[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 106 (Tuesday, July 23, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H4936-H4976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 312 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. 2397.
Will the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) kindly resume the
chair.
{time} 1927
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. 2397) making appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Hastings of Washington (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
amendment No. 27 printed in House Report 113-170 offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) had been disposed of.
Amendments En Bloc No. 3 Offered by Mr. Young of Florida
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 312,
I offer amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 3 consisting of amendment Nos. 31, 68, and 85,
printed in House Report No. 113-170, offered by Mr. Young of Florida:
amendment no. 31 offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island
Page 134, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $60,000,000)''.
[[Page H4937]]
Page 143, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $14,000,000)''.
amendment no. 68 offered by mr. murphy of florida
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 maintain or improve Department of Defense real
property with a zero percent utilization rate according to
the Department's real property inventory database, except in
the case of maintenance of an historic property as required
by the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et
seq.) or maintenance to prevent a negative environmental
impact as required by the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
amendment no. 85 offered by mr. broun of georgia
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following:
Sec. _. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to operate an unmanned aerial system in contravention
of the fourth amendment to the Constitution.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky)
each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have no requests for time, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY of Florida. I want to thank the chair from the great State
of Florida and the ranking member for their work putting together this
bipartisan legislation.
I rise today in support of the en bloc amendments that include my
bipartisan amendment to the Defense appropriations bill with the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman). Our amendment would eliminate
wasteful spending on unused facilities, which can save tens of millions
of dollars in fiscal year 2014 alone.
The Department of Defense has hundreds, possibly thousands, of
buildings and structures that it has rated at zero percent utilization.
This is an incredible number of useless facilities the Department of
Defense is paying to maintain.
Federal agencies as a whole must do a better job at managing their
facilities. Taxpayers cannot continue paying for unused and underused
buildings while the Nation is at record levels of debt. That is not
good government and not smart spending.
{time} 1930
That is why earlier this year I introduced the SAVE Act to root out
up to $200 billion in wasteful and duplicative government spending over
the next 10 years.
This amendment is an extension of one of the 11 commonsense solutions
included in the bipartisan SAVE Act, preventing the Department of
Defense from spending money on facilities that the Department itself
has rated at zero percent utilization.
Mr. Chairman, we all agree that we must rein in government spending,
and the best place to start is by rooting out waste. My amendment is a
commonsense solution to do just that, and I urge my colleagues to
support this bipartisan amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking
member for this bipartisan en bloc amendment and rise in support of my
amendment that would better ensure that we meet the urgent mental
health needs and addiction treatment needs of military personnel
returning from Afghanistan.
After more than a decade of war, many of our heroes are returning
home from several tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. To honor their
service, we have the responsibility of ensuring that we develop
treatments to address the specific health needs of our returning
veterans. This year, as our troops return home to their families and
loved ones, Congress should be increasing investments in the research
that will help us better understand how to provide these veterans with
the care they need and deserve.
Early indications and analysis suggest the need to focus our efforts
on psychological health and substance abuse. Importantly, in many
cases, our returning veterans suffer from both mental health and
substance abuse disorders simultaneously. Delivering health care to
these patients is exceedingly difficult, but it is our responsibility
to address this critical health need among our Nation's heroes.
I want to compliment the chairman and the ranking member because this
legislation contains important investments in peer-reviewed traumatic
brain injury and psychological health research programs, but I believe
that we have the means and the ability to do more. As this health need
grows more acute and as more veterans return home, we should be
increasing these investments. That's why this amendment would increase
funding for psychological health research by $13 million and substance
abuse research by $1 million.
To pay for these increases, my amendment would slightly reduce the
increase in funding for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund by $60
million, a modest decrease of a total allocation of $7.7 billion. My
amendment would shift a small fraction of this increased funding,
reducing the total allocation by less than 1 percent, in order to
provide a small increase in funding for critical health research for
our veterans and returning military personnel here at home.
I thank the ranking member and the chairman for including this in the
en bloc amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, we have no speakers, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
The en bloc amendments were agreed to.
Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Cicilline
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 131, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $279,000,000)''.
Page 157, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $279,000,000)''.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I first ask unanimous consent to modify
the amendment to reflect the figure of $200 million as the reduction in
the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund because of the passage of the
previous amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Rhode Island?
Mr. WOMACK. I object.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 minutes on his
amendment.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that
would shift funding away from the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund in
order to reduce our deficit and focus on investing here at home.
This bill appropriates $270 million to the Afghanistan Infrastructure
Fund over the next year. This fund is notorious for its inefficiency.
Several government watchdogs, including the Special Inspector General
for Afghanistan Reconstruction, have repeatedly found that projects
funded through the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund are hopelessly
behind schedule, lack proper oversight, and are poorly administered.
One example, the Kandahar Bridging Solution Project, which was
developed to help provide electricity to a troubled region in
Afghanistan, went 20 percent over budget in its first year of
development, costing $8 million more than planned. Even with these cost
overruns, the anticipated gains from this project are in serious
jeopardy because of the slow pace of construction of related
infrastructure that are central to the region's long-term electricity
needs.
The failure to complete this project has led to higher fuel costs
borne by the American taxpayer and raises serious questions about
Afghanistan's ability to sustain electricity production in the future
because of these high costs.
The original intent of the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund was to
identify a small group of infrastructure
[[Page H4938]]
projects in 2011 that were shovel ready and capable of being completed
by the middle of 2013. The Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund was never
meant to last beyond the completion of these seven projects or into
fiscal year 2014. And yet here we are, once again, appropriating
hundreds of millions of dollars for projects that remain stalled and
ineffective. Meanwhile, we're making major cuts in critical domestic
funding here at home and doing almost nothing to rebuild the crumbling
infrastructure in our own country.
Congress has appropriated more than $1.1 billion over the last 3
fiscal years to the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund. This bill would
commit another $279 million in fiscal year 2014, despite the release of
a Special Inspector General report indicating five of seven projects
remain six to 15 months behind schedule. The same report also concluded
that ``Congress and the U.S. taxpayers do not have reasonable
assurance'' that projects completed using AIF funds would be sustained
or made viable by the Afghan Government after we leave.
This is increasingly disconcerting when we consider that only about
10 percent of the $400 million appropriated in fiscal year 2012 has
been dispersed as of April 2013, with another $325 million of taxpayer
money from the current year appropriations remaining unspent.
So we know the money is not being sent out quickly enough to
accomplish the original intent of the program--to complete
infrastructure projects by the middle of 2013. And we know that even if
we were to complete these expensive projects, that they will likely not
be maintained by the people of Afghanistan after our withdrawal.
Knowing these facts, why should we provide an additional $279 million
to this fund for next year? That is the definition of throwing good
money after bad.
Of course, it is also useful to remember the context in which we're
spending the additional money on Afghanistan's infrastructure. These
are incredibly difficult fiscal times here in our own country.
Earlier today, we passed a rule for consideration of legislation that
makes deep cuts to investments in domestic transportation and
infrastructure. It eliminates the TIGER program to fund local
transportation programs; it zeroes out our investments in high-speed
rail; and it decreases funding to upgrade our airports and other FAA
facilities by more than $500 million. Does this Congress really believe
it's more important to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in
Afghanistan's infrastructure when we're cutting those same investments
in our own roads, bridges, airports and transportation systems? Let's
put America's needs first.
My amendment reduces the deficit, eliminates the inefficient
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund, and allows us to refocus on building
our own infrastructure here at home.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will prevent the completion
of the two most strategic initiatives funded by the Afghanistan
Infrastructure Fund--the Northeast and Southeast Power Systems--and
limit the lasting counterinsurgency effects intended by the AIF
program. Available, reliable power promotes jobs and economic
development, which increases stability and reduces insurgency and
insurgent influence.
Mr. Chairman, Kandahar Province has been a primary focus for AIF
investment. Of all the areas in Afghanistan, none is more important to
the future of the Afghan Government or to the Taliban insurgency than
this province--the Taliban's birthplace, location of its former
capital, and spiritual heart.
AIF projects support the ``Build'' phase of the Shape, Clear, Hold,
Build counterinsurgency strategy and are a critical component of the
integrated civil/military campaign that sets the conditions for
Afghanistan's decade of transformation beyond 2014.
Power distribution is currently provided through 12 provinces,
serving 10 million Afghans. And Mr. Chairman, let me just remind you
that we just passed an amendment that already cuts this account by $79
million. This amendment cuts more funds than are left in the account.
According to DOD, the lack of reliable electricity is the single
greatest impediment to Afghanistan's economic growth, and thereby the
stability necessary to support drawdown and transition.
Significant work on five of the seven power projects is in its
beginning stages and is unlikely to be completed until well after the
NATO mission ends in 2014. If project goals are set and not achieved,
both the U.S. and Afghan Governments can lose the populace's support.
It's for these reasons that we remain in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the ranking member.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and would
associate myself with his comments.
I do appreciate the gentleman's concern. The money spent in
Afghanistan ought to be spent carefully and efficiently and we ought to
have an investment made for those expenditures. But I harken back to
the last debate we had when we did abandon this country in 1989, and as
a result, that region of the world gave us the Taliban and al Qaeda. I
don't want to take that type of chance. And simply because we have
failed ourselves in this country by a failure to invest in our
infrastructure, I do not believe this is the time to fail the Afghan
people. I do associate myself with the gentleman's remarks and am
opposed to the amendment.
I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that the argument that
we owe it to the Afghan people to ensure that we rebuild their economy,
we owe that responsibility first to the American people.
We have a crumbling infrastructure in this country--our roads, our
bridges, our ports, our transit systems. Every economist I know says
that investing in infrastructure so that we can get goods, services and
information in this competitive 21st century economy is critical.
I hardly believe, with all due respect, that giving $1.1 billion,
where only a little over $100 million has actually been spent, that
that is abandoning Afghanistan. This is $1.1 billion of taxpayer money;
only $111 million has been spent. And we're now appropriating another
$279 million. I don't believe we're abandoning anybody.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Cohen
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 131, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $139,000,000)''.
Page 157, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $139,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which as originally drawn
was like the amendment I offered last year that passed with a pretty
strong majority, halves the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund. Mr.
Walberg and I were cosponsors on a bipartisan amendment that passed
that cut $79 million.
[[Page H4939]]
To get this amendment to the same point, we would have to amend it down
$60 million, I believe, to get it from the 279 to the cut. I don't know
if we want to do an amendment or not. The more money it takes, for me
it's fine, but if we wanted to halve it.
I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment to reflect the cut
not to be--an amount of 139, but to take into consideration the 79, and
so to make this amendment only $60 million. So I would like to offer an
amendment to the amendment to make this amendment reflect a $60 million
cut to make the total cut 139, which would be half.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Tennessee?
Mr. WOMACK. Objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.
{time} 1945
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, that is just better, because this amendment
is kind of a compromise between the amendment Mr. Walberg and I had and
Mr. Cicilline's. Mr. Cicilline's cut the fund entirely. This cuts it in
half. A little more than half is really better.
The fact is, yes, we need the infrastructure in America; but we spent
a lot of money on the infrastructure fund in Iraq, and we know from
experience that a lot of that money, if not most of it, was stolen and
wasted.
The same things happened in Afghanistan. The Inspector General has
reported it; and, in fact, Afghani officials have reported it. They do
not have the expertise, nor do they have the abilities, to maintain
products after they are built. When the roads are constructed, they
can't maintain them. So it is throwing money away.
The same thing happened with air-conditioners and other products that
we gave the Iraqis and we have given the Afghanis. They cannot maintain
them. They can't maintain them when they do construct them, but before
that half of it is ripped off and graft. There are rankings of the most
corrupt countries on the face of the Earth. Afghanistan is always
number one or number two, and continues to be.
No matter how long we stay there and how long we have been there, the
level of corruption has remained right at the top. That is not going to
change.
Giving this money away is basically encouraging and endorsing and
seconding corruption and graft that we have seen in Afghanistan over
the years, and waste. This Congress should not be passing funds that we
know are going to be corruptly going to officials who are putting it in
their pockets, not helping the Afghani people.
In a perfect world, I wouldn't offer the amendment. In a perfect
world, I would say, oh, ``Charlie Wilson,'' what a great movie, what a
great story, we pulled out too soon. Well, Charlie Wilson was right in
theory. He was wrong in application, because they steal and it is
corrupt and they cannot maintain it. We couldn't have put enough money
and enough people. You have to change the ethics.
I've heard a lot of people here on this floor talk about situations
in America. They say, we can't do it, it has got to be the family do
it. Well, talk about the family--the whole country is corrupt. They
have stolen and stolen and stolen American dollars. We are throwing
them away, and we need to stop it.
It should be a place, just as the Walberg-Cohen-Esty-Rigell amendment
passed, that this amendment passes, so that we limit the amount of
money that is at risk and we save this money for the American taxpayer.
We put the money into deficit reduction, the next generation doesn't
have to pay for the corruption of the Afghani officials and the waste
of Afghanistan with the inability to maintain the projects that they
finally might get squeezed out after they steal as much as they can. We
should not be funding this.
I would ask that we approve our amendment in the name of fiscal
austerity, deficit reduction, anticorruption, and just plain old, good
old common sense. We might as well just have a bonfire and burn this
money up before it goes over there because it is not going to work. In
theory it is great, but in reality it doesn't work. The definition of
``insanity'' is expecting something different when you do the same
thing over and over and over and you get the same result and you keep
doing it.
So this Congress, which has less than 10 percent popularity right
now, doesn't pass an insane amendment to give money to corruption and
to waste, I ask you to approve this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, let's remind ourselves the Afghan
Infrastructure Fund is aimed at providing water, power, and
transportation projects, and more recently to increase the electricity
supply throughout but, specifically in southern Afghanistan, to light
shops and power factories and to construct provincial justice centers
around the country.
It is clear that remaining projects could take 12 to 24 months to
complete. A lot of work has already taken place, in particular on the
seven power projects in its beginning stages; and as I said in the
previous amendment, unlikely to be completed until well after the NATO
mission ends in 2014. If these goals are not met, then a lot of great
investment and a lot of good work will have gone for naught.
We remain in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
If the ranking member would like to speak on behalf, then I would be
happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding
and simply would take a bit of a different tack.
I do appreciate the gentleman's outrage over any act of corruption,
whether it is in the country of Afghanistan or whether it is in the
United States of America. We do have a responsibility to make sure
these moneys are spent for the intended purposes.
But there is an insinuation that all expenditures in Afghanistan
today are subject to corruption. I doubt there is a congressional
district in this country that has not had, at some point in time, a
public official sent to Federal prison for public corruption.
We then find people in our individual districts who are honest, law-
abiding and who make the necessary investments. I am certain that the
overwhelming number of people in Afghanistan and their government, as
with the United States, are of that ilk. Those are the people we ought
to assiduously make sure get this money, and for that reason would be
opposed to the amendment.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
All you have to do is look at the top, Mr. Karzai and his brother,
who was killed, who was one of the main drug runners down there who was
killed. The whole country from the top to the bottom is corrupt.
I thank the gentleman for his thoughts. You can't find honest people
there to see that this money gets to their people. They don't care
about their people. They care about their own power, their own money,
their own riches. They are corrupt, and we are throwing this money
away.
Let's face reality and pass the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to the amendment, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Coffman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30
printed in House Report 113-170.
[[Page H4940]]
Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 134, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $553,800,000)''.
Page 157, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $553,800,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Coffman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Last year, this body, in the FY13 Defense authorization bill,
specifically prohibited the Department of Defense from using any
taxpayer funds to purchase Russian-built Mi-17 helicopters for the
Afghan Special Mission Wing.
Our reasoning was simple: the Russian export company involved in the
deal, Rosoboronexport, had an established track record for aiding our
adversaries, having supplied both Iran and Syria with advanced weaponry
in the years prior.
However, despite our entirely reasonable objections to using taxpayer
dollars to fund our enemies, the Department of Defense was intent on
circumventing the will of Congress.
The language of the bill prohibited the use of FY13 funding. DOD
responded by using any unobligated FY12 funds, circumventing the will
of Congress as expressed in a law we passed and the President signed.
On June 16 of this year, DOD awarded a $553.8 million contract to
Rosoboronexport for the purchase of 30 brand-new Mi-17 helicopters.
Last month, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan
Reconstruction, or SIGAR, released an audit of the Afghan Special
Mission Wing, and their findings were shocking. The very first sentence
of the audit reads:
The Afghans lack the capacity--in both personnel numbers
and expertise--to operate and maintain the existing and
planned SMW fleets.
Finding recruits who are both literate and have no known association
with criminal and terrorist elements is incredibly challenging.
The Afghan Special Mission Wing, or SMW, was stood up in July of 2012
in order to provide air support for Afghan Special Forces executing
counternarcotics and counterterrorism missions, many of which are flown
at night.
Further complicating the issue is the fact that the pilots assigned
to the SMW, less than 15 percent are qualified to fly with night-vision
goggles. The vast majority of counterterrorism missions take place
under the cover of darkness.
My bipartisan amendment reduces the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
by $553.8 million, an amount equal to the contract DOD entered into
with Rosoboronexport for 30 Mi-17 helicopters, and increases the
Spending Reduction Account by the same amount.
Frankly, my preference would have been to rescind the FY 2012 dollars
that DOD used to circumvent the will of Congress and enter into this
deal, but an amendment of that nature would be subject to a point of
order. This amendment forces DOD to reallocate resources if they want
to continue down this path.
Mr. Chairman, I am not debating whether this helicopter is ideal for
the rugged terrain of Afghanistan, or whether it is an easier platform
for the Afghanis to train on and execute missions. There seems to be an
overall consensus that, in fact, it is.
My concern, and the reason I introduced this amendment, is that the
United States taxpayer should not be paying for 30 brand-new
helicopters when, A, they don't have the pilots to fly them; B, they
don't have the trained personnel to repair them. In fact, SIGAR reports
that only 50 percent of the current wing is airworthy due to a lack of
maintenance; and, C, Congress explicitly prohibited DOD from entering
into this agreement in the first place.
Furthermore, the DOD is asking the American taxpayer to spend over
$700 million a year to maintain these helicopters, and that spending is
not scheduled to end in 2014 when we pull out our forces from
Afghanistan.
