the Chinese plan to shut down the shipping lanes,
which are the basis for their enormous surplus of trade with America,
seems to me somewhat skeptical; but we still have a greater defense
than the Chinese. I noted that the Chinese recently launched an
aircraft carrier, their first one. They bought it, I believe, from the
Ukraine and outfitted it with model airplanes so they can learn how to
do it. Now, I don't deny that there are some threats there.
The question is not whether or not we should be the strongest Nation
in the world. Of course we should be, and we are. The question is by
how many

[[Page H5056]]

multiples do we need to be stronger than any combination of enemies.
My only reluctance on this amendment is I'm embarrassed by the fact
that it's only a billion, but I think the gentleman from South Carolina
made a correct decision. Members will have their choices. If there is
any seriousness about deficit reduction across the board in this House,
this amendment will pass.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
Mr. MULVANEY. I thank the gentleman from California.
I rise very briefly to respond to a few points made by my colleague
and friend from New Jersey. Yes, North Korea is a threat. Yes, Iran is
a difficulty. Yes, China's role in the world is growing, and we will
need to deal with that. No, Syria was not a problem last year, but
Egypt was. All of these were challenges to us last year. All of these
were challenges to us just 6 months ago when we set the base Defense
appropriation at $518 billion, and $518 billion was good enough 6
months ago. It should be good enough today.
I received a letter regarding this particular amendment, and it used
a lot of the same language the gentleman from New Jersey did. It
mentioned that these were real cuts already, that the cuts we have put
in place regarding the defense budget were real cuts, not cuts in
future growth. This is the CBO's estimate of the defense-based budget
for the next 15 or 20 years.
Can someone please show me in this dark line, which is the base
budget, where the cuts are? Because in my world, when we cut spending,
those graphs go down. The only reductions that we have seen, the only
real reductions that we have seen in defense spending are in the
overseas on the global war on terror, which we all agree was a good
thing because it came as a result of winding up operations in Iraq and
reducing operations in Afghanistan.
But what we do in this town is when we increase spending on the
global war on terror, we don't count it as an increase; but when we cut
spending on that same thing, we do count it as a cut, and that is
simply not right. It's not fair, and it's not honest with people back
home. We should tell people how we spend their money.
To sit here and say that the cuts that the Defense Department has
incurred already are real cuts is not accurate. The sequester is. This
is not a debate about the sequester, because I am as opposed to the
sequester as anybody in this room. I have voted several times to
replace it with spending reductions in other places. That's not what
this discussion is about. This is about whether or not the $518 billion
that was good enough 6 months ago is good enough today.
With that, I ask once again for support for the amendment.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a
June 28 article from The Hill:

But U.S. dominance in every dimension of military power is
clear. In recent years we have been building ``strategic
depth'' into this dominance without regard to its costs--to
our Treasury and to our other priorities. A responsible
rollback of our military budget is achievable with no
sacrifice to our security.

The author is Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Colin Powell when
he was Secretary of State, and he was special assistant to Colin Powell
when General Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
So, yes, there were times when I think: let's take some advice from
some military experts.

[From The Hill, June 28, 2012]

The Executive Viewpoint--Time To Bite the Bullet

(By Lawrence Wilkerson)

Though the U.S. budget process has been going through the
motions in 2012, the real action will take place at the end
of the year, when several budget overhaul strategies will
converge. Around town, the train wreck metaphor is getting
the most use to describe what will happen. But whatever does
happen, it is certain that large cuts are coming.
Those cuts come as three wars--Afghanistan, Iraq and the
global war on terror--are driving national security spending
to levels not seen since World War II. Since these wars have
been paid for by borrowing, they have contributed mightily to
our budget deficit and diverted resources from other
investments in our domestic strength.
It is time for a responsible build-down of the post-9/11
build-up. But an extraordinary feature of the dysfunctional
policies of Washington is the strenuous expenditure of time
and money devoted to ensuring this doesn't happen. Most of
this intensity has focused on exempting the military budget
from the coming sequestration of funds mandated by current
law. This is unwise, because the military--or better said,
the national security account--can and should contribute to
our getting our fiscal house in order. In fact, we could cut
our national security budget by a trillion dollars over the
next decade without jeopardizing our security. Moreover, we
could rebalance that budget as we cut and actually enhance
our security.
The national security budget includes the Intelligence,
Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security agencies, as well as
bureaus dealing with international affairs and nuclear
weapons issues (mostly in the Department of Energy) and, of
course, the Pentagon. Last year the total was about $1.2
trillion. The huge component in that budget is the Pentagon,
at more than 50 percent of the total spending. So that is
where everyone concentrates what he or she wants to cut, keep
or increase. That's where most of the rhetoric is expended,
too.
But this view is myopic.
National security is composed as much of good intelligence
and competent diplomacy as it is of bombs, bullets and
bayonets; indeed, one hopes more so. Thus, looking at the
national security budget as a whole, with all its components,
demonstrates clearly that it is out of balance. Too much
money is going to the iron and steel part of the budget and
too little to the velvet glove.
That's the first problem that needs correcting, the
balance. The second is the Pentagon. As the largest item by
far in the discretionary budget. not to mention in the
security budget, Pentagon spending has the largest influence
over the reducing/rebalancing equation.
The United States began the new millennium with a string of
military budget increases, paid for by borrowing, that
swelled the deficit while bringing us to the highest levels
of Pentagon spending since World War II. Our current military
expenditures account for more than half of the world's total.
We spend as much as the next 17 countries put together, most
of them our allies. And we spend more in real terms now than
we did on average when we did have a formidable adversary--
the Soviet Union--that was spending about as much as we were
and arguably constituted an existential threat to America. No
such threat exists today, nor can we see a comparable one in
the future, China's rise notwithstanding.
Guaranteeing perfect security is impossible. But U.S.
dominance in every dimension of military power is clear. In
recent years we have been building ``strategic depth'' into
this dominance without regard to its costs--to our treasury
and to our other priorities. A responsible rollback of our
military budget is achievable with no sacrifice to our
security.
The specifics of this judicious rollback are contained in
the Unified Security Budget (USB) published by the Institute
for Policy Studies and the Center for American Progress, a
budget I helped compile. Not only does this USB cut a
trillion dollars over 10 years, it rebalances the budget so
that the steel and the glove are in better proportions.
It is time for wise men and women to put partisanship
aside, ignore the siren calls of defense contractors, stop
taking counsel of their fears and get down to business with
the national security budget. No aspect of the federal budget
should be exempt from helping the nation get its fiscal act
together. This soldier of 31 years knows that national
security--including the Pentagon--can join this effort with
no danger to the republic.

{time} 1650

Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KUCINICH. I rise in support of the amendment.
There's a news report out today that suggests that very soon the
United States will have over 1,000 bases of various kinds around the
world, and it raises the question as to whether or not we're
overextending. As the budget keeps growing, the tendency is to keep
overextending.
We already know that our basic force is being taxed with an
overextension of duty. So if you introduce a notion of fiscal
discipline here that will not in any way undermine the Air Force, the
Army, the Navy, but fiscal discipline that will send a message to this
administration: Don't go overextending. We know what our core mission
is. We know that we have the ability to defend this country. Be careful
you don't overextend.

[[Page H5057]]

This amendment, which has bipartisan support, is something that is an
important moment for this House because, on one hand, the budget that
is being prepared through DOD appropriations is sufficient enough for a
strong defense, and, on the other hand, we're saying part of a strong
defense is fiscal accountability. The two actually go hand in hand.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MULVANEY. 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 South
Carolina will be postponed.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LANGEVIN. I rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues and
good friends, a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense,
Mr. Frelinghuysen, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr.
Dicks.
First of all, I'd like to thank the chairman and the ranking member
for their hard work on this very important legislation. Their efforts
to strengthen our national defense and support our men and women in
uniform have been tireless, and they truly should be commended.
Moreover, I'm very pleased that they make key investments in areas of
great interest and concern to me, the first of which is the Virginia
class submarine, as well as cybersecurity.
I believe that our technological edge is critical to ensuring that
our warfighters not only can do what we ask them to do in the future,
but can do so as safely and efficiently as possible. In addition to the
Virginia class submarine and cybersecurity, no family of technologies
shows as much promise to this end as directed-energy weapons.
With that, I would yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman and welcome the opportunity
to engage with him.
Mr. LANGEVIN. In this vein, I'd like to talk about the decades of
investment that this Congress and the Department of Defense have made
into directed-energy weapons research. More specifically, I'd like to
direct them to a recent report by the Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessment that clearly showed many directed-energy
technologies have actually matured to the point that cultural factors,
not technological maturity, are the most significant barriers to
operational deployment.
To this end, I offered an amendment to this year's National Defense
Authorization Act that would require a report detailing how we can
accelerate the deployment of the most promising directed-energy
initiatives; and I recognize the commitment that this bill before us
today continues in terms of investing in directed-energy weapons
technology, and I would encourage the committee to support these
efforts in future appropriations measures.
With that, I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The committee is aware of the Department's
research into directed-energy capabilities and shares the gentleman
from Rhode Island's interest in ensuring that our warfighters have the
capabilities they need to operate in the complex environments of the
future.
I would assure the gentleman that the committee will continue to make
every effort to ensure that the Department of Defense is adequately and
effectively resourced to meet the challenges of the future, including
the transformational technologies such as directed energy.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANGEVIN. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DICKS. I, too, echo the gentleman's interest in the field of
directed energy and solid-state laser technology. With the threats and
environment that the warfighter and the intelligence community are
facing, the addition of new technologies that provide a tactical and
strategic edge should be examined more rigorously.
I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the chairman for his and the ranking member's
commitment, and I certainly look forward to working to realize the
potential of directed-energy weapons and to harvest the Nation's past
investments in this family of technologies.
With that, I yield to the chairman.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We appreciate the gentleman's view. And I will
assure him that we'll look forward to working with him and the ranking
member, Mr. Dicks, to make sure that our warfighters can realize the
benefits of our Nation's research and development investments,
including directed energy.
Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for his hard work on this issue and
look forward to working with him.
Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the ranking member and the chairman, and I
yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

Mr. ENGEL. 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 by the Department of Defense or any other Federal
agency to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles, for any
executive fleet, or for an agency's fleet inventory, except
in accordance with Presidential Memorandum-Federal Fleet
Performance, dated May 24, 2011.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me just say very, very briefly, on May
24, 2011, President Obama issued a memorandum on Federal fleet
performance that requires all new light-duty vehicles in the Federal
fleet to be alternate-fuel vehicles, such as hybrid, electric, natural
gas, or biofuel, by December 31, 2015. My amendment simply echos the
Presidential memorandum by prohibiting funds in the Defense
Appropriations Act from being used to lease or purchase new light-duty
vehicles except in accord with the President's memorandum.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ENGEL. I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We're very pleased to accept your amendment.
Mr. ENGEL. I thank the chairman, 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. Engel).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided in title IX of
this Act are revised by reducing the amount made available
for ``Military Personnel, Army'', by increasing such amount,
by reducing the amount made available for ``Military
Personnel, Marine Corps'', and by increasing such amount, by
$4,359,624,000, $4,359,624,000, $1,197,682,000, and
$1,197,682,000, respectively.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. MULVANEY. This is a follow-up amendment to an amendment that I
had offered and we had a chance to debate, and once again I thank the
chairman for the opportunity yesterday to discuss the issue before the
amendment was ruled out of order.
As you recall, very briefly, $5.6 billion this year has been moved
out of the base defense budget and into the war budget. It violates a
policy that we have tried to follow in this House since 9/11, and
actually violates a policy that the bill, itself, says we should not
violate going forward, beginning in 2014.