Additionally, the Pentagon just announced last week that the purchase
of Russian-built Mi-17 helicopters will not end with the 30 they just
purchased for the SMW. Their plan is to equip the Afghan Air Force with
an additional 86 brand-new Mi-17s. If you consider that the cost of 30
helicopters was over $500 million, this new purchase will be well over
$1 billion, and probably over $1.5 billion. This for a helicopter that
the Afghans have proven they lack the personnel to fly and the
capability to maintain.
I urge my colleagues to support
the Coffman-Garamendi-Murphy-Cohen amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOMACK. I claim the time in opposition, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, the intent of the amendment's sponsor is to
reduce the Afghanistan National Security Force's Fund by over $550
million in order to limit the purchase of Mi-17 helicopters.
I am pleased that my friend from Colorado at least acknowledged that
he was not going to argue with the purpose of the helicopters and the
need for the helicopters, because as we all know, a properly trained
and equipped Afghanistan National Security Force is the safest and
quickest path for our forces to leave Afghanistan. Reducing funding
from this account will only inhibit our ability to achieve the goal.
The amount that the amendment seeks to cut, over $550 million, is for
the purchase of 30 Mi-17 helicopters that were purchased with fiscal
year 2012 funds, and Congress was later notified of the Secretary of
Defense's intent to exercise the purchase on April 1 of 2013.
Mr. Chairman, the reduction of funds is being taken from a prior year
allocation, or a prior year appropriation, which makes this amendment
just simply a punitive amendment to this year's funding.
I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COFFMAN. 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.
{time} 2000
Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Garamendi
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 33
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 134, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,615,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Garamendi) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, we've had a lot of discussion here in
the last several minutes about Afghanistan. This amendment follows
along the same line, but it's actually far greater in dollars.
Last year, we appropriated $5.1 billion to the Afghanistan National
Army for their support. In this year's budget, an additional $2.6
billion was added for--who knows what? It was $2.6 billion of American
taxpayer money for something--airplanes? supplies? support equipment?
trucks? It was unspecified, unknown, to be used by one of the most
corrupt governments--no, excuse me--the most corrupt government in the
world. $2.6 billion of American taxpayer money for something,
unspecified, to be used somewhere, somehow--I suspect, more likely, in
some bank account in Bahrain.
What are we doing? What justification is there for $2.6 billion of
additional expenditure for the Afghan National Army? Have we lost our
minds?
[[Page H4941]]
No. We're just going to lose our money. What is going on here? What are
we doing? What is this all about?
This money should never be spent for some unspecified purpose. We
take our Department of Defense, and we hold them to a very tight
account. We don't let them spend money without a contract, without
reviews by the inspector general, without reviews by our committee, but
here is $2.6 billion, unspecified.
Oh, Mr. Karzai, use it wisely.
Come on. Come on. Let's not do this. This amendment would simply say,
You can't have that money.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, the Afghan National Security Forces include
both the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police. It has
been one of the United States' top priorities since operations began in
Afghanistan in 2001.
The purpose of the Afghan National Security Force development program
is to grow the capacity and the capability of the Afghan National
Security Forces in line with international agreements. This year's
request totals $7.7 billion. The request is further delineated into the
categories of Defense Forces, Interior Forces, and Detainee Operations.
Included within the categories is the base request for operations and
sustainment to conduct day-to-day operations, totaling just over $5
billion, and an additional $2.6 billion for the enablers, which my
friend refers to in his comments from the well.
The gentleman says, if I heard him correctly, that we don't know what
these enablers are. We do know what these enablers are, and people who
have backgrounds in security or in the military would understand the
importance of howitzers or of night vision devices or of regional
military hospitals, training, logistics, and maintenance expenses, and
a host of other associated items that we refer to in this legislation
as ``enablers.''
The Department of Defense has taken steps to right-size the funding
needed to support the needs of the Afghan National Security Forces. The
core request is, indeed, the right amount. Calendar year 2014, Mr.
Chairman, will be the last year that a large U.S. troop concentration
will be in Afghanistan. In the years to follow, the Afghan National
Security Forces will be there as the frontline force, thus helping to
protect the U.S. and NATO troops against our foes.
With that, I remain opposed to the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I request to know how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Paulsen). The gentleman from California has
2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I find it difficult that our esteemed Appropriations
Committee, which watches the taxpayers' money with such ardor and
intensity, would increase by 51 percent the amount of support that the
American taxpayers are giving to the Afghan National Security Forces--
the police, which are among--no, excuse me--they are the most corrupt--
and the army, which is questionable, and certainly the government,
which we know to be the most corrupt in the world--that it would simply
write $2.6 billion more money than we were giving them last year, for a
total of $7.6 billion, for something--something--unspecified.
We would never do this for our own military. Never would we do that.
We would have them lay out how they were going to spend the money
before we would even consider giving them the money, and then we would
hold them to tight account.
I cannot understand why we would do this. There is no justification
other than, oh, we're leaving, and we've got to help them, so throw
some more money at them. They already have been appropriated $52
billion, and only $40 billion of that has been spent. There is $12
billion left in the account, and you're going to add $7.6 billion to
that.
What are you doing? What justification is there for this other than,
oh, they may need it because we're leaving? They're going to use it
for--let's see--other things--well, maybe for some field hospitals,
maybe for some airplanes, maybe for some supplies--maybe, maybe,
maybe--but there is nothing written. There is nothing written. Oh, yes.
We know the American Army or the American military will somehow spend
it wisely. There is a 10-year record of its being spent unwisely. $2.6
billion.
What could we do with it? Could we reduce the deficit? Could we build
some levees? Could we educate some kids? Could we do some research in
the United States?
Come on. Of all of the things we're doing here today, this is the
most disgusting.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. WOMACK. First of all, we have the list.
I recognize that the gentleman has argued that, while there may be
something printed on the list, on paper, of ``how would we know that
it's actually going to go for those purposes?'' I get that, but let me
also remind the gentleman that this was all in the President's request
as well.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOMACK. I would be happy to yield to my friend from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. How many times have I heard from this side that the
President is wrong? The President is wrong in this case.
Mr. WOMACK. So I'm assuming that the gentleman would admit that the
President is wrong in this case as well.
Mr. GARAMENDI. He most certainly is wrong in this case. There is no
doubt about it.
Mr. WOMACK. In reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just simply
say that we have the list. On the list are, certainly, items that would
go to the very core of the capability of the Afghan National Security
Forces in order for them to be able to protect themselves and to be
able to protect us as we continue to prepare for leaving that theater
of operation. So I am strongly opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
At this time, in my having no further comments, 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 noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 34 will not be offered.
Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Fleming
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 35
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 157, after line 2, add the following new section:
Sec. 10002. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used to appoint chaplains for the military departments
in contravention of Department of Defense Instruction
1304.28, dated June 11, 2004, incorporating change 2, dated
January 19, 2012, as in effect on July 1, 2013, regarding the
appointment of chaplains for the military departments.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
My amendment is fairly simple. The DOD is permitted to appoint
military chaplains--individuals who minister to the spiritual needs of
any and all members of the armed services--in accordance with the
current DOD policy. Chaplains must possess appropriate educational
credentials, 2 years of religious leadership experience, and, more
[[Page H4942]]
importantly, must receive an endorsement from a qualified religious
organization attesting to the tenets of the endorser's faith.
In June, the Members of this body--Democrats and Republicans alike--
twice affirmed that the military is not permitted to appoint atheist
chaplains. Despite these recent votes and by completely bypassing
Congress--the voice of the people--and current DOD standards, it has
been confirmed that the military is considering the possibility of
appointing an atheist chaplain. Since the formation of the chaplaincy
in 1775, chaplains have been affiliated with faith and spirituality. By
definition, chaplains minister to the spiritual needs of our men and
women in the armed services--a vital function that an individual
without any inclination towards spirituality would not be able to
perform.
I would like to thank my colleagues--Representatives Forbes,
Bridenstine, Jordan, Pitts, and Lankford--for their support of this
amendment.
I would urge all of my colleagues to support the chaplaincy of the
U.S. military, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Fleming
amendment.
I think there is a basic misunderstanding here about the needs of
people who lack a particular faith tradition. I would also point out
that we already ordain nontheistic chaplains in our military, including
Buddhists, which is a nontheistic faith. Some Unitarians may also have
a nontheistic faith tradition. However, over 20 percent of the members
of our military identify as nonbelievers. While, of course, their needs
should be catered to by members of the chaplaincy from diverse faiths,
it's only fair to have their humanism, or outlooks, represented.
Now, why is this different than a reason a member of the military
might seek support from a medical professional or from a psychologist
as the gentleman has argued one should? Those are different needs.
A psychiatrist or a medical professional is not equipped to answer
those kinds of existential questions that a member of the military
might seek out to discuss with a chaplain: Why am I here? What's the
meaning of life? How do I justify the use of force? People who are
nontheistic in their outlooks and who are humanists wrestle with those
same existential questions as those of us of faith. So I strongly
encourage my colleagues to not adopt an amendment that would be
restrictive on the military.
Now, to be clear, the military has not announced plans to move
forward with ordaining humanist chaplains; but what this amendment does
is to lock in place a 2004 rule, placing it in statute and preventing
the military, even if they feel the need should arise for the good of
the chaplaincy, from having the flexibility they need to appoint
humanist chaplains.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from
Oklahoma, Jim Bridenstine.
Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Dr. Fleming, for your leadership on this.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. I support this
amendment to prohibit the appointment of atheist chaplains.
My constituents back in Oklahoma are shaking their heads. The secular
left is so invested in ripping God from everything that I must stand
here with my friend Dr. Fleming in order to prohibit Obama's Department
of Defense from establishing an oxymoron--atheist chaplains.
Military chaplains have a duty to faithfully serve all servicemembers
and to facilitate the free exercise of religion under the First
Amendment. As a Navy pilot with combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, I
recognize that war affects all servicemembers--believers and atheists.
However, those without faith have plenty of options, from counselors to
psychologists, from whom to seek emotional support.
Why does the secular left insist on ruining the integrity of the
chaplaincy in order to serve their agenda of institutionalized
godlessness?
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
{time} 2015
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the Armed Services Committee.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, our intent is not to promote
institutionalized godlessness. Our intent is to promote constitutional
fealty.
When a young man or young woman raises their right hand and swears
allegiance to this country and agrees to serve in the Armed Forces,
they do not consign themselves to serve as a second-class citizen,
irrespective of their faith or their life philosophy.
It is wrong to say to a soldier who comes from such a tradition, that
he or she, if they have an issue on which they're troubled, must go to
a mental health professional in order to receive counseling, rather
than someone who comes from their philosophical faith or tradition.
The other problem with this amendment is it frankly second guesses
the military leadership of this country, the Pentagon of this country,
the Defense Department, and says that even if they would decide that
such a decision would be appropriate, they're prohibited from doing so.
Our law recognizes that our Constitution establishes no religion. We
should have equality of treatment for our Armed Forces. I'd urge a
``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from
Georgia, Doug Collins, who is, by the way, a chaplain himself.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting amendment, especially for me,
because I am currently a chaplain in the United States military.
I appreciate the arguments that have been made here, but let's just
bring back something that needs to be made. When we deal with this in
the contradiction of terms, a chaplain is there to provide services and
spiritual guidance and a guiding hand, if you would, to all--those of
faith and those with no faith. That is done in a confidential setting,
and it is done in a way in which the person who brings to the chaplain
their feelings, their needs, and their conversations are kept in that
inviolate conversation.
What I'm here to do is to support this amendment because I believe it
attacks the basis of the chaplaincy, it attacks the chaplaincy as a
whole, this introduction into the DOD to bring an atheist chaplain to,
really, the heart of the chaplaincy itself.
I think it is beyond more than just do those who have no faith have a
place to go. It's not about that. I believe it's about the faith of the
chaplaincy as a whole and the standards that have been set up.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FLEMING. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, if a chaplain is doing their
job right, then all feel welcome.
When I was in Iraq, I would go across and see everyone at night. I
had many times those who profess no faith at all who would come to me
and say, Chaplain, I don't believe there is a God, but I have a wife at
home that I'm having trouble with. Can you talk to me? That's what a
chaplain does.
This amendment reaffirms the establishment of our chaplaincy, and I
believe that is what it protects; and it protects those with faith and
those without faith and those who are somewhere in between. This
amendment needs to be approved.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for his efforts
on behalf of the chaplaincy. I agree with his interpretation of the
rules and responsibilities of the chaplaincy. And we try to represent
the diverse faith tradition of the men and women who serve.
In that faith tradition are those who look at objective fact, free
thinkers, humanists, atheists. They too have the same mentoring,
spiritual existential needs as others. And, of course, just as
Catholics have to handle the needs of Jews and Muslims in the service
and Buddhist chaplains handle the needs of
[[Page H4943]]
others, they're all trained to handle the needs of soldiers. We also
want to make sure we have a chaplaincy that reflects the broad
diversity of belief systems.
Over 20 percent of today's members of the military don't have a
theistic outlook, are nonbelievers. That's an important thing to
represent in the chaplaincy. Many major universities have humanist
chaplains. Hospitals have humanist chaplains. Many of our allied
European militaries have humanist chaplains.
As one of the other gentlemen argued, there is no political goal or
secular agenda here. We simply want to make sure the military is not
prevented from providing chaplaincy services for the men and women who
put their lives at risk defending our country every day. Every man and
woman who serves should be able, when the need arises, to have a
private consultation with a chaplain; and we should include in the
chaplaincy people who represent the full diversity of the beliefs of
the quality of men and women who serve.
Increasingly, there are seminaries who prepare humanist chaplains for
ordination and work in the field, in hospitals, in universities, and
again in the militaries that have them. I personally hope that this is
a direction that our military considers in the future. We ran a similar
amendment that would move it in this direction to an authorization
bill; 150 Members voted for it. I'm confident even more Members will
want to vote against restricting the military from moving in this
direction.
Again, to be clear, the Obama administration and the military have
given no indication that they want to go this way; but as we reassess
our ongoing personnel needs and how best to support the men and women
who serve, I believe that many members of the military will come to the
conclusion that this is an excellent way to do this.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, first of all, with all due respect to my
good friend from Colorado, there is no way that an atheist chaplain or
atheist whatever can minister to the spiritual needs of a Christian or
a Muslim, or a Jew, for that matter.
As a result, that is the whole problem here. When you're talking
about a chaplain, what are you talking about? How do we define
chaplain? A chaplain is a person who ministers to spiritual needs, but
who is assigned to a secular organization. The military is 99.9 percent
secular. The only thing that we add to it that is nonsecular is the
chaplaincy.
Also, I would say to you is that there is a limited number of
chaplains. And if we begin to displace chaplains who are actually from
religious organizations with those who are atheists, who do not believe
in spirituality or a deity, then that's going to limit even the number
that's going to be available to the others.
It's nonsensical. It's an oxymoron. But as I've said before, and I'll
say this again, remember that an atheist is a person who does not
believe in a deity, does not believe in a spiritual world. It's
impossible for that person through his or her beliefs or training to
minister to the spiritual needs of somebody who does.
In the final analysis, I believe that an atheist chaplain would be
the last person in the world that we would want for a dying soldier who
needs that last moment of counseling in their life.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 36 offered by Mr. Rigell
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 36
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 157, after line 2, add the following new section:
Sec. 10002. None of the funds made available by this Act
for the ``Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund'' may be used to
plan, develop, or construct any project for which
construction has not commenced before the date of the
enactment of this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Rigell) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to speak in support of my amendment, which would prohibit any
of the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund to be used to begin new
infrastructure projects.
There are a host of amendments that will address current projects.
That's not the focus of my amendment. My amendment is focused on new
projects.
Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand the summary of an audit provided to
Congress on July 12, by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan
Reconstruction. It contains key findings that really make the case that
my amendment is needed. The opening paragraph states this:
More than 10 years after international intervention in
Afghanistan, the U.S. Government, the international
community, and the Afghan Government continue to face
challenges in implementing programs to build basic
infrastructure.
That's certainly consistent with what I observed firsthand during my
trip to Afghanistan.
It goes on to say that five of the seven infrastructure projects for
fiscal year 2011 are up to 15 months behind schedule. USAID, the lead
agency of this effort, certainly doesn't need to be taking on new
projects when it can't get control of its current projects.
Really of far more importance and what is so deeply troubling, Mr.
Chairman, is what is stated at the close of that same paragraph:
In some instances, these projects may result in adverse
counterinsurgency efforts.
Let that sink in, Mr. Chairman. The Inspector General is making clear
to us that the American taxpayers' dollars may be funding
infrastructure projects that actually work against our
counterinsurgency efforts.
It goes on to state the two reasons why that might occur.
First, these projects create an expectations gap among the affected
population; second, they lack citizen support.
Look, even the Afghans don't want some of these projects.
The harsh reality is this, Mr. Chairman: while we're furloughing
hardworking Americans who work alongside and support our men and women
in uniform, we have poured not millions, but literally billions, $89.4
billion, in reconstruction efforts really into a cauldron of graft and
corruption. It's not the way to spend America's tax dollars.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop building infrastructure in
Afghanistan.
Finally, the Inspector General's report makes clear that we are
building infrastructure that the Afghans cannot possibly maintain and
sustain. They don't have the money, and they won't have the money.
Buildings will deteriorate. Generators will run out of fuel. Lights
will go out. Yet we keep building. We keep adding to the national debt.
Look, we're hiring Afghans and laying off American workers. This
doesn't make any sense, Mr. Chairman. It's time to stop building
infrastructure in Afghanistan.
That is why I urge my colleagues, both sides of the aisle, to look
carefully at this issue. I believe that will lead to a vote for my
amendment, which will prohibit any of the Afghanistan infrastructure
funds be used to begin new infrastructure projects.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, this is another in a line of amendments
that we have debated here this evening;
[[Page H4944]]
and I hate to be repetitive, but I am going to be. We and the
international community have failed the country of Afghanistan in the
last century. Today, in terms of the loss of life, in terms of injury,
and in terms of our national treasure, we are paying the price. For
over a decade, we have now had a commitment to this country, and we
ought to meet that commitment at the end just as we did at the
beginning.
The gentleman wants to prohibit essentially any new projects from
commencing. I think it is important for our colleagues to understand
that there are a number of very important projects that do need to be
undertaken and completed. All of them involve, basically, power
systems.
I don't think there's anybody in this Chamber who has not at one time
or another lost power to their home or their business. It's something
we all take for granted as American citizens. If any of you have read
the Caro biography on Lyndon Johnson, in the first volume I was most
struck by his chapter describing the day in the life of a woman in
Texas with no energy and how hot that house was and how hard it was to
bring that water to that house and how difficult it was to make sure
clothes were cleaned and food was prepared and how exhausted and bent
and broken these women were in the State of Texas before rural
electrification took place.