{time} 1700

I simply tried to draw attention to that in yesterday's amendment
which was ruled out of order.
This amendment deals with the exact same thing, and it simply takes
that $5.6 billion out of the budget and puts

[[Page H5058]]

it right back in, which sounds like a strange thing to do, but it's the
only way within the rules to draw attention to the fact that this $5.6
billion is in the war budget when it actually should be in the base
defense budget.
This is not a spending amendment; this is a good-governance
amendment. This is not a spending amendment; it is an accountability
amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment. Mr. Jordan from Ohio and Mr.
Welch from Vermont are amongst those joining me in sponsoring this
particular amendment.
Again, this is a good-government amendment, and I would think that it
would have bipartisan support. I ask for its support.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MULVANEY. 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 South
Carolina will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison

Mr. ELLISON. 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. __. Not later than 30 days after a contract is
awarded using funds appropriated under this Act, the relevant
contractor and subcontractor at any tier (and any principal
with at least 10 percent ownership interest, officer, or
director of the contractor or subcontractor or any affiliate
or subsidiary within the control of the contractor or
subcontractor) shall disclose to the Administrator of General
Services all electioneering communications, independent
expenditures, or contributions made in the most recent
election cycle supporting or opposing a Federal political
candidate, political party, or political committee, and
contributions made to a third-party entity with the intention
or reasonable expectation that such entity would use the
contribution to make independent expenditures or
electioneering communications in Federal elections.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey reserves a point of
order.
The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, Representative Eshoo and I have submitted
this very straightforward amendment for a very simple reason. We
believe that it's simply fair and it's good for public disclosure to
require defense contractors to publicly show and disclose their
political contributions. Money, secret money in particular, can breed
corruption. Sunlight will banish it away.
When government contractors make political contributions, there's no
doubt that the officeholder knows who gave the money. The only ones in
the dark are the American public. This can lead to pay-to-play
corruption where contractors donate to candidates they believe will
benefit them, and this would misserve our democracy. We need full
disclosure so that the public can ensure that contracts are awarded
based on merit rather than money.
Now, some have expressed a concerns in the past with disclosure pre-
contract. A pre-contract disclosure requirement could be a problem
because they fear that agencies would choose contractors for partisan
reasons. While I think this is an overstated concern and I don't agree
with it, our bill doesn't do that. Our amendment requires disclosure
post-contract to avoid any fear of that.
So I just want to say that we are in an era where the public needs to
trust Congress and government more than it does. In order to promote
real trust and real confidence, we need to implement amendments that
will promote transparency and that will let the public know that we are
doing the right thing with the public dollar, particularly as it
relates to the defense industry.
Let me close by saying I think this amendment is a first step. I'm a
proud cosponsor of the DISCLOSE Act by Representative Van Hollen, which
requires reporting of all corporate campaign activity.
Also, we won't be able to truly tackle money in politics until we
overturn Citizens United, in my opinion. The public agrees with that as
a proposition by 82 percent.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation 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 imposes additional duties.
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 is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting
direction. 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.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, this is the, I believe, sixth time that I've
come to the floor during this Congress to call for disclosure and full
transparency throughout the Federal Government. So this is not my first
time on the floor on this issue. I've risen on many bills, and I will
continue to because I think it's really critical to help restore the
confidence of the American people in their government and how it
operates.
I maintain the view, and it's shared by the majority of the American
people, that transparency in the use of our tax dollars is absolutely
critical. I want to pay tribute to my colleague, Mr. Ellison, for
offering this amendment, and together we support it and offer it to the
full House.
I believe that with public dollars come public responsibilities.
There are thousands of companies who do business with the Federal
Government, and they receive billions of dollars--of public dollars--
for their services and products. And I think that all of our
constituents deserve to know whether and how they spend these dollars
and whether they are used to influence our elections.
The amendment I'm offering with Congressman Ellison will provide this
transparency by requiring that post-award contractors or
subcontractors--which is very important, we don't want to interfere
with the contracting process whatsoever, but once they have been
awarded a contract--disclose all political contributions. This should
be the norm of the day.
Disclosure is extraordinarily powerful because it puts the American
people in the driver's seat. Constituents deserve to know who is
involved in their elections and what their purpose might be. I think
it's sad that just a few days ago the United States Senate killed the
DISCLOSE Act. It was a sad day for the Congress. But I think the
American people are taking note.
Anyone who supports the Citizens United decision, which I don't,
legalizing corporate expenditures, should know that eight out of nine
Supreme Court Justices endorsed prompt disclosure. Justice Anthony
Kennedy wrote:
Disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech
of corporate entities in a proper way.
Now, Republicans supported disclosure before they were against it,
and I would hope that my Republican colleagues would come back into the
fold. There's no reason to oppose transparency and disclosure unless
someone really wants to hide anything. And I don't think any of us
wants to hide behind the hiding. It just is not good government. The
American people, the people that we are here to represent and have the
privilege of representing, deserve more information and not less.
We can bring this about by adopting this policy. I urge my colleagues
to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H5059]]

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, but I do
have a question for the Chairman, if I could.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. STEARNS. The gentlelady from California (Ms. Eshoo) was talking
about an amendment that was ruled out of order.
Is it germane for her to be talking about an amendment that is ruled
out of order?

{time} 1710

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman offered a pro forma amendment to
the bill under the 5-minute rule.
Is the gentleman prepared to go forward with his amendment?
Mr. STEARNS. Yes.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

Mr. STEARNS. 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), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Secretary of Defense to implement an
enrollment fee for the TRICARE for Life program under chapter
55 of title 10, United States Code, that does not exist as of
the date of the enactment of this Act.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that
prohibits funds made available through this act to implement a new
enrollment fee for TRICARE for Life beneficiaries.
The Department of Defense may have the authority to raise fees and
implement new enrollment fees unless specified by Congress prohibiting
such authority. Last year, through the FY 2012 DOD authorization and
appropriations process, the administration increased enrollment fees
for TRICARE prime beneficiaries for the first time since 1995. My
amendment will ensure the administration does not implement a first
time ever enrollment fee for TRICARE for Life beneficiaries.
For fiscal year 2013, the administration proposed additional fees and
cost-sharing increases, a new annual enrollment fee for TRICARE for
Life, aggressive increases in pharmacy copayments, and a cap of $3,000
per family.
On April 17, 2012, I expressed my opposition to these proposals that
were made by this administration on the House floor to raise such fees
for our servicemembers and veterans. I quoted the President in a speech
he gave about veterans being ``shortchanged.'' Then Senator Barack
Obama said on May 18, 2006: ``When a young man or woman goes off and
serves the country in the military, they should be treated with the
utmost dignity and respect when they come home.'' Mr. President, this
is at least one thing I can fully agree with you on.
Passage of this bill will mark the third consecutive annual decrease
in total DOD funding, including Overseas Contingency Operations, since
FY 2010. I understand budget cuts need to be made and obviously we need
to get our fiscal house in order, but, my colleagues, we owe our
veterans quality health care for their service and their sacrifice. We
promised to take care of our troops when they came home. As a veteran
myself, I can appreciate knowing that our country's support for our
troops is not limited to strictly the battlefield.
It is unconscionable that this administration seeks to raise health
care costs on more than 9.3 million veterans and their families that
are currently eligible for TRICARE when there are other excesses that
can surely be cut. For example, we should limit funds to Pakistan
before giving DOD the option to raise costs on our veterans. We heard
adequately yesterday on Members' opposition to Pakistan for closing
supply routes since November 2011 that are necessary for providing our
troops in Afghanistan necessary supplies and resources. So I ask
Members of this Congress to consider alternative avenues to cut
spending before we require 3.3 million veterans that are eligible for
TRICARE for Life to sacrifice even further.
I'd like to submit for the Record letters of support from the
Veterans of Foreign War, VFW, and the American Legion for my amendment
prohibiting funds from this act to be used to implement an enrollment
fee for the TRICARE for Life program. The Military Association of
America also is in support of this effort.
Mr. Chairman, the administration's proposal to increase health care
costs on our military represents a very serious breach of faith, as it
taxes the oldest cohort of military retirees and their families.
So I conclude by asking my colleagues to support my amendment. By
doing so, we honor the promises made to our brave men and women who
have sacrificed so much for the freedom that we all enjoy.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The American Legion,

Washington, DC, July 19, 2012.
Hon. Cliff Stearns,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Stearns: The American Legion offers its
full support to the Stearns Amendment to H.R. 5856.
The proposed amendment to the 2013 Defense Appropriations
Act (H.R. 5856) would mandate that no funds made available by
this Act may be used by the Secretary of Defense to implement
an enrollment fee for the TRICARE for Life program.
As you know, both the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees have turned aside the Pentagon's call for higher
health care fees, to include a first-ever TRICARE for Life
enrollment fee, in the 2013 Defense Authorization bill.
However, the president has threatened a veto of the defense
bill, in part, because it does not include increased health
care fees for members of the military. As such, the threat of
higher health care fees continues.
By resolution, The American Legion requests that all
proposals to implement any increases in military retirees'
Tricare enrollment fees, deductibles, or premiums be
reconsidered; especially before all efforts have been
exhausted to remove waste, fraud, and abuse from the Tricare
program.
Once again, The American Legion fully supports this
amendment and we appreciate your leadership in addressing
this critical issue that is important to America's service
members, veterans and their families.
Sincerely,
Fang A. Wong,
National Commander.
____

Department of Florida Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States,
Florida, July 18, 2012.
Hon. Cliff Stearns,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Stearns: On behalf of the nearly 90,000
members of Florida's Veterans of Foreign Wars and its
Auxiliaries, it gives me great pleasure to endorse your
proposed amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act for 2013
that if adopted would prevent the Department of Defense from
implementing an enrollment fee for TRICARE for Life.
It has been the long standing position of the Veterans of
Foreign Wars that TRICARE in its present form is a contract
between America and her military retirees. That contract is
just as binding now as the contract a young service member
signs when he or she joins the military. The Administration's
proposal is a most egregious break of faith as it ``taxes''
the oldest cohort of military retires and their families.
Once again thank you for your enduring support of Florida's
veterans, military retirees, active service members and their
families.
Respectfully,
Wayne E. Carrignan,
State Commander.

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, the Stearns' amendment would
prohibit funds from being used to implement an enrollment fee for the
TRICARE for Life program.
The Department of Defense does not currently have the authority to
establish such a fee, but did submit a legislative proposal to do so.
The House-passed National Defense Authorization Act chose not to adopt
the legislative request that would give the Department this authority.
While this Defense Appropriations bill does not have jurisdiction on
TRICARE issues, we support strongly what Mr. Stearns intends to do, so
we accept the amendment.
Mr. STEARNS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague from Florida.

[[Page H5060]]

I just want to say to the distinguished former chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, chairman emeritus, and also the chairman of
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, that I appreciate his
endorsement. Notwithstanding that, I would say to him that his
acceptance is good, but I think the floor should have a vote 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 Florida (Mr. Stearns).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. 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 Florida will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Fitzpatrick

Mr. FITZPATRICK. 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 using procedures that do not
give to small business concerns owned and controlled by
veterans (as that term is defined in section 3(q)(3) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(q)(3)) that are included in
the database under section 8127(f) of title 38, United States
Code, any preference available with respect to such contract,
except for a preference given to small business concerns
owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans (as that
term defined in section 3(q)(2) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632(q)(2)).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, for generations, brave young men and
women from across the United States have answered the call of duty in
service of our Nation. Now, as the conflicts on foreign fields continue
to wind down, we must ensure that we do not lose sight of the need to
care for and provide for our returning veterans.
Our Nation has learned from generations of veterans that war does not
end when the camps are packed in, the planes are grounded, the ships
are docked, and our soldiers set foot on American soil.
General Washington once reminded us that the willingness with which
our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how
justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the
veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.
However, during these difficult economic times, our veterans are still
faced with challenges as they return to civilian life.
In March of this year, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics reported
that among veterans who have served in the post 9/11 era, the
unemployment rate is 12 percent higher than the national average. Among
young male veterans under the age of 24, the unemployment rate is 29
percent--nearly one-third are unemployed. One unemployed veteran is one
too many, but these statistics demonstrate an economic reality which is
quite unacceptable.
It is important to understand that this hardship comes not from a
lack of willingness to work by our veterans but rather from a lack of
opportunity. Consider that according to the most recent census, over
2.4 million of our Nation's veterans are now small business owners.
Veteran-owned companies now make up 9 percent of all U.S. firms. The
Small Business Administration now estimates that one in seven veterans
is self-employed or is a small business owner. And finally, nearly a
quarter of veterans say they're interested in starting or buying their
own business. So our veterans continue to do their part.