{time} 2030
I think there are a lot of people in the country of Afghanistan
today, because they lack power, that they are bent and broken, and
potentially are subject to being persuaded that there are other avenues
to take in life for a better one, as opposed to the principles that our
country espouses. I think particularly for those women who are bent and
broken because they have no power in the country of Afghanistan, we
ought to give them a fighting chance at the end.
We've been fighting in that country for 12 years, let's give them a
fighting chance at the end. Let us undertake some new construction to
give them that chance. Simply because we have failed in some instances
in this country is not, again as I have said before, is a reason that
we should fail others.
I see the gentleman from California rise, and I am happy to yield to
him.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman in opposition to this
amendment.
I understand the gentleman's concerns about what's happened in
Afghanistan, what is happening in Afghanistan. Many of us have been to
Afghanistan many times. That country was totally destroyed by the
Russians during the prior war. They were left with nothing. It is
probably, if not the poorest, one of the poorest countries on the face
of the Earth, rubble on rubble.
And when we leave, and we are going to leave Afghanistan in 2014,
what we're saying is we're going to give them the basic parts of energy
production, which is what the primary source of this money is going to
develop.
So I reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment, and join the
gentleman in his opposition.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. RIGELL. I appreciate the comments of both of my colleagues. I
certainly don't agree with them. However, if I understood the gentleman
correctly who led in opposition, and I do want to get this right, and I
will yield if I don't get it correct, but I made the notes here that
the gentleman said we have failed the nation, the people of
Afghanistan.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGELL. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I did not. I don't want to fail them.
Mr. RIGELL. Don't want to. Thank you for the clarification.
Mr. Chairman, by any measure, we won't and have not and will not fail
those people because we have sacrificed so great a measure of treasure
and loss of life. We have met every obligation to the people of
Afghanistan. And look, our principle and primary and exclusive
obligation, of course, is to the American people. The best indicator of
future performance is past performance. We have not demonstrated
competence, as much as we've tried and good people have given their
all. In fact, some of our civilians at USAID, as we all know, have
given their life in this effort. But we have not demonstrated a
competency to advance these projects, and here are the facts on the
economy.
The entire revenue stream for the Afghan government is about a
billion dollars a year. We've raised up a military operation there, the
Afghan army and police, the largest employer by far in the country,
that has an annual expenditure of about 7 or $8 billion. Look, the math
doesn't work. We've created a structure here that's going to require,
absent some difficult decisions, a sharp reduction of expenditures
there.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RIGELL. 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 No. 37 Offered by Mr. Scalise
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 37
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 157, after line 2, add the following new section:
Sec. 10002. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used to enter into any contract after the date of the
enactment of this Act for the procurement or production of
any non-petroleum based fuel for use as the same purpose or
as a drop-in substitute for petroleum.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I bring forward is a very
basic, straightforward, commonsense amendment that deals with the
funding priorities within the Department of Defense. We know we are
living in a post-sequester world. We have many hearings here on Capitol
Hill where we have generals and, in fact, even the Secretary of Defense
talking about the threats to military operations through the sequester
cuts. We all know that those are real, and especially in these tight
economic times, and even if we weren't in tight economic times, but
especially right now, we ought to be watching every single dollar that
is spent within the Department of Defense and work to find ways to make
smarter use of those dollars.
One of the things that we've found as we've combed through is that
the Department of Defense has been entering into contracts to buy
renewable fuels, biodiesel and other forms of renewable fuels to
supplant what are the traditional, conventional fuels. The problem is
that the contracts they are entering into are tremendously more
expensive to the taxpayer than if they just bought conventional fuel.
So what this amendment would do is to say that the Department of
Defense cannot enter into those contracts to buy nontraditional fuels
at these higher costs.
I want to give a couple of examples. I think it is important to note
a few of them because this is something that has been happening
recently that we found. There is a memorandum of understanding between
the Navy, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Energy
for each of those entities to spend $170 million each to ``assist
development and support of a sustainable commercial biofuels
industry.''
Now, Mr. Chairman, whatever you think of expanding and developing a
biofuels industry, that's not a mission of the Department of Defense,
and especially when their budgets are being cut and the generals and
the Secretary of Defense are saying they don't have enough money to
perform and execute their basic military operations. Yet they're
spending $170 million to prop up a failing biofuels industry when
[[Page H4945]]
they could instead be buying traditional fuels.
I just want to give one example of what we call this renewable energy
sticker shock. Here you've got furloughs at the Pentagon, the military
has grounded the Blue Angels, and yet they have a contract right now to
buy renewable jet fuel at $59 per gallon--$59 per gallon--when the
traditional cost of conventional jet fuel is $3.73 per gallon. And yet
the military, to carry out some kind of social agenda, is spending an
extra $56, almost $56 more per gallon, so they can buy renewable fuel.
So this is one example of many where the military is not making the
smartest use of their military dollars, at a time when Secretary Hagel
himself has testified before committee that the services have begun to
significantly reduce training and maintenance of operating forces.
So if they're reducing the training and maintenance of operating
forces, why are they spending hundreds of millions of dollars to prop
up a renewable energy industry that is clearly not viable yet. One day
it will be, but today it's not, and yet they're spending in some cases
5, 10, 12 times more to buy this renewable energy than they would pay
for conventional, wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.
This amendment just says that has to stop.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition
to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would begin by pointing out that the
Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of energy in the
United States of America, and I certainly do believe that we need to
move from a carbon-based economy, particularly given some of the
countries in the world where we procure carbon products such as
petroleum. Many people talk about it as an economic problem, and it is.
Many people characterize it as an environmental problem, and it is.
We're talking about the national defense today, and I certainly agree
with former Senator Richard Lugar from the State of Indiana who has
always characterized our dependency on foreign petroleum as a national
security issue.
This is the perfect bill to have the largest consumer of energy begin
to reduce our dependence on these very countries that have cost us so
much of our treasure and so many of our lives.
This amendment would defund section 526 of the Energy Independence
and Security Act. The fact is the argument is made that this hurts our
readiness and that's not the case. In July the Department of Defense
stated very clearly:
The provision has not hindered the Department from
purchasing the fuel we need today worldwide to support
military missions, but it also sets an important baseline in
developing the fuels we need for the future.
The gentleman would indicate that there is nearly a 20-fold
difference in the price of renewables and the price of petroleum at the
pump today. The price of $3-some cents a gallon, unfortunately some
jurisdictions $4 a gallon, can be purchased very close to this
building. Many of these fuels have to be transported to places like
Afghanistan. There's an additional cost that is worked into that 20-
fold increase.
Additionally, I do not think we need to complicate the Department's
efforts to provide better energy options. We want to give our
warfighters as many options as possible when they are in the field to
take advantage of.
This section also does not prevent the sale of petroleum products,
nor does it prevent Federal agencies from buying these fuels if they
need them. Instead, it simply prevents the Federal Government from
propping up the makers of these types of fuels with long-term contracts
when we're trying to wean ourselves from them.
So I do think that the amendment should be opposed, and I do so.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I reserve the balance of my time, and it is my
understanding that I have the right to close.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana has the right to close.
Mr. SCALISE. I will close, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman makes an
important point when he says that the Department of Defense is
America's largest user of energy. Then I think it is even more
important that they watch every penny. You know, I've got hardworking
taxpayers, soccer moms in my district, that will drive an extra three
blocks just to save a penny a gallon on gasoline because they can see
that price at the pump, and it matters to them. If they can save a
penny a gallon, they'll drive a couple of extra blocks. And yet you've
got the Department of Defense, the largest user of energy in the
Nation, according to my friend, saying that they're willing to not
drive an extra block to save money; they'll drive a couple of extra
blocks to spend $59 a gallon when they can buy that same jet fuel for
$3.73 a gallon.
Again, another contract, there was a big, high-profile production on
the Great Green Fleet where they flew some planes on renewable energy.
It cost an extra $10 million just for that one example.
Again, they're flying the Blue Angels--they're grounded right now,
and we're out there flying jets that run on algae and cooking oil,
spending hundreds of millions of dollars more than if you used
traditional jet fuel.
So while I applaud the gentleman's effort to support renewable
energy, that's not something that the Department of Defense should be
wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on when the Secretary of
Defense has said that we actually are right now significantly reducing
training and maintenance of operational forces. We should take those
hundreds of millions of dollars we'll save with this amendment and
provide it for our troops for the support they need because right now
it actually risks our troops' lives. It's a 50 percent higher risk for
them to be transporting renewable fuels than it is to transport
traditional fuels because of the density of that renewable fuel. So it
puts them more at risk. I urge support of this amendment. Let's save
those hundreds of millions of dollars and dedicate it towards our
Nation's security.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I maintain my opposition to the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Terry
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 157, after line 2, add the following new section:
Sec. 10002. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be available 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. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.
{time} 2045
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise because of 650,000 people in my
district; 4,400 employees who serve at Offutt Air Force Base in
Nebraska are being used as political footballs.
Programs like the section 526 that we just heard the gentleman from
Louisiana discuss mandate that the armed services spend entirely too
much money on fuels. Section 526 also bans our military from using
other traditional energy sources like oil sands from Alberta, or even
coal-to-liquids.
So, Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my support, though, for the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), who has
done this amendment in the past. To me, it's not about who gets the
credit or who reaps the rewards, just that it gets done.
I'm tired of the Pentagon using civilian workers on base as a
political football and then spends the money that they do on fuels. So
by working together to cut waste from this bill, like
[[Page H4946]]
section 526, we can find ways to protect our constituents who have
devoted their lives to serving the men and women who wear the uniform.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Wittman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 39
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 157, after line 2, add the following new section:
Sec. 10002. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used to propose, plan for, or execute an additional
Base Realignment and Closure round.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I have before you today provides
that none of the funds in this year's Defense appropriations act may be
made available to propose, plan for, or execute an additional Base
Realignment and Closure round, better known as BRAC.
Remember, we have a current BRAC in place that continues to cost our
Nation dollars in the defense budget; and I want to remind folks, too,
that this same language passed in this year's National Defense
Authorization Act by a vote of 315-108 on June 14, and it says that we
want to make sure that we're making the right decisions in the context
of what's going on around us.
We have an existing BRAC that will not save a penny until 2018. The
original cost-savings estimates on that BRAC were $21 billion. Today,
the cost of that BRAC is estimated at $35 billion, and the Nation won't
break even until 2018. In fact, in this year's President's budget, the
estimated cost of that BRAC is $450 million.
Now, we wouldn't want to proceed with another BRAC with potential
cost savings somewhere in the future while we're still paying for the
additional BRAC, especially in light of the budgetary needs that are
before us with our Nation's defense budget.
With the sequester going on, with those reductions, and with the
uncertainty surrounding the current state of affairs with our national
defense, why would we want to continue in the realm of uncertainty
spending more dollars with an uncertain future about when savings would
occur, when we haven't even accrued savings from the 2005 BRAC?
Again, just not the time to go about this, not the time to put in
place another Base Realignment and Closure commission.
Mr. Chairman, at this point, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I seek to claim time in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.
I note that the gentleman's amendment says that none of the funds
made available by this act may be used to propose, plan, or execute an
additional Base Realignment and Closure round.
If the gentleman had simply said today we should not execute that
national additional Base Realignment and Closure round, I would not
have stood on my feet. But the fact is, he said we shouldn't propose or
plan either.
He also indicated that because we are today paying, I believe, some
hundreds of millions of dollars for the current base closure, we should
not consider paying for another one.
But the question I would ask, rhetorically, not necessarily of my
colleagues, is, don't we have to sometimes make an investment for the
future?
That is, there are cleanup costs, there are close-up costs, there are
demolition costs, and those are short-term costs. But potentially,
those are investments year in and year out for decades where this
Nation's taxpayers can save money.
And where the gentleman says we shouldn't consider another closure
and, at this point I'm not aware that there's a proposal pending, what
if we could save money by doing that?
Should we simply say no?
Should we just say no to everything?
Is it wrong to consider how we might look at every last base and
military facility in this country to save taxpayers money?
Essentially, the gentleman's amendment says it's wrong to look at
them. It would be wrong to propose to the Congress, that has the
authority under article I of the Constitution, to decide whether, then,
we execute that proposal.
Is it wrong for an administration to look nationwide where we're
spending almost $600 billion for a more expensive Department of
Defense, but not a larger one, that says we have a plan, and they send
it to the Congress?
But we can't even do that, so we can't have a discussion. We can't
have an open and free debate. We can't even, would not be allowed,
under the gentleman's amendment, to say, you know what, you've got a
plan, but we can make it better. We could make it more efficient. We
could amend it, but we're prohibited from doing that.
I think the time for simply saying no, no, no, no, no is gone, and I
think the gentleman's amendment is wrong.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that, in
light of what we have today, with the uncertainty, with the sequester,
with the reduction in funds where we are saving money by furloughing
Federal employees, now is not the time to spend more money in this
realm of uncertainty, especially when the Secretary of Defense is
undertaking a strategic choice in management review to determine what
our strategy should be going forward. We certainly want to determine
the strategy first before we're going to make additional expenditures
on closing bases.
Also, there's a current evaluation going on with our facilities in
Europe and our facilities in the Pacific. Shouldn't we finish that
first before we start even considering closing bases here in the United
States where, by the way, we still haven't gotten to the point of
saving money from the last BRAC round, which will take at least 13
years to save money?
So if we start another one that would take another 13 years, are we
in the position to spend more money to do that while we have these
areas of uncertainty surrounding us, a sequester resulting in
furloughs, an evaluation of the current strategy for the United States,
an evaluation of base structures in other areas of the world?
I say that this is absolutely the wrong time to pursue a BRAC in any
way, shape or form, to propose, plan or execute a BRAC in all those
areas.
Let's create some certainty with what's happening right now with this
Nation's defense, with what we're doing with planning, to make sure
it's a logical, a thoughtful process where there's some certainty, not
throwing more uncertainty in the process, which is what a BRAC round
would do now.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I understand I have the right to close, so I will
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to emphasize, at this time
in our Nation's defense budgeting, we ought to be looking at where we
can save dollars, where we can apply dollars to those areas of greatest
need. And I argue those areas of greatest need are for this Nation's
readiness, the training of our troops, the operation and maintenance of
our equipment, making sure that we get those dollars there; and that
before we pursue a BRAC, we ought to know what the areas are, where we
are going to go with this Nation's strategy, what our base structure
should be in other areas of the world.
After being at war for nearly 12 years, now we have a well-trained,
battle-hardened, combat-tested force, and they are an all-volunteer
force that's more joint than ever. We want to understand where we need
to be going forward to make sure that we provide for them.
Closing these bases now, or even pursuing a Base Realignment and
Closure commission, this is not the time to do that.
[[Page H4947]]
Mr. Chairman, again, this is the wrong time. We ought to be looking
at the place in time where we have actually accrued the savings on the
last BRAC, which started in 2005. Before we pursue another, we ought to
make sure we know what this Nation's strategy is, militarily, before we
pursue a Base Realignment and Closure commission. We ought to know what
should our base structures be elsewhere in the world.
Before we pursue a Base Realignment and Closure commission here in
the United States, we ought to make sure we understand where we're
going with the sequester, where we're going with furloughs, where we're
going with end-strength with our military before we close bases.
If we're going to be reducing end-strength by 100,000 and say, by the
way, let's pursue a Base Realignment and Closure commission now, how do
we know where we need to be?
That uncertainty is not where we need to be, and I urge my colleagues
to vote in favor of this amendment.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the gentleman, on any
number of occasions during his discussion, talked about the uncertainty
that we face in this country because of sequestration, and I couldn't
agree with him more and would point out that the gentleman voted for
the Budget Control Act that created sequestration that has now created
the uncertainty that we face, which I find very regrettable.
The gentleman, also, in his concluding remarks, indicated that we
need to look to save money. I couldn't agree with him more.
He also indicated, and I would accept it for the sake of our
discussion here on the House floor, that some of these processes take
13 years. I think the gentleman makes my argument. If it takes 13
years, we ought to start today, so that that child who is born later
this week has the benefit of these savings we both want before they get
to high school.
Why wait to save the American taxpayers money by potentially not
considering a plan?
I think we ought to be thoughtful here, and I oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 40
printed in House Report 113-170.
Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Flores
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 41
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 157, after line 2, insert the following new section:
Sec. 10002. 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. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Flores) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
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 prohibits
Federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of
fuels unless their lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are less than or
equal to emissions from an equivalent conventional fuel produced from
conventional petroleum sources.
My amendment is simple. It would stop the government from enforcing
this ban on agencies funded by the Department of Defense appropriations
bill.
As my good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), said a
few minutes ago, the initial purpose of section 526 was to stifle the
Defense Department's plans to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-
liquids jet fuel.
We must ensure that our military has adequate fuel resources and that
it can rely on domestic and more stable sources of fuel. One of the
unintended consequences of section 526 is that it essentially forces
the American military to acquire fuel refined from unstable, Middle
East crude resources.
I offered this amendment to the Fiscal Year 2014 Homeland Security
Appropriations Act and the Fiscal Year 2014 Energy and Water
Appropriations Act, and they both passed on the floor of the House with
strong bipartisan support.
My friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), also added similar
language to the latest defense authorization bill to exempt the Defense
Department from this burdensome regulation.
{time} 2100
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. I thank my good friend from Texas.
I also want to encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this
amendment.
Section 526 was added to the 2007 energy bill as a last-minute add-
on, with no hearings, without any information about it whatsoever, and
it is beyond misguided. It may sound good on paper, but it is totally
unenforceable.
No one in their right mind has a clue what the life-cycle greenhouse
gases are for any of the fuels that anybody buys. And, quite frankly,
as we blend crude oil sources at a refinery to run through the refinery
on a most efficient basis, there is absolutely no way to separate out
the gasoline jet fuel diesel that comes from that refining that would
be required if--let's assume for sake of this conversation we actually
get the Keystone pipeline done, some of that oil from Canada starts
flowing south into our refineries. There is absolutely no way anyone
can certify which gasoline coming out is related to those sources
versus some others.