{time} 1720

It is clear that our Nation's veterans are ready and willing to
invest in our economy if we provide them with the opportunities they
seek and, quite frankly, with the opportunities that they deserve.
With the President's announcement earlier this year that all of our
young men and women will be home from Afghanistan within the next 2
years, we, as a community and as a country, must begin working now to
ensure that we are providing our returning servicemen and -women with
job opportunities as they seek to reintegrate into civilian life.
To address this, I've offered legislation called the Fairness to
Veterans Act to provide the same preferences given to other preference
groups in Federal contracting. It levels the playing field for veteran-
owned businesses to help get our economy moving and our veterans back
to work. This amendment furthers the goal of the Fairness to Veterans
Act.
As our Nation struggles to achieve an economic recovery, we should be
looking to utilize the talent and leadership skills of our Nation's
veterans. These men and women volunteered to selflessly serve our
country and, in order to succeed, must display self-discipline and
leadership. It is character traits like these that should be nurtured
and fostered to help our economy grow again.
Ultimately, all of our efforts in the House must be focused on
putting our constituents back to work, and this legislation will do
just that by creating new opportunities for our veterans. With the
passage of this amendment, we will be one step closer to leveling the
playing field for our veterans.
The guidelines included in this amendment will provide veteran-owned
businesses with the access they need to grow and to create jobs. The
skill sets possessed by our highly trained veterans are unmatched
across the globe. In fact, our fighting men and women are,
unquestionably, the most highly trained, highly skilled workforce in
history. It is critical that we fully utilize their expertise to put
our economy back on the right track.
The men and women of the military have risked their lives in service
to us. This amendment is our opportunity to begin to repay that
incredible debt.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment in furtherance of working with staff to institute this policy
of fairness to veterans in a way that will benefit our returning
veterans and benefit our country.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. I
would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that what he wants to do,
I want to share with him and to help him do that.
I had to, under the rules, reserve the point of order, but I would
hope that the gentleman would let us be part of this effort to
accomplish what it is he wants to do within the rules.
I withdraw my reservation on his request to withdraw.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. I thank the chairman, and I look forward to working
with you.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH. 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 with any person or other
entity listed in the Federal Awardee Performance and
Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) as having been
convicted of fraud against the Federal Government.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KUCINICH. My amendment is simple. It says, if you seek to be a
Department of Defense contractor and you have previously defrauded the
Federal Government, you shouldn't be able to receive a contract from
the DOD.
According to the Congressional Research Service, in fiscal 2010, the
Department of Defense obligated $366 billion to contracts, which is 54
percent, more than half of the total of Department of Defense
obligations. There are rules and regulations in place that prevent
Federal contracts from going to entities that have broken the law.
Under the Federal acquisitions regulation, Federal agencies are
required to

[[Page H5061]]

award contracts only to responsible sources. And Federal acquisition
regulation subpart 9104-1 states that a satisfactory record of
integrity and business ethics is one of the general standards of
responsibility. But the term ``responsible'' is not explicitly defined
anywhere in the law, and I know that we cannot try to define new terms
using the amendment process, and that's not what we're trying to do
here.
The fact is that someone could commit fraud against the government
and still get a contract with the Department of Defense, and that's
wrong. We have to make clear that companies who've defrauded the
taxpayers should not be able to get more DOD contracts.
I'd like to point out that the underlying bill being debated here
contains a specific prohibition against the use of Department of
Defense funds in contracts with anyone who has an unpaid tax liability.
Again, a party bidding on government contracts is supposed to affirm
that they have no unpaid tax liability.
So the point of this amendment is to make it absolutely clear that
contract fraud against the American taxpayer will not be tolerated.
According to groups like the Project on Government Oversight, which is
only able to track the number of known and disclosed settlements, there
have been dozens of instances of contractors committing government
contract fraud since 1995. And of those dozens that are known to have
committed this fraud, a total of $544 million in fines was paid. That's
a tiny amount, really, when you're talking about in terms of fines,
compared to the billions appropriated for Department of Defense
contracts in the last decade.
Bottom line, if you defraud the taxpayer, you should lose your
privilege to receive more taxpayer money. So I would urge the adoption
of this 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 will not oppose this amendment
because I want to make sure that the Defense Department does not hire
bad contractors. And I agree with Mr. Kucinich strongly on this issue.
The only comment that I would make is we've just seen this amendment
just a few minutes ago, and we have not really had time to analyze it,
so if we could make any further explanation. But I'm not going to
oppose the amendment. I suspect it's going to pass. It probably should
because none of us want the Defense Department to hire bad contractors.
Good job, Mr. Kucinich.
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 No. 17 Offered by Mr. Jones

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following:
Sec. __. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available in this or any other Act may be used to
negotiate, enter into, or implement any agreement with the
Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan that
includes security assurances for mutual defense, unless the
agreement--
(1) is in the form of a treaty requiring the advice and
consent of the Senate (or is intended to take that form in
the case of an agreement under negotiation); or
(2) is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(c) For purposes of this section, an agreement shall be
considered to include security assurances for mutual defense
if it includes provisions addressing any of the following:
(1) A binding commitment to deploy United States Armed
Forces in defense of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, or
of any government or faction in Afghanistan, against any
foreign or domestic threat.
(2) The number of United States Armed Forces personnel to
be deployed to, or stationed in, Afghanistan.
(3) The mission of United States Armed Forces deployed to
Afghanistan.
(4) The duration of the presence of United States Armed
Forces in Afghanistan.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JONES. Thank you very much.
Even though the chairman has a point of order, I want to explain why
I think this amendment is important. I am working with Rosa DeLauro on
this amendment.
This amendment simply says that any long-term security agreement with
Afghanistan must be conducted as a treaty or authorized by Congress.
In 2008, this Congress was outraged that a long-term security
agreement would be concluded without input from Congress. I wonder
where the outrage is today? We're in worse financial shape than we were
in 2008, and I would hope that Congress would see that we have a need
and a responsibility.
This agreement, signed last month, was submitted to the Afghan
Parliament, but not to the United States Congress. Where is the
outrage?
My colleague, Ms. DeLauro, led the effort in the House in 2008 to
return Congress to its constitutional responsibility. We must decide
when and where our men and women go to fight.
I would like to commend Ms. DeLauro for having the courage to help
lead this effort again today. No matter who is the President, it is the
responsibility of Congress to commit U.S. troops and fund this
agreement.
Mr. Chairman, there are estimates that say we will be up to 30,000
U.S. troops in Afghanistan until 2024. This will cost over $500
billion.