So this is misguided. It's unworkable and extreme. I would prefer
that we exempt the entire all of government from section 526, but
that's obviously beyond the scope of tonight's legislation. I want to
thank my friends--Mr. Flores, Mr. Hensarling, and Mr. Gingrey--for,
again, posing the striking or exempting of the Department of Defense
from the misguided requirements in section 526, and I encourage all of
my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, as we said earlier, this amendment is a
simple fix, and that fix is to not restrict our fuel choices based on
bad policies or misguided regulations like those in section 526.
Stopping the impact of section 526 will help us to promote American
energy, grow the American economy, create American jobs, and become
more energy secure.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to
the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I won't prolong the debate because this
is either the third or fourth installment, if you would, of this
debate, but my response to the current iteration is the same as I have
expressed throughout the night. We do have an energy problem in the
United States of America, and I agree with former Senator Richard Lugar
that it is, first and foremost, a national security interest, given
where we get petroleum products.
We've been at war in the Middle East. We've been at war in
Afghanistan. We have other problems internationally, much of it
precipitated because of our dependence on that fuel. This is not the
time, I believe, that we ought to in any way, shape, or form retard the
largest consumer of energy in this country from examining and helping
to create a vibrant market for alternatives to reduce that.
So, for those reasons and the reasons discussed earlier in this
evening's debate, I would be opposed to the gentleman's amendment, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed the debate tonight and I
appreciate the comments of the gentleman.
I would say this. This amendment does not do any of those things that
he
[[Page H4948]]
said it would. It does not prevent and does not restrict the ability of
the Federal Government or the Department of Defense to purchase any
alternative fuels--it does not restrict those--including biodiesel,
ethanol, or other fuels from renewable resources. So it does not do any
of those things that would prevent the flexibility of the Department of
Defense in acquiring fuels. As a matter of fact, it helps the
Department of Defense have more flexibility.
With that, I urge my colleagues to support this a amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLORES. 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 Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. Cole
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 42
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. COLE. 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 made available by this Act may
be used to carry out a furlough (as defined in section
7511(a)(5) of title 5, United States Code) that--
(1) includes in the notice of the furlough made pursuant to
section 752.404(b) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations,
``sequestration'' as the reason for the furlough; and
(2) is of a civilian employee of the Department of Defense
who is paid from amounts in a Working Capital Fund Account
pursuant to section 2208 of title 10, United States Code.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I'm offering a bipartisan amendment this evening, Mr. Chairman, to
prevent funds from the so-called Working Capital Fund from being used
to implement furloughs of DOD employees. This amendment would affect
approximately 180,000 workers scattered around the country in different
working Capital Fund units. Tinker, Hill, Robbins, the great Air
Logistics Centers, account for 26,000 of those.
Working Capital Fund employees are indirectly funded by the
government and not by direct appropriations. The commands where these
employees are paid have more than sufficient funds to continue to
operate without a furlough. Indeed, furloughing these workers would be
counterproductive and ultimately cost money.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern and
the fact that he is focused on working capital that is essentially
funded through customer reimbursement, but as I mentioned in an earlier
debate, I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
I voted against the Budget Control Act. I think sequestration is an
abhorrent way to run the government. I was disappointed last year when
we made every Federal agency in this Nation, including the Department
of Defense, wait 7 months until we told them how much money we were
going to give them. And then, we told most of the agencies that we're
going to give you what we gave you last year.
Now we're suffering because of furloughs. And the concern I have
here, again, is making distinctions between one Federal employee and
another. They're all very important. I don't know what going to work
every day as a guard in a maximum security Federal prison must be like,
but I don't know that we carve out an exception for them. I don't know
what it is like to be a Federal law enforcement official working
undercover, putting your life at risk, getting reimbursed, but not
being carved out for furlough.
We have people at NIH, the National Institutes of Health, doing
groundbreaking research as far as people's health and safety; and
perhaps they not themselves are risking their lives, but tomorrow, if
they were at work, could make a discovery that could improve or prolong
someone's life. And I think it's a very difficult proposition to begin
to make those distinctions between various Federal employees.
I absolutely share the gentleman's concern as to what is happening
with the Federal workforce. I have mentioned in committee and on this
floor more than once today that I'm appalled that for 4 years we hold
Federal employees in so little regard. We have not given any of them a
raise in 4 years. But we scurried to the floor because people were
going to be inconvenienced at airports because of potential slowdowns
at the FAA. Well, Federal employees actually do things for our safety
like make sure, when we leave the ground in an airplane, we're safe.
So, again, I'm very concerned here. The fact is I do think allowing
exceptions for one agency is unfair to others. Allowing exceptions that
pit one agency against another wrongly determines the value of the work
performed by some government employees vis-a-vis others. We ought to
value all of their work collectively, together, and should not be
looking for temporary fixes of one dislocation, as great as it is,
caused by sequestration. What we ought to be about--and I know the
gentleman is about--is to end this madness, if you would, and get back
to the business of governing this country.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from the
State of Washington (Mr. Kilmer), a new Member from the Sixth District.
Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
Let me take a second here to say I oppose sequestration, I oppose the
furloughs, and I believe Congress should be moving forward on a plan to
eliminate sequestration and the process of furloughing workers. But
Congress hasn't done that, and now we're forced to deal with an ugly
process where we're cutting accounts and cutting workers, not because
it makes any sense for the public interest or for our security, but
because Congress can't get its act together.
This amendment responds to what I believe was an incorrect decision
by the Department of Defense to furlough civilian workers who work at
entities that were funded through Defense Working Capital accounts. The
Working Capital Funds are revolving funds that provide goods and
services across the DOD that were established to promote stable pricing
and reliable access. They were designed to be self-sustaining.
I certainly empathize with the other workers and groups that are
facing furloughs, but these workers are not funded through direct
appropriation. I believe that these indirectly funded employees are
specifically exempted by law from sequestration. Furthermore, I believe
that furloughing these employees and, thereby, delaying their work will
not save any money, will only increase costs for DOD and hurt taxpayers
and jeopardize our military readiness.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
majority whip from the great State of California (Mr. McCarthy).
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment. This issue is straightforward. It deals with Defense Working
Capital Funds.
This is just like owning a business. When you provide a service or a
product, you get paid for it. That is how Defense Working Capital Funds
operates. They're paid through reimbursements for the services they
provide to the Department of Defense, which is already funded for the
fiscal year. Thus, Working Capital Funds do not receive direct
[[Page H4949]]
appropriations and, therefore, furloughing these individuals have no
savings. They actually have the direct opposite effect. It will cost
you more, there will be delays, and, most importantly, individuals will
be harmed in the process.
The specialized work the Defense Working Capital Fund employees
perform is vital to our Nation's security and our warfighters around
the globe. A blanket 11-day furlough policy, such as China Lake in my
district, will only end up slowing down getting our warfighters the
best and latest technology to complete their mission when called upon
to protect and defend America and safely return home to their families.
This is very simple. They are a business that performs work and they
get paid for it, and the money is already there. That's why I ask and
urge all of us to join in supporting this amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), my classmate and colleague on the
Rules Committee.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, as stated, this workload is a self-
sustaining process, which means, if the workload is there, and it is,
then the money is there, and it is. To furlough the employees in this
area saves no money, it completes no work, but it does raise the cost
of overhead for all of the depots.
I have empathy for the Pentagon. They made a decision that everyone
should share the pain in an effort to be fair. Unfortunately, title 10,
section 2472, tells us how this fund should be managed. Sharing the
pain isn't one of the options.
I appreciate what is going on here, but the Defense Department cannot
simply pick and choose. This amendment does not start a new program. It
simply requires that the existing law be followed.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. I yield 1 minute to my good friend from the great State of
Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).
Mr. LOEBSACK. I want to thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I am a proud cosponsor of this truly bipartisan
amendment, as demonstrated by those who are speaking in favor of it
tonight. I, too, voted against sequestration, and I oppose furloughing
any DOD citizens who work on behalf of our national security and our
troops. Those working at the Rock Island Arsenal, which I represent,
proudly serve our country. They don't deserve a pay cut because of
Washington's dysfunction. It's as simple as that. That's why Congress
and the administration must find a balanced, commonsense way to replace
sequestration.
This amendment addresses the unique situation of Working Capital Fund
civilians like those at the Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center,
who are already funded from prior years. I think that's important to
keep in mind. Furloughing these men and women doesn't create direct
savings, as has already been mentioned; rather, it delays work for our
troops, hurts our readiness, and increases costs for taxpayers without
direct savings.
{time} 2115
Again, I oppose all furloughs, and I do oppose sequestration. This
amendment, I believe, is a commonsense policy for DOD and for Working
Capital Fund employees, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Again,
it's a fully bipartisan amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my good
friend from the great State of Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this is a sensible,
bipartisan solution. It helps the country by helping those who work at
our depots and other areas. I would just ask that my colleagues join
this bipartisan coalition that's working in support of this amendment.
Mr. COLE. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 43 will
not be offered.
Amendment No. 44 Offered by Ms. DeLauro
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 44
printed in House Report 113-170.
Ms. DeLAURO. 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. _. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be obligated or expended to train the Afghan National
Security Forces Special Mission Wing to operate or maintain
Mi-17 helicopters.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds in this
bill from being used by the Defense Department to train the Afghan
Special Mission Wing to operate or maintain Russian-made Mi-17
helicopters.
Over 93,000 people have died in a tragic war in Syria that is being
fueled by Russian arms being supplied to the Assad regime. Over 1.6
million Syrian refugees are now hosted across five countries. By the
end of the year, half the population of Syria will be in need of aid.
We know for a fact that the Russian arms manufacturer,
Rosoboronexport, is arming Syria. The Syrian Army requested 20,000
Kalashnikov assault rifles, 20 million rounds of ammunition, machine
guns, grenade launchers, grenades, and sniper rifles with night-vision
sights. And Russia also recently announced it would provide Assad with
advanced S-300 missile defense batteries. Yet, our Defense Department
continues to channel business to this Russian arms manufacturer.
DOD recently skirted around a prohibition on purchasing Mi-17
helicopters from Russia's state arms dealer in last year's Defense
appropriations bill, signing a contract with Rosoboronexport to procure
30 Mi-17s for the Afghan Specialty Mission Wing using 2012 Afghanistan
Security Forces Fund moneys.
This contract signing, flying in the face of congressional intent,
incredibly came just days after this House voted 423-0 to strengthen
the prohibition on Pentagon business with the Russian arms dealer--a
prohibition also included in this Defense appropriations bill.
Even more egregious, it also came on the heels of a report by the
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction that
recommended suspension of the plans to purchase these helicopters for
the Afghan Special Mission Wing as the Afghans do not even have the
capacity to use them.
The Defense Department touts the 30 years of experience the Afghans
have with the Mi-17 helicopters as a key reason to purchase them, yet
we are still trying to train them to fly these helicopters instead of
American-made helicopters--training that the Inspector General report
says has been slow and uneven.
The report also argues that moving forward with the acquisition of
these Mi-17 helicopters is highly imprudent until, among other things,
an agreement is reached on NATO's Afghanistan Training Mission concept
for reorganization within the Afghan Government to support this Special
Mission Wing.
Mr. Chairman, U.S. taxpayers should not be subsidizing the Russian
state arms dealer that is fueling the war in Syria. The language
already included in this bill states this. We should also not be
spending money to train an Afghan unit to fly these Russian
helicopters, particularly when the Inspector General has raised serious
questions about the content of that unit's capabilities.
I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
[[Page H4950]]
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, the Afghan National Army Special Forces
are the most capable component of the Afghan National Security Forces
and have made significant strides toward becoming an independent and
effective force in Afghanistan.
The only path forward to getting out of Afghanistan is to make sure
that we have an effective army, special force, that can do the
necessary work to make sure that the fragile Afghan governance that is
there survives.
The purpose of this amendment is not to limit the Afghan Special
Forces but to further restrict the use of the helicopter it employs to
support its mission. The development of the Afghan Army Special
Operators remains a critical component of the overall operation
structure and strategy to sustain the transition to Afghan security
lead.
In other words, if we want to get out of there by 2014, 2015, the
Afghan Air Force must succeed. And it has a history, whether we like it
or not, with the Mi-17. It's more efficient to expand its fleet and
build on their existing knowledge of maintaining that fleet than to
completely shift to an entirely different aircraft.
Additionally, U.S. helicopters are more technologically advanced.
They're a better helicopter, I'll agree. But it would further prolong
the timelines of getting the AAF where they need to be to completely
take over the program.
The Mi-17 has been certified by the Department of Defense and is to
be the right aircraft for the missions in Afghanistan. The Mi-17 has a
long history in Afghanistan and was designed for the high altitude
terrain there.
So I reluctantly oppose the gentlelady's amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. I just want to say to my good friend that I think that
we ought to be amenable to working with Afghanistan in these final
days, but I don't make up this information.
Our Defense Department continues to channel business to this Russian
arms manufacturer. DOD skirted around the prohibition on purchasing Mi-
17 helicopters in the last appropriations bill. We voted
overwhelmingly--I don't know that there has been a vote in this House
on a bipartisan basis that was 423-0--to prohibit this.
So what did the DOD do? The DOD went around that and went to a
different pot of money. And one could acknowledge that, but in addition
to acknowledging that, I'm going to quote to you from the Special
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction:
Afghan Special Mission Wing: DOD plans to spend $908
million to build air wing that the Afghans cannot operate and
maintain.
Now, I don't know why we keep in business an Inspector General that
would give us this report, and then we fly in the face of it and not
acknowledge its veracity. In addition to which, we are dealing with an
arms dealer that is supplying arms, grenades, Kalashnikovs, missiles to
Syria, where over 93,000 people have already been killed.
The point is that we shouldn't enter a contract when there is no
capability to fly these helicopters.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, again, we're not talking about a
helicopter manufacturer that would suffer. It's the combat unit in
Afghanistan that would be devastated and unable to fulfill its mission,
and if it's not able to fulfill its mission, then we will not have a
capable military to take over when the United States leaves in 2014.
I'm not going to defend Russia or their foreign policy and what
they're doing in Syria, but we do want Afghanistan to succeed. So I
reluctantly must oppose the gentlelady's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CALVERT. 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
Connecticut will be postponed.
Amendment No. 45 Offered by Ms. Lee of California
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 45
printed in House Report 113-170.
Ms. LEE of California. 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) The total amount of appropriations made
available by this Act is hereby reduced by one percent.
(b) The reduction in subsection (a) shall not apply to
amounts made available--
(1) under title I for ``Military Personnel'';
(2) under title VI for ``Defense Health Program''; or
(3) under title IX.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LEE of California. First, let me thank Congressmen Polis,
Blumenauer, Conyers, and Schrader, who have joined me in offering this
amendment.
Our amendment is very straightforward. It would trim Pentagon
spending by a very modest 1 percent.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates our amendment would result
in a reduction of discretionary spending of $5.9 billion, and it does
so while maintaining our national security and protecting our Active
Duty military personnel.
This Defense appropriations bill is $28.1 billion more than the
Pentagon's current funding level, which includes $5 billion more than
the President's request for war spending in the Overseas Contingency
Account. In total, this bill includes over $85 billion in war spending
at a time when the majority of the American people and a growing
bipartisan group in Congress are calling for an expedited end of
military activities in Afghanistan.
Our amendment simply takes the total amount in the bill, reduces that
amount by 1 percent, and then allows the Department of Defense to
choose what accounts to take the reduction from. As I mentioned before,
military personnel accounts and medical and health care programs are
exempt from this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, month after month we have been talking about ways to
address the budget and the impacts of the harmful sequester. The
question before the body today is: How do we ensure that we have a
budget that reflects our national security priorities, our moral
values, and our underlying economic strength? I'm talking about a
budget that protects the most vulnerable in our country and a budget
that ensures that we have priorities to create jobs and turn this
economy around--in other words, nation-building in our own country.
What this amendment does is say that we need to put everything on the
table--and I mean everything--and that includes the Pentagon. Believe
me, if I could, I would support much greater cuts to the Pentagon. But
surely $5 billion can be found among the tens of billions of dollars
lost each year at the Pentagon due to waste, fraud, and abuse. You know
that that $5 billion is a mere drop in the bucket when you look at what
has been actually taken away without knowledge of where that money has
gone, when you look at the suitcases filled with cash in Afghanistan,
and previously in Iraq.
Even with this modest cut of 1 percent, the Pentagon base budget
would still far outpace any other nation in defense spending. The
United States spends as much on its military as 13 countries combined.
But all three of these are close allies. I'm talking about China,
Russia, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia,
Germany, of course Brazil, Italy, South Korea, Australia and Canada.
Combined, we spend more than those countries.
Finally, Americans believe that no Federal agency should really be
immune from cuts, including the Pentagon. In fact, the average American
would pursue a much larger cut of over $93 billion, according to a poll
released in 2012 by the Stimson Center.
[[Page H4951]]
So it's long overdue that we be honest with the American people and
begin to have some real debate about deficit reduction, job creation,
and the reduction of spending. And that includes the Pentagon.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. I'm the first to admit that the Department of Defense
should not be immune to reasonably based reductions. We should be doing
that. That's exactly what we've been doing the past few years and will
continue to do this year.
{time} 2130
This bill that we are deciding today and tomorrow is $3.4 billion
below the President's request. In fact, over the past 3 fiscal years,
this committee has produced defense budgets which totaled $71 billion
below the request, only $32 billion of which has been due to
sequestration.
The Department is already facing another $44 billion arbitrary
reduction in spending if we don't stop sequestration from going into
effect in FY 2014. Any further immediate and arbitrary reductions would
likely bring the Department to a grinding halt, perhaps past the point
of recovery.
Specifically, reductions could require reducing/canceling training
for returning troops; canceling Navy training exercises; reducing Air
Force flight training; delaying or canceling maintenance of aircraft,
ships, and vehicles; and delaying important safety and quality-of-life
repairs to facilities and military barracks.
Finally, the allocation of this bill is essentially in line with both
the Ryan budget, as well as the Defense authorization bill. National
security should not be subject to partisan politics. Instead, we should
show our support for these brave men and women who have sacrificed so
much and continue to do so.
I strongly oppose this amendment, and I yield to my friend, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding, and I
appreciate the gentlewoman's approach. I have on more than one occasion
in talking about the Department of Defense, my constituency indicated,
as the gentleman noted, no one should be immune to cuts; and if you
can't find 1 cent out of every dollar at the Department of Defense to
save, there is something wrong with the leadership at the Department of
Defense.
But I rise in reluctant opposition for two reasons:
One is I have an inherent objection to across-the-board cuts because
I think we ought to make sure we are very targeted as far as our
financial decisions.
Secondly, given the across-the-board cut that has been referenced of
more than $30 billion in the current fiscal year because of
sequestration under a bill I voted against, we are talking in this
instance about filling a significant arbitrary hole.
So again, I would reluctantly be opposed to the gentlewoman's
amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. LEE of California. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me first thank our ranking member for his comments and just
reiterate the fact that while this is a 1 percent cut across-the-board,
it allows the Pentagon to make those decisions about where the Pentagon
and our military officials believe the cuts should come from and how to
reallocate our funds.
Certainly as the daughter of a veteran of 25 years--I'm an Army
brat--I recognize and support our young men and women who have been
placed in harm's way and who have sacrificed so much for our country.
There is no way that I would offer an amendment that would harm our
troops.
A 1 percent cut really forces us to pause, quite frankly, and forces
us to look where we can find savings when we scrutinize the Pentagon
budget, the same way that we scrutinize our domestic discretionary
spending. At a time when American families, businesses, and government
agencies are facing budget cuts, why shouldn't the Pentagon be asked to
become more efficient and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse?
Let me reiterate that this bill includes $5 billion more than the
President's request for the overseas contingency account. So it makes
no sense. We need to begin to focus our resources on nation-building at
home, ensure our national security, and really make sure that all of
our agencies begin to look at waste, fraud, and abuse. Certainly, the
Pentagon should be the first to do that, especially given the fact that
we have not had audit requirements of the Pentagon and still don't know
what type of resources there have been wasted and misallocated.
I ask for support for this very modest amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, again, I rise in opposition to this
amendment. We have made significant cuts in our national defense and
continue to do so. We are at lowest levels as a percentage of GDP
expenditures for our national security in a long time.
I would rise in opposition to this amendment, would urge a ``no''
vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Quigley
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 46
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. QUIGLEY. 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 made available by this Act may
be used to operate or maintain more than 300 land-based
intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It
simply reduces the number of deployed intercontinental ballistic
missiles, nuclear missiles, by a third, from 450 to 300.
We are in the midst of an extraordinary budget crisis. We are facing
unsustainable debt. Yet we continue to spend approximately $50 billion
to $55 billion annually to maintain and even grow a nuclear arsenal and
associated programs designed for a Cold War that no longer exists.
Russia is no longer the existential threat it once was, and we are
working closely with Russian leaders to reduce our nuclear arsenals
together. While other nations, such as China, have some nuclear
weapons, their stockpiles pale in comparison. China has no more than 50
to 75 single warhead intercontinental ballistic missiles.
We can significantly reduce our nuclear arsenal of 1,700 and still
maintain a robust military edge over any rival. As we look to reduce
our nuclear stockpile, we should be strategic and make targeted cuts.
According to a recent report issued by General James Cartwright,
retired vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former commander
of U.S. nuclear forces; Secretary Chuck Hagel; and a number of other
military and foreign experts, all land-based ICBMs could be eliminated.
Let me take a moment to repeat that. The former commander of all U.S.
nuclear forces thinks we don't need any ICBMs--none. According to the
report:
The U.S. ICBM force has lost its central utility.
The report outlines four key reasons ICBMs should be eliminated:
[[Page H4952]]
First, ``Direct wartime nuclear operations against Russia alone, were
Cold War scenarios that are no longer plausible.''
Second, flight paths over all land-based ICBMs to any potential
adversaries--Iran, North Korea, China--would have to travel through
Russian air space. This could trigger ``confusing Russia, and
triggering nuclear retaliation.''
Third, ``U.S. Trident submarines and B-2 strategic bombers can
deliver nuclear weapons to virtually any point on the Earth.''
Fourth, ``ICBMs in fixed silos are inherently targetable.''
Once again, these are not my assessments, nor the assessments of some
anti-nuclear groups. These are the assessments of General Cartwright,
the retired vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former
commander of U.S. nuclear forces; Richard Burt, a former chief nuclear
arms negotiator; Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, former Ambassador to
Russia, Thomas Pickering; and General John Sheehan, a former senior
NATO official.
The former commander of U.S. nuclear forces has issued his support
for the elimination of ICBMs.
This amendment merely calls for a reduction by one-third. We have
limited resources, and that means we have to make choices. As we look
to cut spending, let's cut military investments that do nothing to keep
us safe in today's threat environment, such as ICBMs.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to this
amendment, which amounts to the unilateral reduction of our nuclear
forces. Unilateral reductions of our nuclear forces are wrong for
national security--period.
These reductions have been directly and explicitly recommended
against by the Joint Chiefs and senior DOD civilian officials, all who
have said that reductions must be made bilaterally in concert with
Russia.
I am deeply concerned that not only is this proposal to unilaterally
disarm unwise; it is also shortsighted. It could seriously diminish the
long-term security of our Nation.
We face a world today in which nuclear threats to the United States
are increasing and our conventional military capabilities face dramatic
reductions. Given this, our nuclear deterrent is becoming more
important, not less.
Malmstrom Air Force Base, in my home State of Montana, is home to 150
of our Nation's intercontinental ballistic missiles. Earlier this year,
I visited Malmstrom and I met with the leaders of the 341st Missile
Wing to discuss the importance of our ICBM mission to our national
security.
Colonel Robert W. Stanley, the commander at Malmstrom, gave me this
commander's coin, which bears a motto that truly sums up why our
defense strategy is effective. It says this: ``Scaring the hell out of
America's enemies since 1962.''
This motto clearly demonstrates the importance of our peace-through-
strength strategy. We cannot underestimate the role that our strong
nuclear defenses have played in keeping America secure and maintaining
peace not only with Russia, but throughout the world. In fact, some say
we have never had to use our ICBMs. I would argue we use them every day
to ensure that the world is a safer place.
That is why I urge my colleagues to also support the amendment that
I've introduced, alongside Congressman Lamborn, Congresswoman Lummis,
and Congressman Cramer. Our amendment will help keep America safe by
maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent and preventing the Obama
administration from pursuing efforts to unilaterally reduce our nuclear
arsenal.
The Obama administration requested funds in their 2014 budget
proposal to do environmental impact studies of our ICBMs, which is
widely seen as a back door to attempting to reduce our ICBM fleet.
Our amendment simply prohibits this study. Now is not the time to
reduce our ICBM fleet, which is why I would urge all of my colleagues
to oppose Mr. Quigley's amendment and to support the Daines-Lamborn-
Lummis-Cramer amendment.
I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman
from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Quigley
amendment as well. It will defund the operation and maintenance of 150
of our land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Regardless of your stance on the nuclear triad--and we will have the
opportunity to discuss it later--it is irresponsible to stop funding
maintenance of our nuclear weapons with no formal reduction plan.
Are we supposed to leave warheads rotting in the silos? This
amendment does not fund the decommissioning of warheads. If it did, a
full-scale reduction of our force would be a costly endeavor, one that
takes time and is a decision that should not be taken lightly.
But it will effectively reduce our ICBM capabilities by one-third
without any strategic considerations or multi-lateral negotiations with
other nuclear powers. The Joint Chiefs have directly and explicitly
recommended against a unilateral reduction.
As the administration continues to weigh final force structure
decisions scheduled to occur in FY 15, I ask my colleagues to consider
the consequences of removing this funding the year before.
The mission of the Air Force Global Strike Command is to provide a
safe, secure, effective nuclear deterrent force for the President of
the United States. The Quigley amendment would impede the Air Force's
ability to fulfill that mission, preempts the President's force
structure decision, and lacks feasibility without preparation.
I urge you to oppose the Quigley amendment.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
This cut is not required by any treaty. There is no strategic
analysis, as the gentlelady said. There is no estimate of how this
would affect the balance between the United States and other nuclear
powers.
Events over the last several years, as well as through analysis, such
as that done under the Nuclear Posture Review, have confirmed that we
need to maintain and revitalize our nuclear deterrent.
I rise in strong opposition to this reckless amendment.
{time} 2145
Mr. DAINES. Mr. Chairman, I am always concerned when the Joint Chiefs
have a strong opinion about our national defense. Given that, these
reductions have been directly and explicitly recommended against by the
Joint Chiefs and by senior DOD civilian officials. These gentlemen have
all said the reductions must only be made bilaterally, in concert with
Russia.
This is shortsighted; it is unwise; and it is a threat to our
national security. Therefore, I oppose this unilateral reduction in our
nuclear forces.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Let me just say that I've been here 4 years now, and I
recognize what the Department of Defense is--it is our jobs program.
I respect my colleagues for defending jobs in their districts, but
this isn't about national security--it's about job maintenance, which
is not what this is supposed to be about. If we're going to spend money
in creating jobs, I want to build bridges and schools and transit
systems.
I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in
strong support of his amendment.
Mr. Chairman, as I quoted in my opening remarks, rather than getting
larger and more expensive over the past decade, the military has simply
grown to be more expensive. Our world has fundamentally changed since
the days of the Cold War, and certain aspects of our military's
national security strategies have evolved. However,
[[Page H4953]]
I do not believe that our nuclear weapons have had a corresponding
change relative to our consideration as to their deployment in numbers.
I do think that Congress has a very important role to play in helping
the administration make rational decisions as to the size and
composition of the stockpile and of the complex that supports it. In
talking about that complex as a member of the Energy and Water
Subcommittee, I will point out that there are significant costs over
and above those in this particular bill given the civilian control over
the warheads at that particular Department.
I also do not have a concern that, in any way, shape, or form, the
gentleman is proposing that we unilaterally disarm this Nation. I
believe that we certainly have adequate protection, and I support his
amendment.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Denham
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 47
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. DENHAM. 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 or otherwise made
available in this Act may be used to implement the Trans
Regional Web Initiative.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Denham) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, it is crucial in this time of limited
budgets that we transfer funds from those programs which are either
duplicative or ineffective to the highest priority uses for the
Department, such as maintaining readiness and taking care of our
personnel. With that in mind, I have introduced a limiting amendment to
prohibit the Department of Defense from using funds to implement the
Trans-Regional Web Initiative.
This program consists of a series of general news Web sites that
cater to foreign audiences. The Department requested $19.7 million to
continue this effort during fiscal year 2014. An April 2013 GAO report
found that the TRWI program lacks meaningful performance metrics and is
poorly coordinated with other U.S. Government public diplomacy
programs. I want to put this $19.7 million in perspective.
With this money, the Army National Guard could have retained 2,000
soldiers of the 4,000 it has been forced to reduce from its end
strength due to budget cuts. That is 2,000 guardsmen who could be
supporting our active component, responding to natural disasters, or
securing our border. Instead, that money is going to Web sites
providing entertainment news and lifestyle advice to the Balkans and
Middle East.
It is important to remember that the United States already spends
hundreds of millions of dollars each year in providing quality,
independent journalism overseas through the Broadcasting Board of
Governors. In fact, every week, more than 203 million listeners,
viewers, and Internet users around the world engage with U.S.
international broadcasting programs which are completely separate from
the duplicative and expensive TRWI program.
How can we possibly justify unnecessary and ineffective, duplicative
measures by the Department of Defense? How can I tell someone in my
district that he was furloughed but that we found the cash to pay for
an article about the plight of child actors in Turkey?
Our colleagues in the Senate have already acted. The Senate Armed
Services Committee found that the costs to operate the Web sites are
excessive, that the effectiveness of the Web sites is questionable, and
that the performance metrics do not justify the expense.
I want to thank Citizens Against Government Waste, Taxpayers for
Common Sense, and the Project on Government Oversight for their support
on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, in this time of limited Federal resources, we cannot
afford to continue wasteful programs like this.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to claim the time in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, over the past several years, this
committee has taken a very hard look at all of our military information
operations programs--a very hard look. While the committee reduced or
eliminated funding for those we judged not to be appropriate Defense
Department activities, this was not one of them.
This is a fully acknowledged program, with each Web site sponsored by
a geographic combatant commander. These Web sites provide important
news and information about events in their regions and about U.S.
activities being conducted in those regions. These Web sites are an
important opportunity for the United States Government to inform
foreign audiences about U.S. military activities in their regions,
including joint military training exercises or, very importantly, about
humanitarian assistance.
Too often, we find ourselves frustrated that foreign populations fail
to appreciate the support they receive from the United States,
particularly from the United States military, or to understand the U.S.
position on issues impacting their parts of the world. This is often
because people are unaware of our efforts. These Web sites offer the
combatant commanders the ability to get the word out, and I believe and
we, the committee, believe that that's important. Therefore, I urge the
rejection of the amendment.
With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. I would
simply associate myself with his remarks and, particularly, with his
introduction.
The subcommittee has had concerns and questions about the program in
the past and has worked very closely with the Department of Defense. I
do think it shows the oversight that this subcommittee continues to
exercise. Again, I join with the gentleman in opposition.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will just end by saying that this is
another attempt to cut waste.
Give the Department of Defense the flexibility to retain our
personnel. 2,160 National Guardsmen, to be exact, could be saved and
retained by cutting this amount of waste. As well as having Citizens
Against Government Waste, the Senate has shown great wisdom in this
particular instance in coming together with us and cutting this type of
waste.
I think this is a great opportunity to really show that we support
those brave men and women by retaining those positions.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, this program also supports our very
brave men and women.
I oppose 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 California (Mr. Denham).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 113-170 on
[[Page H4954]]
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 28 by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island.
Amendment No. 29 by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee.
Amendment No. 30 by Mr. Coffman of Colorado.
Amendment No. 33 by Mr. Garamendi of California.
Amendment No. 35 by Mr. Fleming of Louisiana.
Amendment No. 36 by Mr. Rigell of Virginia.
Amendment No. 41 by Mr. Flores of Texas.
Amendment No. 44 by Ms. DeLauro of Connecticut.
Amendment No. 45 by Ms. Lee of California.
Amendment No. 46 by Mr. Quigley of Illinois.
Amendment No. 47 by Mr. Denham of California.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Cicilline
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Cicilline) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184,
noes 237, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 388]
AYES--184
Amash
Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Burgess
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Cartwright
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Daines
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Doggett
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Huelskamp
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kilmer
Kingston
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Labrador
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Massie
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
Meadows
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stockman
Stutzman
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Upton
Vela
Velazquez
Walberg
Walden
Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Westmoreland
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoho
NOES--237
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Delaney
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Duckworth
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Esty
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Holding
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meng
Messer
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Pittenger
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Reichert
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Visclosky
Wagner
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--12
Campbell
Cantor
Coble
Gohmert
Herrera Beutler
Holt
Horsford
Hudson
McCarthy (NY)
Rokita
Schock
Simpson
{time} 2222
Messrs. TONKO, ISRAEL, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Ms. SEWELL
of Alabama, Messrs. PASTOR of Arizona and SMITH of Missouri changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. KUSTER, Messrs. NEUGEBAUER, RIBBLE, WATT, GINGREY of Georgia,
LANGEVIN, FINCHER, MEEKS, HANNA, and YOHO changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Cohen
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Cohen) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 249,
noes 173, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 389]
AYES--249
Amash
Andrews
Bachmann
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Collins (GA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Doggett
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
[[Page H4955]]
Honda
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Joyce
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kilmer
Kind
Kingston
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lance
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
Meadows
Meeks
Meng
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Nolan
Nugent
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NJ)
Speier
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Upton
Vela
Velazquez
Walberg
Walden
Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
NOES--173
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Calvert
Cantor
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cotton
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Delaney
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Israel
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lipinski
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Messer
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Pelosi
Perry
Pittenger
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Reichert
Richmond
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Scott, Austin
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Tsongas
Turner
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Visclosky
Wagner
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yoho
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--11
Campbell
Coble
Cole
Conyers
Denham
Herrera Beutler
Holt
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Rokita
Schock
{time} 2228
Ms. EDWARDS changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. GOSAR and AL GREEN of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Coffman
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
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 346,
noes 79, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 390]
AYES--346
Amash
Andrews
Bachmann
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Honda
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Speier
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--79
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachus
Barton
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Cantor
Cardenas
Carter
Conaway
Cook
Crenshaw
Daines
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Ellmers
Fleischmann
Forbes
Foster
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Goodlatte
Granger
Grimm
Hartzler
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Long
Luetkemeyer
Marino
McKeon
[[Page H4956]]
McNerney
Miller (FL)
Mullin
Pearce
Pompeo
Reichert
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Roskam
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Sewell (AL)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stewart
Stivers
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Visclosky
Walorski
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Campbell
Coble
Herrera Beutler
Holt
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Rokita
Schock
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2232
Messrs. COLE and GRAVES of Missouri changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 33 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 noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 150,
noes 276, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 391]
AYES--150
Amash
Andrews
Bachmann
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Burgess
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Coffman
Cohen
Conyers
Courtney
Cummings
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fudge
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gowdy
Grayson
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hurt
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kelly (IL)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Labrador
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Massie
Matsui
McClintock
McDermott
McGovern
McKinley
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Ribble
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Schakowsky
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Upton
Velazquez
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--276
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Cantor
Capito
Cardenas
Carney
Cassidy
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Clyburn
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Delaney
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Hultgren
Hunter
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kuster
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCollum
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meng
Messer
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tsongas
Turner
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--7
Campbell
Coble
Herrera Beutler
Holt
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Rokita
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2236
Mr. LYNCH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Fleming
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Fleming) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 253,
noes 173, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 392]
AYES--253
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
[[Page H4957]]
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--173
Amash
Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cotton
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--7
Campbell
Coble
Herrera Beutler
Holt
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Rokita
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2239
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Rigell
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Rigell) 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 332,
noes 94, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 393]
AYES--332
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kilmer
Kind
Kingston
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Runyan
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Turner
Upton
Vela
Velazquez
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
NOES--94
Aderholt
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Beatty
Bishop (GA)
Black
Blackburn
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Clarke
Cole
Connolly
Crenshaw
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Enyart
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Grayson
Grijalva
Grimm
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hudson
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Levin
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
McCaul
Meeks
Meng
Nunnelee
Owens
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Reichert
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Roskam
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schock
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Smith (NE)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stewart
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thornberry
Tsongas
Valadao
Van Hollen
[[Page H4958]]
Vargas
Veasey
Visclosky
Wilson (FL)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--7
Campbell
Coble
Herrera Beutler
Holt
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Rokita
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2244
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Flores
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The unfinished business is
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores) 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 237,
noes 189, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 394]
AYES--237
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--189
Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--7
Campbell
Coble
Herrera Beutler
Holt
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Rokita
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2247
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 44 Offered by Ms. DeLauro
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) 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 333,
noes 93, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 395]
AYES--333
Amash
Andrews
Bachmann
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Crawford
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
[[Page H4959]]
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
LaMalfa
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Speier
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--93
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachus
Barletta
Barton
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Cantor
Cardenas
Carter
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crenshaw
Daines
Denham
Diaz-Balart
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Flores
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gardner
Gingrey (GA)
Granger
Graves (MO)
Hartzler
Holding
Hudson
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (NY)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
McCaul
McKeon
Meadows
Miller (FL)
Mullin
Noem
Olson
Pearce
Perry
Pompeo
Reichert
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Roskam
Ruiz
Runyan
Scott, Austin
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stewart
Stivers
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Valadao
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Yoder
Yoho
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--7
Campbell
Coble
Herrera Beutler
Holt
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Rokita
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2250
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 45 Offered by Ms. Lee of California
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 109,
noes 317, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 396]
AYES--109
Amash
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Crowley
Cummings
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
Deutch
Doyle
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Farr
Fattah
Fudge
Grayson
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
Pallone
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott, David
Serrano
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Velazquez
Walz
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--317
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Andrews
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardenas
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Rodney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Higgins
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (PA)
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schneider
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Takano
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--7
Campbell
Coble
Herrera Beutler
Holt
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Rokita
[[Page H4960]]
{time} 2254
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Quigley
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Quigley) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 142,
noes 283, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 397]
AYES--142
Andrews
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Grayson
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jeffries
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--283
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Cardenas
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clyburn
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Engel
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--8
Bass
Campbell
Coble
Herrera Beutler
Holt
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Rokita
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 2257
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Denham
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Denham) 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 185,
noes 238, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 398]
AYES--185
Amash
Bachmann
Barletta
Barr
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Costa
Daines
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Doggett
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hanna
Harris
Hensarling
Honda
Huelskamp
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Kilmer
King (IA)
Kingston
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lance
Lankford
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marchant
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (MI)
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruiz
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Stewart
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Tonko
Upton
Van Hollen
Wagner
Walden
Walz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Williams
Wittman
Wolf
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--238
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Andrews
Bachus
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bonamici
Bonner
[[Page H4961]]
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doyle
Edwards
Ellmers
Enyart
Esty
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Granger
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lewis
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matsui
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Pittenger
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Roskam
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Titus
Tsongas
Turner
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Campbell
Coble
Frelinghuysen
Herrera Beutler
Holt
Horsford
Lowenthal
McCarthy (NY)
Rokita
Ruppersberger
{time} 2301
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Jones
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 48
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 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. _. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be obligated or expended to carry
out any activities under the United States-Afghanistan
Strategic Partnership Agreement, signed on May 2, 2012,
except for such activities authorized by Congress.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I've been here all day, like most of my
colleagues. I've watched it on TV, I've been here on the floor. And
I've heard so many times other Members say we're going to be out of
Afghanistan in 2014. I hate to tell them, but that's not true. The
administration is about to finish a negotiation with Mr. Karzai, who is
a crook, to say that we will be there for 10 more years.