{time} 1730

Yet, if we don't support legislation like we are talking about today,
we will have no say, no say at all. I don't know why the taxpayers
aren't outraged by what is happening with this national security
agreement with Afghanistan. The fact remains we simply don't have what
the numbers are going to be and what the cost is going to be with this
national security agreement with Afghanistan.
We in Congress have a responsibility. Our responsibility is to make
sure that we have checks and balances with any administration. When our
country is in such a bad financial situation, hopefully we will not
allow a 10-year agreement to just slide by Congress with $500 billion
at stake and with maybe even more of our young men and women being
killed.
Mr. Chairman, just a couple of more minutes.
I have a very dear friend who is the former Commandant of the Marine
Corps. I have an arrangement with him that I will not use his name in a
public forum, but if any of my friends here today--the chairman or the
ranking member--asks me his name, I'll come up and tell you. I sent him
an email after we signed this security agreement with Afghanistan.
I said to the former Commandant: What do you think about this
agreement?
I got three paragraphs back, but I will read just a couple of
sentences. He wrote:
Simply put, I am not in favor of the agreement signed. It basically
keeps the United States in Afghanistan to prop up a corrupt regime. It
continues to place our troops at risk.
I know that my friend from Connecticut will speak in just a moment,
and I look forward to her words.
I hope that the Congress in 2013, no matter who the President is,
will bring this issue back. Let's have a debate in the House of
Representatives, and let's say to the American people that we will meet
our responsibility: that we will not send troops, that we will not send
money to Afghanistan unless the Congress, itself, approves it.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for you and for the ranking
member. I am sorry he is leaving. He has been a great Member of the
Congress. I hope, Mr. Chairman, if we all get back in 2013 that we will
have an opportunity to bring this issue to the floor of the Congress
and to debate the role of Congress when any President, Democrat or
Republican, reaches a security agreement that obligates our troops and
the taxpayers. We must meet our constitutional responsibility.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes

[[Page H5062]]

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 requires a new determination.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized.
Ms. DeLAURO. The bipartisan amendment that Congressman Jones and I
offer ensures that any security agreement between the United States and
Afghanistan will not be legal unless it comes in the form of a treaty
or is specifically authorized by a law.
The gentleman's point of order argues that this amendment requires
the Secretary of Defense to know the definition of ``any agreement with
the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan that includes
security assurances for mutual defense.'' While this definition is not
written into statute, it is common sense.
I also believe our responsibility under the Constitution takes
precedence over this point of order. As it is, this point would cut
into the heart of our constitutional duties as a Congress under article
I, section 8. The power to declare war has been entrusted to the
Congress and to the Congress alone.
At the recent NATO summit in Chicago, President Obama and NATO
leaders announced an end to combat operations in Afghanistan in 2013
and the transition of lead responsibility for security to the Afghan
Government by the end of 2014. But even though Bin Laden is dead and al
Qaeda has been decimated, the administration has also announced an
agreement with the Government of Afghanistan that would keep an untold
number of American troops there until 2024, which is 12 years from now.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would ask the gentlewoman to confine her
remarks to the issue of the point of order.
Ms. DeLAURO. Whether you agree or disagree with the policy, it is
imperative for our form of government that Congress be consulted on any
such agreement that maintains our troops abroad or, for that matter,
any defense or Status of Forces agreement that is made by the United
States. It is our task as representatives of the people to debate the
critical issues and to make the ultimate decision of whether to put or
keep our troops in harm's way.
This amendment will simply ensure in our relationship with
Afghanistan that no defense agreement will be enacted without the
ultimate consent of Congress, as is mandated by our Constitution.
The Acting CHAIR. Again, the gentlewoman needs to address the point
of order and not the policy issue.
Ms. DeLAURO. I will conclude by saying that I urge the Chair to
overrule the point of order and to allow this amendment to receive an
up-or-down vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment addresses funds in other acts and
includes language requiring a new determination of the Secretary. It,
therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule
XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the last word to engage in a colloquy
with Chairman Young.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I rise to seek the chairman's support in addressing an
issue of which he is deeply and painfully aware: the rapidly increasing
numbers of cases of amputations, post-traumatic stress disorder, and
traumatic brain injury suffered by our brave young men and women
returning from combat theaters. Of course, these conditions can have a
devastating impact on military dependents. They are also having an
increasingly devastating impact on the military health care system that
serves our soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and their families.
There is no one who has worked harder than the chairman of our
subcommittee to ensure that the very best medical care is available to
the 9 million Americans who have earned the benefits of our military
health care system. Yet I remain concerned that newer, innovative
practices are not being sufficiently integrated into the military
medical system.
One such innovative practice is systems medicine. By more rapidly and
accurately quantifying wellness and deciphering disease, systems
medicine will promote translational research by linking the
Department's research and development programs, initiatives, and
laboratories with its clinical care programs, initiatives and
facilities.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The former chairman of this subcommittee is
absolutely correct.
Current strains on our military and fiscal resources are causing
unprecedented challenges in maintaining a viable, cost-effective
military health care system. He has probably heard me discuss this more
than he has wanted to over the years, but it is a serious, important
issue. It is essential that new, innovative approaches be more quickly
included in military medical practice.
Mr. DICKS. I ask the chairman to join me in urging the Department to
implement systems medicine into the medical practices of all service
branches.
To facilitate the training of DOD medical personnel in systems
medicine, the Defense Department should consider systems medicine pilot
projects that address post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain
injury, and amputee health, along with other high-priority concerns
that impact all aspects of total readiness, including mental
resilience.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Again, I just want to thank the gentleman for
highlighting this issue today. Obviously, I plan to continue to work
with him in order to do the best we can to make this happen.
Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, as we begin to wind down the
debate on this defense bill, I wanted to take just a moment to pay
tribute to this dynamic duo that we have--Bill Young and Norm Dicks.
The collective experience, wisdom, and knowledge of this defense bill
and the actions of our military is almost unprecedented in this House.