This amendment, what it does is basically just say that we in
Congress have a responsibility to the American people to meet our
constitutional responsibility of making sure that any agreement that
the President should negotiate with any country, we're responsible for
funding that agreement, that we will the vote on it. That's basically
what this amendment does; it just says that, as we move forward with
this strategic agreement, that the Congress will vote on the funds, and
not just have any administration, Democrat or Republican, just to
assume for 10 years that the taxpayers are going to buy into this
agreement.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's concern, and would point
out that I do think it is long past time that we should be
reconsidering the underlying authority--the Authorized Use of Military
Force that was approved by the Congress and signed by the President of
the United States in 2001. But I do believe, absent the reconsideration
of that legislation--which I do think this body should be about--I
believe it does provide the underlying authority for the Strategic
Partnership Agreement that the President has initiated. It has been in
force for over a year, serving as a guide for the relationship between
the United States and Afghanistan. And in May of last year, the
President and the Afghan President signed the agreement.
The agreement does, I believe, infer the role of Congress to fund
training of the Afghan Security Forces. The agreement indicates that
the administration associate such funding annually, and obviously there
is a congressional role.
This agreement provides the necessary long-term framework for the
relationship between the two countries after the drawdown that will
have taken effect by the end of 2014.
I do believe that the amendment offered makes no allowance for what
agreement might serve to guide our relationship with Afghanistan in the
future. And given it's important in managing our drawdown and in
transitioning the Afghan security forces themselves, I believe it is
essential for the U.S. to continue to honor this agreement.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment offered by my good friend and colleague from North Carolina
(Mr. Jones). I want to thank him for his long and tireless leadership
on ending the war in Afghanistan. He always asks the hard questions--or
the questions that no one else wants to take on--because he believes so
strongly in standing by our uniformed men and women and their families.
In May of 2012, the United States and most of our NATO allies entered
into an agreement with Afghanistan called the Strategic Partnership
Agreement. That agreement outlined in fairly broad terms how we and our
allies will continue to support the security and economic development
of Afghanistan over the near and long term.
Now, on the positive side, it was this agreement that provided the
outline for how the United States would turn over responsibility for
combat operations and national security to Afghanistan forces this year
and next year in order to draw down our forces and end the war in
Afghanistan by the end of next year. Congressman Jones and I would like
to see that drawdown happen faster and sooner, but at a minimum, to
happen on the time frame outlined by the President.
The unknown question is: What happens post-2014? Will the President
determine that U.S. troops need to remain in Afghanistan? If so, how
many troops, for how long, and for what purpose? Will we continue to
train the Afghanistan military and police forces? And if so, how many
U.S. troops will be involved? How long will it take to complete that
mission? How much will it cost?
I believe it is right to demand that Congress specifically authorize
the terms and costs of America's continuing involvement in Afghanistan.
Congress has put this war on autopilot for too long. It is shameful. We
need to take responsibility.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. This is a reasonable,
rational amendment. And quite frankly, every one of us, Democrat and
Republican, should vote for this.
[[Page H4962]]
Mr. JONES. May I inquire of the Chairman how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 1\3/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Indiana has 3\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. JONES. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, if this Strategic Partnership Agreement involves the
protection of our American troops and our allies, then there's good
reason to oppose this amendment.
This is an agreement between two sovereign nations. Understandably,
the two proponents of this amendment are against our involvement and
would like us to leave tomorrow--and indeed we may. But in the process,
I would hope that we wouldn't be putting ourselves and our soldiers at
risk by an amendment of this type and nature. For those reasons, I
oppose it.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman's remarks.
As I mentioned before, I would not argue that we should not be
reconsidering the underlying authorization. But to the extent it exists
today, I do believe it does authorize this agreement. I continue to be
opposed to the gentleman's amendment, and reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, you know, it is so ridiculous that America
is financially broke, can't pay our own bills, and we're going to
borrow money to pay for this agreement in Afghanistan.
The former Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, when I asked
him, what do you think about this agreement? I'll read his one
sentence:
Simply put, I am not in favor of this agreement signed. It
basically keeps the United States in Afghanistan to prop up a
corrupt regime. It continues to place our troops at risk.
We are not being realistic. The American people are fed up and tired.
We had 79 Americans killed the first of March to the end of June, and
not one person on this floor knows that tonight but me.
Why and how can the American people continue to work their butts off,
pay their bills, and we're going to prop up a crook in Afghanistan
named Karzai and give him 10 more years of the American taxpayers
paying his bills? It is a sad day for the taxpayers of America.
Thank you, Mr. McGovern. This is a reasonable approach. All it says
is that we in Congress, every year, will vote whether we keep funding
the wasted time, life, and money in Afghanistan.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JONES. 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
Carolina will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 49
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Amendment No. 49 has been withdrawn.
Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Kline
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 50
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. KLINE. 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 made available by this Act may
be used to give covered graduates (as described in section
532(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (10 U.S.C. 503 note)) a lower enlistment
priority than traditional high school diploma graduates as
described in the second paragraph of the memo with the
subject line ``Education Credential--Definition and Tier
Placement'', dated June 6, 2012.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
{time} 2315
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of this amendment. As chairman of the House
Committee on Education and the Workforce, as a member of the House
Armed Services Committee, as a retired Marine colonel, I have a unique
and fortunate position to ensure the young men and women enlisting in
our Armed Forces have the best education in preparation for the defense
of our Nation.
Currently, students who earn a high school diploma from charter
schools, home schools, hybrid schools, and other means of modern
education are required to score significantly higher on the Armed
Forces qualification test than others just to qualify to enter the
military.
This policy, Mr. Chairman, is in direct contravention of
congressional intent established in the National Defense Authorization
Act for fiscal year 2012.
Last month, my colleagues unanimously supported my amendment to the
FY 14 National Defense Authorization Act to reverse the DOD's
discriminatory policy and ensure equal treatment for all students who
desire to enter military service. The bipartisan Kline-Polis-Paulsen
amendment prohibits funds from being used by the Department of Defense
to enforce any policy that continues to not equally treat education
credentials for enlistment.
This amendment stops DOD from giving a lower enlistment priority to
students who attend home schools and charter schools and makes
congressional intent clear that all students should be given the same
opportunities to enlist in the Armed Forces.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the dream of military
service for all patriotic Americans who simply want the chance to be
able to raise their hand and pledge to defend our Nation without
unnecessary burdens.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment.
I salute the leadership of Chairman Kline who fully understands the
public education side and the military side. We are bringing forth this
amendment as another opportunity to make sure that what is already
clearly the will of this House, as articulated through the NDAA,
actually comes to pass.
Very simply, this is a provision that ensures that any student who
receives a diploma from a legally operating accredited secondary school
in compliance with the education laws of the State and district in
which the person resides is given the same opportunity to enlist in the
U.S. Armed Forces as a traditional bricks and mortar high school
graduate. This includes graduates of online schools and hybrid schools
who completed their secondary education and earned a degree.
Currently, these classified students who attend online schools are
called tier 2 for purposes of military enlistment. What this
effectively means is they can enroll in the military; however, on the
Armed Forces qualification test, they have to score 50 or higher
instead of 31 to 36, depending on the service branch, for a bricks and
mortar high school.
What we should care about in public education and in the military is
preparedness for the job, not what particular type or model or size or
shape of school that they went to. From the military perspective, we
need young men and women who are capable and able to execute their
responsibilities to serve our country.
From the education perspective, we want to encourage innovation, and
we shouldn't be sending a message--and this body has spoken clearly and
has the opportunity to speak clearly again--that we discourage
innovation
[[Page H4963]]
within public education. We should not say that just because a
particular school is distributed or doesn't have a bricks and mortar
campus, as long as it is fully accredited by a school district and held
to the same standards as any other public school, that should not be
dealt with in a separate way in this matter.
Congressional intent is clear. The NDAA bill includes language to not
let the DOD make a distinction between graduates of traditional high
schools and those who attend online schools. This amendment would
ensure that all students are held to the same standard when it comes to
being eligible for military service.
That is why I am proud to join Chairman Kline and Representative
Paulsen, leaders for charter schools and education choice and online
education, to propose this amendment to the defense authorization act
which would ensure that no funds are used to give a lower enlistment
priority to students from online schools as compared to traditional
bricks and mortar high school diploma graduates.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding.
We accept his amendment.
I would note that I know marines never retire.
Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentleman.
I thank my colleague and friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
I think that congressional intent has been absolutely clear and is,
in fact, in law. It is astonishing to me that we have to be down here
on the floor this evening with this amendment to bar funds from the
Department because they are just failing to comply with congressional
intent in the law.
I appreciate the support of my colleagues. I urge all my colleagues
to vote for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 51
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. LaMALFA 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 made available in this Act may
be used to pay any fine assessed against a military
installation by the California Air Resources Board.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from California (Mr. LaMalfa) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask for support for my
amendment to H.R. 2397.
This amendment ensures that funds appropriated to support our men and
women in uniform are used for the purposes the House intends, not
diverted by overzealous regulatory agencies attempting to pad their own
budgets.
This amendment provides a simple funding limitation prohibiting use
of any funds appropriated in H.R. 2397 to pay fines levied against the
various branches of the military by the California Air Resources Board.
As you may be aware, the California Air Resources Board is known for
the excessive regulatory burdens it attempts to impose on virtually
every sector of California's economy from personal automobiles to
farming. In recent years CARB, and its subsidy regional boards, have
targeted military installations for alleged emissions violations, in
many cases as minor as simply failing to notify CARB of activities in
the manner that CARB finds most convenient.
For example, a northern California Air Force base faced fines of
$10,000 per day after using emergency generators to power radar
installations serving a vital anti-ballistic missile warning role.
In another instance, a southern California Navy installation was
initially fined $917,000 for simply demolishing an old and outdated
building without approved documentation.
Lastly, Camp Pendleton was fined in July of last year for unapproved
solvents in a bottle of spray cleaner.
These California installations are critical to our national defense
as we pivot towards the Pacific. How can we tie the hands of these
vital installations when they are at the forefront of our national
security initiatives?
These amounts may seem minor in the context of the appropriations
measure we are taking up. However, at $10,000 a day, just two days of
these fines could actually fund at least a year of college for a
veteran under the GI Bill.
Voting for this amendment keeps funding for our military in the hands
of our servicemembers instead of the California Air Resources Board.
Please support our servicemembers and vote ``yes'' on my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition
to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the amendment, as
the gentleman suggests, seeks to exempt the Department of Defense from
paying any fines related to infractions which seem to be environmental
in nature from the California Air Resources Board.
I would point out to my colleagues that, as they know, there are a
large number of military bases in California, and I believe it is
imperative to maintain good working relationships with the communities
who host the bases, as well as the various State agencies who ensure
good living conditions for all Californians.
Accepting this amendment could create the perception that the Federal
military installations in California are above the law when dealing
with environmental issues.
I would certainly urge a ``no'' vote on this particular amendment,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Chairman, in responding to that, this is a very
narrow amendment that simply gives a green light to our military
installations that, yes, we welcome you in California, we like the idea
that you are here providing a safety security net over not only our
State, but to all of the United States, and that overzealous regulators
have had actually a very hostile relationship with these installations,
as well as many businesses in California. So we need to send a signal
that they can no longer go unchecked with the ability to come write up
a fine at any time they choose to.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Chairman, I think that being such a narrow measure is
what we have here, that we do need to send the proper message to our
military, to our people, that when they serve in the military and would
want to get out and be part of the GI Bill and, importantly, to the
American taxpayers, that your dollars are actually being expended for
this appropriation towards the type of thing that you care about, and
that is defending the Nation and not having to defend themselves from
overzealous regulations like anybody could enlist in California.
I hear CARB is one of the biggest complaints of my constituents all
around my district, as well as from our friends in the military that
are just there to try and defend us.
In taking up this measure here tonight, I think it is a very proper
thing that we do to have the right signal that we do support our
military, we do support our fighting men and women, and that it is best
to put forward the defense of our country rather than defending some
frivolous environmental regulation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would notice that the gentleman
suggests that his amendment is very narrow in scope, and I appreciate
that fact. I appreciate the fact that, for example, the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management was not cited, the Department of
Environmental Management in the State of Illinois was not cited, nor
for the other
[[Page H4964]]
47 States in this country relative to the enforcement of environmental
statutes.
I would further propose to my colleagues that the gentleman is
seeking a solution for a problem that does not exist. I do not know the
specifics of the fines that were purportedly imposed at Camp Pendleton.
However, the gentleman did allude to a northern California Air Force
base and did suggest that fines were imposed by the California Air
Resources Board.
I would suggest that that is not necessarily the case. In fact, it
was the Feather River Air Quality Management District, it was not the
California Air Resources Board, that found that this Air Force base had
526 days of multiple violations of local air district rules. The
district came to a settlement agreement with the Air Force base to
properly permit its equipment and bring it back into compliance on a
certain timeline. The settlement states that if the Air Force base did
not hold up its end of the bargain, it could face a fine.
The gentleman provided a second example for a southern California
naval installation. In fact, it was not the California Air Resources
Board that was involved. It was the San Diego Air Quality District that
took enforcement action when this naval base demolished a building
without doing proper asbestos removal and remediation that is a danger
for those who are engaged in that activity. The San Diego Air Quality
District, not the California Air Resources Board, was enforcing a
Federal asbestos law in this case, and in the end the Air Quality
District fined the Navy--that is true--$40,000, not $917,000. So I
would suggest the amendment is a solution that is looking for a
problem.
I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
{time} 2330
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Lamborn
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 52
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. LAMBORN. 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 made available by this Act may
be used to conduct an environmental impact study in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. et seq.) of intercontinental ballistic missiles or
the facilities in which, as of the date of the enactment of
this Act, such missiles are located.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It
prohibits funds in this bill from being used to do an environmental
impact study on our intercontinental ballistic missiles. You might
think that an environmental impact statement, or an EIS, sounds
innocuous, but let me lay out the facts that we have.
First, the Obama administration has made it clear that it believes in
nuclear zero--the idea that we can achieve a world without nuclear
weapons. This sounds like a wonderful idea, but our competitors and
adversaries will almost certainly never give up their nuclear weapons.
So, until there is a change of heart on the part of our adversaries,
this could be a dangerous idea.
We've had reductions in our nuclear forces to date, and it hasn't
stopped our potential adversaries--or hostile countries for that
matter--from reducing their nuclear programs. As a matter of fact,
they've been increasing. I'm talking about countries like Iran and
North Korea. In President Obama's second Berlin speech just a few weeks
ago, he announced a desire to reduce America's nuclear arsenal by one-
third regardless of what the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans,
the Iranians, the Pakistanis or anyone else, for that matter, does.
It is in this context that we see in this budget the President's
requesting an environmental impact statement for our current ICBM
forces. We decisively rejected an amendment not just a few minutes ago
here on this House floor that would have defunded one-third of our ICBM
forces.
I am proud to be joined in this effort to protect our ICBMs by the
three Members who represent States in which bases are located at which
we find our ICBMs.
At this point, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Wyoming,
Representative Lummis.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for sponsoring this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the New START Treaty does not require the closing of an
ICBM facility, but the purpose of this study is to close an ICBM wing
or squadron.
While President Obama has announced plans to further reduce America's
nuclear capabilities, there is no negotiated proposal with Russia or a
Senate-confirmed treaty for reductions of this size. The Air Force has
a plan for the ratified reductions, placing 30 silos in warm status
before February 2018. These baseline numbers will meet the New START
deadline if the administration just allows them to move forward.
I urge my colleagues to support the Lamborn-Lummis-Daines-Cramer
amendment and ensure that Congress provides proper approval of the goal
before spending money on the process.
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank my colleague for pointing that out. I appreciate
her coming to the floor.
I know we are joined in this effort by Representative Steve Daines of
Montana and by Representative Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, and they
wholeheartedly support this amendment as well. A strong nuclear
deterrent is what we need in the face of uncertainty, not any kind of
unilateral disarmament.
Mr. Chairman, at this point, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise to claim the time in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is directed at the
administration's plan to consider further reductions below the levels
established in the New START Treaty. As the gentleman indicated, it
would prohibit funds from being used to conduct a study of the
environmental impact on intercontinental ballistic missiles and their
facilities.
The President in his June 2013 guidance on nuclear employment affirms
that the United States will maintain a credible deterrent, capable of
convincing any potential adversary that our abilities and the adverse
consequences of attacking the United States or an ally far outweigh any
potential benefit they may seek through such an attack.
I believe that the United States' national security resources ought
to also be considering other possibilities as to our national security
beyond the remote possibility of a direct nuclear exchange. Events of
the past several years demonstrate that the U.S. faces a very complex
set of national security threats:
The possibility of attacks such as those preceding 9/11, including
the USS Cole bombing and the U.S. Embassy bombings in Tanzania and
Kenya;
Regional instability and strategic challenges arising from the Arab
Spring in Egypt, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere;
The continuing challenge of Iran, including its support of terrorist
organizations with regional and global aims;
Refocusing U.S. national security priorities to the Asia-Pacific
region with a focus on China and North Korea; and,
The nearly constant threat of cyberattack.
As I said in an earlier argument, I also do not think we ought to
arbitrarily, throughout this evening and
[[Page H4965]]
tomorrow, continue to say ``no'' about proposals and studies and plans.
We ought to be having a full and complete conversation and debate about
those possibilities.
For those reasons, I do oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. I inquire of the balance of my time remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Indiana has 2\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have to take issue with what was just
stated as far as maintaining a credible deterrent even with massive
unilateral further reductions. We've already reduced our nuclear forces
under New START to 1,550 weapons, and when you reduce beyond that, it
becomes less credible to our allies that we will have a credible
deterrent.
We have a nuclear umbrella right now with about 30 countries relying
on us. If we start unilaterally reducing the number of our nuclear
warheads, they will become less certain about our deterrent. They will
be incentivized to go out and start their own nuclear programs. I'm
talking about countries like Japan and South Korea, which have a
neighbor, North Korea, that is threatening to them. If we want to see
more nuclear weapons in the world, we should reduce ours. Other
countries are simply not going to follow our example, and it will lead
to more nuclear weapons worldwide.
So I would urge the adoption of this amendment. I disagree with my
colleague from Indiana, and I would ask for a ``yes'' vote on this
amendment.
I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Wyoming (Mrs.
Lummis).
Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The ICBM land-based missiles are the most cost-economical deterrent
of the nuclear triad. This is the most efficient way to deter our
enemies.
Mr. LAMBORN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply reiterate my objection to
the gentleman's amendment, and would ask for a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Lamborn
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 53
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. LAMBORN. 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. 10002. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used for a furlough (as defined in section 7511(a)(5)
of title 5, United States Code) of any civilian employee of
the Department of Defense.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, across this country tonight, 600,000
Defense Department civilian employees are struggling with a 20 percent
pay cut due to civilian furloughs, and these are scheduled to go
through the end of September.
These are hardworking American patriots who work hard to keep our
Nation secure. They are supporting our warfighters. They are doing
essential work. They are working side by side, shoulder to shoulder,
with Active Duty personnel who, because of the language of the Budget
Control Act, are exempt from any kind of furloughs. I approve of that,
but it's sad that the civilians are singled out for this treatment.
Mr. Chairman, I talked today to someone from the administration who
came to a hearing for Armed Services. He said that the savings are
estimated to be about $2 billion for the rest of the year. That may
sound like a lot of money except when you look at the entire DOD budget
of $500 billion. $2 billion is four-tenths of 1 percent--less than half
a percent--of the total defense budget for this year.
This is a savings that is a false economy. It is demoralizing, and it
is hard on the families that are suffering this. We should adopt this
amendment, which says that the Defense Department can find other
savings but not take it out of the hides of the civilians who are
supporting our warfighters.
Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from
Texas (Mr. O'Rourke).
Mr. O'ROURKE. I want to thank Representatives Lamborn, Barrow, and
Jenkins for their bipartisan work on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we obviously need a comprehensive solution to the
sequester. Ideally, that's what we would be doing. I don't want to
proceed in a piecemeal manner, but absent a comprehensive solution, I
think we have an obligation to act to ease the pain of the sequester
when and where we can.
At Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, 11,000 Department of Defense
civilian employees are furloughed for 11 days, which is a 20 percent
pay cut for the remainder of this year. These workers are essential.
Many of them work at Beaumont Army Medical Center, where they care for
our wounded warriors returning from war. Those wounded soldiers are now
facing longer wait times and reduced care because of these furloughs,
and it is already becoming harder to retain the best employees.
We have to do better both by our servicemembers and those civilian
employees, who are so critical to our military. I urge all of my
colleagues to help prevent more furloughs and to support this
amendment.
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman.
I now yield 1 minute to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).
Mr. BARROW of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a cosponsor and
strong supporter of this amendment.
Because Congress can't get its act together, more than 3,200
Department of Defense employees in my district are being furloughed.
This amendment offers a simple fix to that serious problem. It's also a
positive indicator of what we can accomplish if Congress is willing to
come together on the issues that matter most to the folks back home.
We have a fiscal crisis, but the solution to that problem shouldn't
be built on the backs of the people who didn't get us in this mess in
the first place, especially since our national security depends so much
on civilian DOD employees. This amendment allows for the necessary cuts
in Federal spending, but it also protects the folks whose livelihoods
are on the line.
Issues like this demand that we put aside our differences and find
common ground. I urge my colleagues to get behind this bipartisan
effort and to support this amendment to end these furloughs.
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to my colleague from Kansas,
Representative Jenkins.
Ms. JENKINS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
My district is home to Fort Leavenworth and Forbes Field, which are
two Kansas military installations at which families are struggling with
the DOD civilian furloughs. While they may not serve in uniform, many
of these civilians provide critical support for our warfighters.
While I support this level of funding cuts, I oppose the
administration's decision to take certain programs off the table and
put an unfair burden on our military. The House acted six times to
prevent these furloughs, to resolve sequestration, and to find savings
elsewhere in our bloated budget; and even though the administration and
the Senate majority had nearly 2 years to develop an alternative, they
did nothing.
Civilian employees are not the problem, and they should not be
singled out to pay for Washington's out-of-control spending habits. I
ask my colleagues to join me to protect these Americans from another
round of painful furloughs next year and support this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will remind the gentleman from Colorado
that he has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. LAMBORN. I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from
Texas (Mr. Farenthold).
[[Page H4966]]
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment,
which does away with painful furloughs and which, in very many cases,
may have been political in nature.
I represent the Corpus Christi Army Depot at which civilian employees
are actually Working Capital Fund employees. They are not funded by
appropriations but are funded by the work that they do and are equally
subjected to this when, in fact, they could be saving the government
money by rebuilding helicopters for less cost than that of the original
equipment manufacturers.
We need to relieve all Federal employees from this burden, which, in
my opinion, is politically motivated, and this is a good way to do it--
through this amendment.
{time} 2345
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I agree with the proponent of this amendment on one
very important detail. I have noted throughout the evening that a
number of my colleagues voted for the Budget Control Act that led to
sequestration, that led to some of these problems. And I would like to
note that the gentleman voted against that bill, and I think very
knowingly anticipated that there could have been very serious
unintended consequences.
So I do respect the persistence and consistency of his views. But
having said that, again, as I have on a number of these amendments this
evening, I have a great concern about differentiating between certain
civilian employees in one department and those in another.
There's no question that the civilian employees throughout the
Department of Defense do critical work. It could be serving in a
hospital. It could be doing security analysis. It could be serving the
troops in any number of capacities. No question about it. But I don't
think we should make a distinction between that type of work and those
who work for OSHA, who make sure that workplaces are also safe for
American citizens every day when they go to work. We shouldn't make
that distinction between those civilian employees and FBI agents who
risk their lives every day. We shouldn't make that distinction between
those employees and U.S. marshals who risk their lives every day.
Correctional officers in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Capitol
Police Officers, U.S. Custom and Border Protection officers, those who
serve within the Coast Guard as civilian employees, those who are
forestry aides and fight fires out west--all are obviously risking
their lives--Federal protective service law enforcement specialists.
Again, the point I would make is we do have a very bad law. We ought
not to be making temporary fixes for dislocations that have been caused
by it. That only defers decisions that need to be made of a more
permanent basis.
Again, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman, I believe, was
correct in the first instance, as far as not wanting to see us reach
this point. I understand his impulse in trying to begin to correct some
of these problems. I personally think we need a more holistic approach,
and for that reason would respectfully oppose his opinion and ask for a
``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Meadows
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 54
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. MEADOWS. 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 made available by this Act may
be used to pay the salary of individuals appointed to their
current position through, or to otherwise carry out,
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 5503(a) of title 5,
United States Code.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and
straightforward. It prohibits the use of funds for the payment of
salaries to Presidential recess appointees until they're formally
confirmed by the Senate.
In 1863, a law was passed that barred unconfirmed recess appointees
from being paid. This law stayed on the books until 1940. However, over
time, a number of broad exceptions were made that gradually eliminated
the original intent of the law and rendered the prohibition useless.
This amendment reapplies the original intent of the law to further
reassert the Senate's authority in the confirmation process and prevent
taxpayers from having to pay the salaries of unconfirmed Presidential
appointees.
Our Founders envisioned a Nation of checks and balances to ensure no
branch of government has too much power. The United States Senate is in
charge of confirming executive appointees for a reason--to ensure
Presidential appointees are in the best interest of the American
people.
For too long, both Republicans and Democrats have ceded Congress'
authority to the executive branch. This amendment is a positive step,
which will ensure the administration is accountable to Congress.
Mr. Chairman, due to the lateness of the hour, I urge support and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is trying to undue
longstanding rules about when salaries can be paid to people who
receive recess appointments under the President's constitutional
powers. The amendment is injecting unnecessary and unrelated
controversy into this bill. Its enactment could further worsen the
paralysis and gridlock that is already affecting our ability to govern.
The Constitution clearly gives the President of the United States the
power to make temporary appointments during the recess of the Senate to
positions normally requiring Senate confirmation. This is a power that
has been routinely exercised by Presidents since the beginnings of our
government.
It is true that an issue has recently arisen about the scope of that
power. Two Federal courts have recently ruled that the language is
being interpreted too broadly and that recess appointments can only be
made during a recess between sessions after sine die adjournment. Those
rulings are contrary to previous rulings by other courts and to
longstanding practice by Presidents of both parties. The new
interpretations, of course, would invalidate of course not only certain
appointments by President Obama, but also many dozens of appointments
made by his predecessors, including Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and
George W. Bush.
The issue is now before the Supreme Court, which has accepted these
cases for decision during its next term. If the Court does rule that
Presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and their predecessors were
misreading the appointments clause of the Constitution, then the whole
landscape for these appointments will have changed and the proposed
language of this amendment will be largely irrelevant. But if, as many
believe likely, the Court upholds the more traditional interpretation,
the tight restrictions proposed by this amendment may themselves be
contrary to the Constitution.
The proposed amendment would alter rules that have been in place for
more than 70 years and which say that recess appointees cannot receive
salaries under certain, fairly narrow circumstances. The amendment
would greatly expand that prohibition. The current rule strikes a
reasonable balance, which the amendment would completely upset.
We already have enough gridlock. I do not want to make it worse, and
I certainly do not believe this bill is the place for this particular
amendment or this debate and would strongly oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
[[Page H4967]]
Understanding he has rescinded his time, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 55 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 55
printed in House Report 113-170.
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. __. The total amount of appropriations made available
by title IX (not including amounts made available under the
heading ``Overseas Deployments and Other Activities--
Procurement--National Guard and Reserve Equipment'') is
hereby reduced by $3,546,000,000.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
This amendment is very similar, almost identical, to a similar
amendment that Mr. Van Hollen and I offered during the National Defense
Authorization Act several weeks ago. We've added a couple of
cosponsors. We've added Mr. Coffman, a Republican, and also Mr. Murphy,
a Democrat. In addition to that, we've made some important changes to
the amendment.
What does the amendment do first of all? The amendment simply seeks
to take the OCO budget back down to what the Pentagon asked for. The
Pentagon asked for roughly $81 billion. The committee saw fit to give
them $86 billion, and we think maybe letting the Pentagon decide how
much the Pentagon needs for OCO is probably a good basis for
discussion, and it is the basis for this discussion.
There is one exception to that, Mr. Chairman, and this is where the
important difference from the last amendment several months ago comes
in, which is there is some concern. Mr. Van Hollen and I believed it
was ill founded, but there was some concern as to whether or not the
previous amendment prejudiced in some fashion the National Guard. While
we disagreed with the National Guard's position, we respect it. So for
that specific reason, there is explicit language in this amendment that
excludes the National Guard from this reduction. Instead of going all
the way back down to where the Pentagon asked for, we're giving the
Pentagon what they asked for, plus the $1.5 billion for the National
Guard.
For folks who had some difficulty with our amendment a couple of
months ago because they were concerned about the impact on the National
Guard, even though we thought that was, again, ill founded, we have
sought to protect that in this particular amendment.
To sum up, Mr. Chairman, what we're asking for is simply what the
Pentagon asked for in the first place, with extra protections for the
National Guard.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
Budgeting for contingency operations, especially 1\1/2\ years in
advance, is very difficult. Goodness knows, the war on terror in
Afghanistan and what we did in Iraq, we never knew how long we would be
there and how expensive it was.
For example, despite having a higher overseas contingency allocation
for fiscal year 2013 of $87 billion, budget execution during fiscal
year 2013 has proven that that request was understated by as much as
$10 billion. As a result of the extent possible, funds for OCO are
being cash-flowed from baseline funds which have already been squeezed
due to the sequester, resulting in profound readiness implications.
Ships are not sailing, planes are not flying, and civilians are being
furloughed. We've heard a lot about that on the floor today.
Additionally, I think all of us know that we are exiting out of
Afghanistan. The timetable may be a year or two, or maybe the Commander
in Chief will decide to expedite our departure. Transportation costs
are spiked as men and equipment are moved and deployed, and God only
knows things can happen on the travel route. We've heard a lot about
that on the floor, too. Things can happen in Pakistan that might
require additional expenses, billions of dollars more if we have to
move men and materiel by aircraft. Contractor costs spike for many
functions such as dismantling forward operating bases. Some of that's
occurring now in disposing of excess materiel or turned over to the
private sector to complete. Of course, the reset of equipment carries a
very high price tag. There are a lot of reasons that this money is
needed.
I strongly oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time.
MR. MULVANEY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague, Mr. Mulvaney from South
Carolina, and our colleagues for offering this bipartisan amendment.
Mr. Chairman, just last month, Secretary of Defense Hagel and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before this House as to
the amount of money that would be necessary to support the war in
Afghanistan and our overseas operation, the so-called OCO account. What
they told this Congress was that the President's request of $80 billion
was the amount necessary to accomplish our objectives and to support
our troops. Yet this defense spending bill that is before us adds
another $5 billion that was unasked for and unnecessary.
So if there are extra moneys stuffed into this account, why are they
put in this account as opposed to somewhere else? The answer is that
it's a very clever accounting scheme because the other account, the
base budget for defense spending, is subject to a cap, but moneys for
the war account are not. So every dollar you somehow put into the war
account is a dollar that escapes the cap. You can put lots of dollars
into that war funding account, even though they have nothing to do with
supporting overseas operations. I give the committee an A for creative
accounting and an F for truth in budgeting.
What this amendment does is it says to the military we're going to
provide you the funds you asked for, but, as the gentleman from South
Carolina said, we're actually going to add $1.5 billion additional for
the Guard and the Reserve.
There's no reason we should be throwing money into the war accounts
that don't belong there simply as an accounting scheme to avoid the
cap.
{time} 0000
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Before I close, let me just say for the Record,
the $5 billion extra was in the National Defense Reauthorization Act
which the House passed I believe in June, and just for the record,
funding for the overseas contingency fund in our bill matches the
amount recommended by the House Budget Committee, which membership is
well known and is present on the floor this evening. So it has a pretty
good endorsement, and for this reason I strongly oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I thank my friend for the
opportunity here today. I would simply agree with him that it is
difficult to plan out 18 months in advance as to what is going to be
happening in Afghanistan. However, I would think that the folks best
suited to be able to do that planning would be the folks who are
actually running the overseas operations. It would be the Pentagon and
the Armed Forces, who are the folks who asked for the $81 billion that
we are giving them.
To Mr. Van Hollen's point, the Secretary was here saying this is
exactly what he needs. I recognize the fact that there could be
contingencies, but you have to think that number is already built into
the request. More importantly, the additional money, the slush fund,
the money over and above the $80.7 billion that the Defense Department
has asked for, is not saved for some rainy day, it's not saved for some
[[Page H4968]]
contingency that we haven't anticipated that might come up in the next
18 months--it's spent. It's spent.
So we simply ask for support for this amendment and try to get us
back in line with spending the amount of money that the Pentagon asked
us to spend, respecting the integrity of the base budget, the 302(b)s,
but also not using up money in a wasteful fashion in the OCO account.
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. FRELINGHUYSEN. 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 No. 56 Offered by Mr. Palazzo
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 56
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. PALAZZO. 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 made available by this Act may
be used to rebase Air Force, Air Guard, and Air Force Reserve
aircraft until 60 days after the National Commission on the
Structure of the Air Force has submitted its report under
section 363(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment is very simple. It prohibits the Air Force from making
changes in fiscal year 2014 until 60 days after Congress hears from the
Commission we established to report on the global structure of the Air
Force.
Over the last two years, Congress and the Air Force have engaged in
numerous discussions about the future of our forces. I've had an
opportunity to engage in many of those conversations about what the Air
Force can afford, what provides us the greatest capability, and what
ensures that our men and women get home safely.