{time} 1740

They have put forward a great bill in the highest bipartisan
traditions of the House, and all of us in this body say ``thank you''
for the great service of these two stalwarts in this body. They have
conducted themselves during this debate in the highest traditions of
this House. They have collaborated together in a bipartisan way to help
defend this country. I think I speak for all Members of the House of
Representatives in saying ``thank you'' to these two great stalwarts of
this body.
This will be the last defense bill that Norm Dicks will take part in.
He is departing this body in retirement, and we will miss his wisdom
and his camaraderie and his knowledge of the needs of our country and
its defense. I think I speak for all of the House when I say ``thank
you'' to Norm Dicks for great service to his country, to this body, and
to the defense of our country especially. We will miss his presence. We
will miss his expertise. We will miss the fact that he is a jolly good
fellow, among other things.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I will be happy to yield to the chairman.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I very much appreciate my chairman yielding
just for a moment.
I would like to associate myself with your remarks regarding these
two fabulous leaders and the jobs they have done over the years on our
behalf and for our national security. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman, and I can't help but
mention the great service the former chairman of this committee has
rendered to the body, as well.

[[Page H5063]]

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Thank you for yielding, and I wanted to say the
same thing.
Mr. Lewis chaired this subcommittee, as well as the full committee.
He did an outstanding job. Many innovations came about during his 6
years as chairman of this subcommittee. He is with us today, and he
will continue to be with us. The House is losing another great talent,
another great dedicated public official. I thank you for calling
attention to his service.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman
from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. The three of you have grayer hair than I do, and that
means you have wisdom and experience along with it.
I just want to say that I've enjoyed working with all three of you.
Bill Young and I have worked together for many years. Jerry Lewis and I
have worked together many years. We've taken many trips to Afghanistan
and Iraq to try to be with the troops and find out what was going on.
We've had a good group.
It bothers me greatly when there's this sense out there that we can't
work together. This committee works together. I'm proud of that, and
I'm proud to be associated with my colleagues.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Young has mentioned
briefly the service of our friend from California (Mr. Lewis), who, as
we all know, served as chairman of the full committee for a period of
time, and, of course, chairman of this great subcommittee. We're going
to miss his presence because he is seeking greener pastures out there
as well in retirement.
Jerry Lewis has been a stalwart Member of this body for many years
and he has rendered great service to his country, certainly to this
House, and most importantly, I think, on this subcommittee, because
this subcommittee is in charge of defending our country, and there is
no higher calling for any of us than to say we've been a part of that.
Mr. Chairman, I wind my remarks up. We've had some 60 or 70
amendments on this bill, and I think the debate that took place is in
the highest traditions of this body. I wish Mr. Lewis and Mr. Dicks
happy retirements and other pursuits in life, and we wish you Godspeed.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. One issue that didn't come up today was this question of
what are we going to do at the end of this year with sequestration, and
there was some discussion of an amendment that didn't happen because of
points of order and other possible reasons.
I really believe that somehow we've got to avoid sequestration and
that collectively we've got to work together in the next several
months, because I honestly believe that the economy of this country
will be severely and adversely affected if we allow sequestration not
just for defense, which we're talking about here today, but for the
other part of the government, the discretionary domestic part of the
government. We have got to avoid this.
I would love to see an agreement reached between the parties and
between the leadership so that we can get an agreement that is fair and
balanced and equitable. I think with the four of us and a couple of
others I can think of, I think we could put something like that
together. Somehow it's got to happen, because the consequences to
defense--and not only to defense, but the economy of the country is at
stake here.
The CBO says that the difference in growth, if we do sequestration,
if we don't deal with the tax issue, will go from 4.4 percent to 5
percent. It is a 4\1/2\ percent difference in economic growth. That
means unemployment will be greater. That means the deficit will be
greater. The whole idea of the Budget Control Act was to get the
deficit under control.
Again, I hope that we will all continue to think about how we can
come up with a solution that's bipartisan, bicameral. We have got to
work with the administration. From a national security and a defense
perspective, there is nothing more treacherous out there than
sequestration. We've got to avoid it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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:
The second amendment by Mr. King of Iowa.
The fourth amendment by Ms. Lee of California.
The fifth amendment by Ms. Lee of California.
An amendment by Mr. Moran of Virginia.
An amendment by Mr. Turner of Ohio.
Amendment No. 18 by Mr. Coffman of Colorado.
An amendment by Mr. Berg of North Dakota.
An amendment by Mr. Garamendi of California.
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Mulvaney of South Carolina.
Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Mulvaney of South Carolina.
An amendment by Mr. Stearns of Florida.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. King) 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247,
noes 166, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 487]

AYES--247

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
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)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
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
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
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)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (AR)

[[Page H5064]]

Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
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
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--166

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--18

Akin
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Brown (FL)
Buerkle
Cantor
Davis (IL)
Deutch
Filner
Fleischmann
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Polis
Reyes
Stark
Stivers
Wasserman Schultz

{time} 1815

Mr. THOMPSON of California changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. YOUNG of Alaska, MURPHY of Pennsylvania, and ADERHOLT changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 487, 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 Ms. Lee of California

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the fourth 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 87,
noes 326, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 488]

AYES--87

Amash
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Braley (IA)
Campbell
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kucinich
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Paul
Pingree (ME)
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Serrano
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey

NOES--326

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Cicilline
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
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
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
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 (WA)
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinchey
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
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
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)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tonko
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--18

Akin
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Brown (FL)
Buerkle
Cuellar
Deutch
Filner
Fleischmann
Hayworth
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Lowey
Polis
Reyes
Stivers
Wasserman Schultz

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1819

Mr. ROKITA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.

[[Page H5065]]

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 488, 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 fifth 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

[Roll No. 489]

AYES--171

Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Labrador
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOES--243

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Austria
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
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Holden
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--17

Akin
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Brown (FL)
Buerkle
Deutch
Filner
Fleischmann
Hirono
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Lowey
Polis
Reyes
Stivers
Wasserman Schultz

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1822

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 489, 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. Moran

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Moran) 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

[Roll No. 490]

AYES--407

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonamici
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling

[[Page H5066]]

Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
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)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--5

Barton (TX)
Hayworth
Long
Paul
Smith (WA)

NOT VOTING--19

Akin
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Brown (FL)
Buerkle
Deutch
Filner
Fleischmann
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Lowey
Olver
Polis
Reyes
Stivers
Wasserman Schultz

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1826

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 490, 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. Turner of Ohio

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

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235,
noes 178, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 491]

AYES--235

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
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)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
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
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--178

Ackerman
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Labrador
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--18

Akin
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Brown (FL)
Buerkle
Deutch
Filner
Fleischmann
Gutierrez
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Lowey
Polis
Reyes
Stivers
Sullivan
Wasserman Schultz

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

[[Page H5067]]

{time} 1829

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 491, I inadvertently
voted ``no''. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 491, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Coffman of Colorado

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Coffman) 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

[Roll No. 492]

AYES--123

Amash
Baca
Bachmann
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Braley (IA)
Camp
Capuano
Carney
Chabot
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Doggett
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Farr
Flores
Frank (MA)
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Harris
Heinrich
Himes
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Keating
Kind
Kingston
Kucinich
Labrador
Landry
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Lummis
Markey
McClintock
McDermott
McGovern
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nunes
Olver
Pallone
Paul
Perlmutter
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Posey
Quigley
Ribble
Richardson
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Schock
Schrader
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Stark
Stearns
Sutton
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Woodall
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOES--292

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Visclosky
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Watt
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--16

Akin
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Brown (FL)
Buerkle
Deutch
Filner
Fleischmann
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Lowey
Polis
Reyes
Stivers
Wasserman Schultz

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1832

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 492, 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. Berg

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Dakota (Mr. Berg) 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

[[Page H5068]]

[Roll No. 493]

AYES--232

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hahn
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
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
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--183

Ackerman
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Buchanan
Butterfield
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Labrador
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Renacci
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--16

Akin
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Brown (FL)
Buerkle
Deutch
Filner
Fleischmann
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Lowey
Polis
Reyes
Stivers
Wasserman Schultz

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1835

Mr. GARRETT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 493, 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. Garamendi

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Garamendi) 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

[Roll No. 494]

AYES--137

Amash
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Berman
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Perlmutter
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Rokita
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOES--278

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
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
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
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
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance

[[Page H5069]]

Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
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, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
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
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--16

Akin
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Brown (FL)
Buerkle
Deutch
Filner
Fleischmann
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Lowey
Polis
Reyes
Stivers
Wasserman Schultz

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1840

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina 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 494, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) 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

[Roll No. 495]

AYES--247

Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Black
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Butterfield
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Flores
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Guinta
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kingston
Kucinich
Labrador
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lummis
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Westmoreland
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Yoder

NOES--167

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brooks
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chandler
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fleming
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Granger
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Herger
Higgins
Hochul
Hunter
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lankford
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Quayle
Rehberg
Reichert
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Scott, Austin
Sewell
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sullivan
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Towns
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walden
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--17

Akin
Bishop (NY)
Bono Mack
Boren
Brown (FL)
Buerkle
Deutch
Filner
Fleischmann
Hirono
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Polis
Reyes
Stivers
Wasserman Schultz

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1843

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 495, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) 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

[[Page H5070]]

[Roll No. 496]

AYES--238

Adams
Amash
Amodei
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Bonamici
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Denham
DesJarlais
Doggett
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Flores
Frank (MA)
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hahn
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McGovern
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tipton
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Webster
Welch
West
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (IN)

NOES--178

Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Barber
Barrow
Becerra
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Capuano
Carnahan
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Herger
Hinchey
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Hunter
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Marchant
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Myrick
Neal
Nugent
Olson
Olver
Owens
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Platts
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rehberg
Reichert
Rigell
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Shimkus
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stark
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Watt
Waxman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--15

Akin
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Brown (FL)
Buerkle
Deutch
Filner
Fleischmann
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Polis
Reyes
Stivers
Wasserman Schultz

{time} 1848

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 496, 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. Stearns

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Stearns) 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

[Roll No. 497]

AYES--399

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonamici
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)

[[Page H5071]]

Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
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)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--17

Blumenauer
Cooper
Dicks
Honda
Hoyer
Johnson, E. B.
Larsen (WA)
McDermott
Miller, George
Moran
Olver
Ruppersberger
Shuler
Smith (WA)
Stark
Visclosky
Woolsey

NOT VOTING--15

Akin
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Brown (FL)
Buerkle
Deutch
Filner
Fleischmann
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Polis
Reyes
Stivers
Wasserman Schultz

{time} 1852

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 497, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2013''.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with
the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill,
as amended, do pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Woodall) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bishop of Utah, 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, directed
him to report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted
in the Committee of the Whole, with the recommendation that the
amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under House Resolution 717, the previous
question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 326,
nays 90, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 498]

YEAS--326

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Cicilline
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
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
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
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
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)
McCaul
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran
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
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 (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
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
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NAYS--90

Amash
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Braley (IA)
Campbell
Capuano
Carney
Chu
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Conyers
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Flake
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Keating
Kind
Kucinich
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Markey
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Paul
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Schrader
Schwartz
Serrano
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--15

Akin
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Brown (FL)
Buerkle
Deutch
Filner
Fleischmann
Hirono
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Polis
Reyes
Stivers
Wasserman Schultz

{time} 1911

Messrs. BUTTERFIELD and CICILLINE changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page H5072]]

Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 498, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''

personal explanation

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492,
493, 494, 495, 496, 497 and 498 I was delayed and unable to vote. Had I
been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 487, ``no'' on
rollcall No. 488, ``no'' on rollcall No. 489, ``aye'' on rollcall No.
490, ``aye'' on rollcall No. 491, ``no' on rollcall No. 492, ``aye'' on
rollcall No. 493, ``no'' on rollcall No. 494, ``no'' on rollcall No.
495, ``aye'' on rollcall No. 496, ``aye'' on rollcall No. 497 and
``aye'' on rollcall No. 498.

____________________