These discussions have included decisions the Air Force has made
regarding the realignment of forces. Some of these decisions made a lot
of sense. Some of them did not. But as we've had these conversations as
these decisions are being made, I can't help but feel like I'm
listening to the Air Force play the same broken record over and over
again.
What I see happening, Mr. Chairman, is the Air Force continues to
talk about cutting costs. They talk about mission capabilities and
readiness. And then they turn around and spend millions upon millions
of dollars re-basing planes and uprooting personnel all over the
Nation, only to reevaluate and move them again just a few years later.
And in the end, it seems like the Air Force isn't making smart
financial decisions, and some of these moves don't even make sense from
a mission perspective.
Last year, my colleagues and I addressed some of these issues during
the National Defense Authorization Act process. We included language in
the House version of the bill that would have stopped movement of some
of these planes until the Air Force could provide better answers for
their decisions. I was disappointed that the final version of the bill
omitted this amendment.
Instead the final bill established a National Commission on the
Structure of the Air Force for the very purpose of reevaluating these
basing decisions and reporting back to Congress. Specifically, we are
looking for that Commission to tell us if or how the current Air Force
structure should be modified to best fulfill mission requirements in a
manner that is consistent with our available and limited resources.
The Commission was also given several considerations to keep in mind
while completing this study. They wanted to ensure structure meets
current and anticipated requirements of the combatant commands, achieve
the appropriate balance between Active Duty Air Force and reserve
components, provide sufficient numbers of active Air Force to ensure we
can recruit from the pool for reserve components, and make sure that we
maintain an adequate peacetime rotation force.
I am encouraged by the formation and the progress of this Air Force
Commission in last year's NDAA. In fact, I went and testified before
this Commission earlier this afternoon. I think they have some valuable
contributions to make in these discussions.
But I am still disappointed that the Air Force is still determined to
enact those questionable decisions before hearing from the Commission.
If this body doesn't act, those decisions will go into effect in
October of this year--moving hundreds of planes, uprooting families,
transferring units, modifying missions, spending millions of dollars
possibly to rethink it all and re-base again in a few short years. Yet
the commission's report is only a few short months away.
Am I the only one who thinks this doesn't make much sense?
We're making bold decisions on the structure of the Air Force without
waiting for the recommendations of the study that we mandated. This is
a plain-as-day example of putting the cart before the horse.
My amendment would simply call for a temporary freeze on Air Force
movements until we can review the findings of the report. I feel like
this is a pretty reasonable amendment given that we asked for the study
in the first place. At a time when our military is already under
incredible strain, when budgets are already tight, it is imperative
that we get this right. My amendment may even save us money in the long
run. I ask that my colleagues support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to
the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman raising the issue about the
Air Force's total force plan that was contained in the fiscal year 2013
budget. The subcommittee would agree that, looking back, it was poorly
conceived and was made even worse by the lack of communication between
the services, the reserve, and Congress. And I supported and the
subcommittee supported and the Armed Services Committee supported a
requirement that the Air Force go back and reevaluate its force
restructuring.
But I ran for Congress and I'm a Member of the House of
Representatives, and we're elected to make decisions. I'm not a member
of a commission. I don't support commissions, and I'm disappointed that
at the insistence of the other body, the Armed Services authorized
another commission. I find it interesting that often we say we need a
commission, we need a select committee, each time there is a difficult
decision to be made. We ought to make them. That's what we get paid
money for. We ought to make those decisions and not give it to a
commission.
And what happens when we give it to a commission? Well, that's a bad
idea. We don't support the commission's decision, and then that report
sits on a desk.
The gentleman mentions that the time is short. We have but a few
short months before the Commission's report is due back to the United
States Congress. The report is due on February 1, 2014. That means that
we have the short month of August, the short month of September, the
short month of October, the short month of November, the short month of
December, and the short month of January before the Commission reports
back to the Congress, before the Congress can begin to act now two
years after a botched report by, I would admit, the United States Air
Force in the first instance.
The gentleman mentions that budgets are tight. I absolutely agree
with him. All the more reason why if the Air Force now has a plan to
wait more than another half year to look at a report to decide what
we're going to do, we ought to see what the Air Force has
[[Page H4969]]
to say. If it makes sense, to do it. If not, to make them have it
changed. But not wait for the Commission. I'm a Member of the House of
Representatives, not a Commission.
I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Visclosky, for yielding
to me. I reluctantly rise to oppose the amendment. It seems as though
this amendment attempts to reopen issues that were resolved in the 2013
bill, and would prohibit the Air Force from conducting authorized re-
basing actions until April 2014.
This amendment appears to be not so great for the National Guard. The
National Guard is depending on re-basing actions or remission or
backfilling units that otherwise would lose aircraft. I think that
needs to happen, and I don't think it necessarily needs to happen after
the receipt of this report, which is due some time in the future.
I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's remarks, but
the Air Force has a very bad track record of doing this every few
years. And what they're doing is they're spending millions upon
millions of dollars. They're talking about cutting costs, but all
they're doing is moving planes around, re-basing them, spending more
money on capital investment, and basically upsetting communities that
have given their heart and shared everything they've had in support of
our armed services over and over again. And I hope eventually that the
Air Force can get their act straight and that they will be able to
figure out a strategic and structural plan that will save taxpayer
dollars. And that's what this is about. We are living in a time of
limited resources. I know there are a lot of people out there who want
to do Americans harm, and we have to have our national security
forefront and center as our top priority. I just wish the Air Force
would discontinue disrupting communities all around the country. I ask
Members to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 57 Offered by Mr. Palazzo
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 57
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. PALAZZO. 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. 10002. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used to plan for or carry out a furlough of a dual
status military technician (as defined in section 10216 of
title 10, United States Code).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a very simple amendment that corrects what I believe was a
simple oversight when exemptions were laid out for sequestration. In
July of 2012, OMB offered an exemption for all military personnel
accounts. I believe that decision was driven by a desire to relieve all
uniformed deployable military personnel from the furloughs that were
caused by sequestration's damaging defense cuts.
Unfortunately, a very specific group was left out of this exemption
because of a technicality. Our Nation's National Guard and Reserve
military technicians--or MILTECHs--are some of the most important
assets we have to keeping our servicemen and -women safe. Just like any
other servicemember, they proudly wear the military uniform to work,
and are expected to abide by the very same standards. Perhaps most
importantly, every one of them is deployable. MILTECHs are National
Guardsmen and Reserve personnel. Many of them have deployed to Iraq,
Afghanistan, and have been in harm's way all around the world.
These dual status technicians work every day in direct support of our
warfighters. They supply our troops with the equipment they need to
fight and win and return home safely. But because of a technicality,
because they are paid out of a different account, these Guardsmen and
Reservists have been on furlough for almost a month now.
All my amendment would do is ensure that these men and women receive
the same treatment as our other uniformed personnel and are included in
the furlough exemption. The Congressional Budget Office has verified
that my amendment is budget neutral.
Let me say, I was one of the first on the House Armed Services
Committee to sound the alarm about the damaging effects of these cuts
to our national defense. I have supported several alternatives that
would resolve the sequestration mess around our defense budgets and
across the Federal Government. I have lain awake at night, worried
about the damaging effects these cuts will have if we do not prioritize
cuts and fix this problem. I hope we will see some consensus on a real
fix to sequestration soon.
But the exception has already been made for the men and women who put
their lives on the line every day to defend this Nation. And rightly
so. My amendment simply ensures we include all of our deployable men
and women in uniform in that exemption.
This legislation is supported by our enlisted and commissioned
National Guard members and many other organizations. I ask that my
colleagues support the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Nugent).
{time} 0015
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).
This is a simple fix to a problem that is an oversight. And I will
tell you, from the State of Florida's perception--I live in Florida--we
are obviously prone to hurricanes.
Our National Guard are our first responders when it comes to a
natural disaster like a hurricane. These dual status technicians are in
a position to keep the men and women of the Florida Army National Guard
up and flying those helicopters that are utilized across the gulf coast
to rescue people.
Without these dual service technicians, without these women and men
who actually repair and keep the equipment running, we are at risk,
particularly in the State of Florida, but all along the gulf coast when
we can't field the force to go out and protect us here at home, much
less out in the world.
And our National Guard, and particularly the aviation unit in my
hometown, that's affected, they're currently deployed in Europe. But
the fact that they have the inability to keep their equipment
maintained, and we're furloughing these dual service technicians, it
puts us at risk. It hurts our readiness.
And so from a Florida perspective, I will tell you that it is
imperative that we pass this. I really appreciate Representative
Palazzo from the great State of Mississippi bringing this forward.
Mr. PALAZZO. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the Representative
from Florida. He brought up a good point: it's not just our dual-
purpose technicians, our MILTECHs making sure our equipment that our
warfighters need is operating. And many times they deploy with them to
Iraq and to Afghanistan on multiple deployments and hot spots all
around the world.
But there's another purpose of our National Guard, and that's helping
us here in the homeland. We're in the middle of hurricane season, and I
know that Congressman Nugent's Governor, my Governor, Phil Bryant, the
Governor of Louisiana, have all sent a letter to the President of the
United States asking for this exemption as well, because those are the
first responders.
They're there before the storm, during the storm, and after the
storm. So I thank him for bringing that important point up.
And I'd like to close by saying, again, in times of bitter
partisanship and
[[Page H4970]]
gridlock, the one unifying trait of this Congress is that we keep our
promises to the young men and women who tirelessly defend this Nation
at home and abroad at great personal sacrifice.
A vote against this amendment is a vote to break faith with our
military and their families. A vote for this amendment is a vote to
uphold our promise to our military and their loved ones. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes in opposition.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would, first of all, want to suggest that I
appreciate the gentleman from Mississippi raising the issue relative to
the Guard, as well as my colleague from the State of Florida, the Guard
that protects us internationally as far as our military and
international threats, as well as takes care of us at home.
The gentleman mentioned, given their portion of the country, that it
is hurricane season. It is tornado season in the Midwest. It is flood
season in the Midwest. It is earthquake season every day in the State
of California, and we have wildfires out west. The Guard does terrific
work.
I am very proud of the fact that, although Indiana has continued to
decline relative to other States, and is now only the 16th largest
State by population in this great Republic, the Indiana National Guard
is the fourth largest Guard unit in the United States of America. And
it's not just numerical; it is the quality of the men and women who
serve, just as in the States of Mississippi, Florida, and throughout
our country.
But I would, again, reference back to the observations I've made on
all of the furlough amendments that have been made tonight. Everyone
who does civilian work, whether it be at the Department of Defense or
any other agency of this government, does important work; and we ought
not to make that distinction.
The gentlemen who have spoken in favor of this did vote for the
Budget Control Act that did create sequestration, that did create this
problem.
I would suggest that what we ought to do is comprehensively begin to
solve this problem and not move chairs around on this particular deck.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 58 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Alabama
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 58
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. 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 made available by this Act may
be used to carry out reductions to the nuclear forces of the
United States to implement the New START Treaty (as defined
in section 495(e) of title 10, United States Code).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, in light of the late hour, I'm
going to synopsize my more full statement, if that's okay with
everybody.
Recently, the House passed the FY14 NDAA, and in that document we
included a provision that, before the $75 million that the White House
had requested for implementation of the New START Treaty, they have to
provide to the Congress the 1042 report, which was due 18 months ago,
by law, that outlines how they're going to spend the money.
The White House has refused to submit that report to date. We put in
the authorization language saying, give us the report and we'll give
you the money. I went to Chairman Young and asked him to include this
in his appropriations bill. He said he would welcome the amendment. I
hope that's still the case tonight, and I urge my colleagues to support
my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and it's similar to one that the
House has already approved on a different bill, specifically, the FY14
National Defense Authorization Act.
I wish this amendment wasn't necessary, but, the President's actions
compel it.
Too often, this President acts as if he is above the law.
He ignores the law when it comes to his healthcare law, he ignores
the enforcement of immigration laws, and he violates the Constitution
to bypass the Senate to appoint unqualified or ideological individuals
to important government positions.
Now he is applying this approach to defense policy.
The President's priority appears to be tearing down our nuclear
deterrent, which is America's ultimate security guarantee.
And he is ignoring Congress and the law in doing so.
A clear example is his implementation of the New START treaty with
Russia.
The President, in his budget request for fiscal year 2014, is asking
for a blank check from Congress to implement the treaty with no
questions asked.
This is not the way our Constitutional government was set up to work.
This amendment will force the President to follow the law and hold
him accountable if he expects one dime of the American people's money
to be appropriated.
The House, through the appropriation power, must have a chance to
evaluate whether the implementation of a treaty, and the manner in
which an Administration intends to implement a treaty, is in the US
national security interest.
That is the reason the 1042 report was required in the FY12 NDAA in
the first place.
I remind the House, this report is mandated by law.
Are we really comfortable in this House with letting the President
ignore the law of the land as he sees fit?
Recently, the President announced a major new nuclear weapons policy
before a modest crowd of Europeans.
He stated he will seek to reduce our deployed nuclear forces by a
third--beyond the New START reductions we haven't yet put in place.
We need to put the brakes on this rush to zero.
This President is proposing dangerous and irreversible changes to our
nuclear forces.
Congress must ensure we use caution when tinkering with the nation's
ultimate insurance policy--our nuclear deterrent.
We know the President has been itching to announce further nuclear
force cuts.
Based on the most recent arms control compliance report, it appears,
yet another year is passing while the President will ignore significant
Russian cheating--let me say that again, Russia is cheating on a major
treaty with the United States--so that he can propose further
reductions with Vladimir Putin.
And the President appears to have so little confidence in his
proposal, he refuses to affirm that his reductions will follow the
established precedent--what some call the Biden-Helms standard--of
proceeding through a treaty or affirmative Act of Congress.
We must be wary; the Appropriations Power was never intended to be a
blank check.
I thank the gentleman from Florida for his support and I urge the
House to pass the Rogers amendment and send a signal to the President
that we won't cut him blank checks while he tries to circumvent the
Congress.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to
the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment
and would state my opposition to it.
We have a handful of amendments that have been made in order on the
bill regarding our Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. This is one that
urges maintaining the status quo, and others have pushed for a
reduction in the number of nuclear weapons.
I firmly believe that a further reduction in the number of nuclear
weapons in our inventory will not negatively impact our deterrence
goal. Even under the recently ratified New START Treaty, both the
United States and Russia will have more than 1,500 deployed warheads
each.
Additionally, the treaty contains no limits on nonstrategic nuclear
weapons or nondeployed nuclear warheads.
With regard to the amendment, I don't think it's responsible to
prohibit the United States from carrying out the reductions prescribed
by the New START Treaty. That bilateral strategic arms reduction treaty
was passed
[[Page H4971]]
by a wide margin in the United States Senate, according to the
Constitution, and it remains in force.
I think it is very bad policy to go back on an international treaty
obligation that would, in fact, reduce the number of nuclear weapons in
this world and would, again, reference back a quote that I read in my
opening statement because, again, the gentleman is essentially saying
let us maintain the status quo.
Over the last 12 years, it has gotten us a more expensive military
that has grown more expensive, but has not gotten any larger. The
reality that we face today gives us very difficult choices that we are
going to have to make looking forward.
Our military is at a familiar crossroads, one they have been at
before at the end of combat operations. The additions and subtractions
to funding that we make today must be carried out with an eye to the
future. The status quo will no longer get the job done, one, as far as
our national security, the security of this world, or a responsible
budget that does truly, looking forward, provide us with an affordable
defense. And for those reasons, I do object to the gentleman's
amendment and oppose it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's
observations. And while I may not agree with the New START Treaty, I am
in no way trying to prohibit it being implemented. It is the law of the
land.
However, we do have a constitutional obligation in this House to be
responsible with taxpayers' dollars. And under the new treaty law that
was signed by the President, he had 90 days to provide the Congress a
report on how he was going to spend the money to implement it.
That's all we're saying in this amendment, is when he gives us the
report by law that was due 18 months ago, we'll give him the money, but
not until then.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 59 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 59
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. 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. _. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to provide assistance to Pakistan.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I will
consume.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting my amendment, which
would eliminate all American military aid to Pakistan.
Since 9/11, the United States has given Pakistan over $25 billion,
with over $17 billion going to their security forces. These funds have
been, and continue to be, used to fight an internal war of suppression
against the Sindi, the Baluch, and others who reject their corrupt and
brutal domination by Pakistan.
Sadly, Pakistan also uses billions of American military aid to
support terrorist attacks on its neighbors, including Afghanistan. And
in this last decade, our generous gifts to Pakistan have been used to
finance the killing of Americans, both military and diplomatic
personnel.
We've been acting like suckers. No shame on Pakistan for being two-
faced and murderous. Shame on us for being so stupid in financing a
regime that obviously despises us and considers us its enemy.
It is a charade to believe that our aid is buying Pakistan's
cooperation and hunting down terrorists when the Pakistani
establishment not only gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden for 10 years,
but jailed Dr. Afridi, the courageous man who pinpointed bin Laden and
was instrumental in bringing justice to him for the mass murder of our
fellow Americans on 9/11.
Dr. Afridi is an American hero; yet we have left Dr. Afridi to rot in
a Pakistani dungeon. Shame on us for letting Dr. Afridi languish in
misery and pain for helping us bring justice to Osama bin Laden and
those he murdered
on 9/11.
Pakistan is not a government to which we should be giving billions of
dollars of aid. My amendment would cut off all aid because Pakistan has
betrayed our friendship time and again. Any money we send them only
strengthens their ability to act against us, to murder Baluch and Sindi
and Sikhs, and to undermine moderate Muslims in Afghanistan, even as we
withdraw in 2014.
At a time of tight budgets, we should reserve our aid for our friends
and our allies and end assistance to a government that targets and
kills Americans.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Section 9114 of the bill specifies the certification
required of the Secretary of Defense in order to execute the coalition
support funds reimbursement to Pakistan. The Secretary of Defense must
certify that Pakistan is cooperating with U.S. counterterrorism
operations, not supporting terrorist activities against the U.S. or
Afghanistan, taking measures to curb the export of IED materials, and
preventing the proliferation of nuclear materials.
{time} 0030
As mentioned earlier this evening, the relationship with Pakistan has
always been difficult. It is a gray world. But maintaining that
relationship is essential. It has helped the United States make
progress against terrorism. And Pakistan has allocated a significant
part of their forces within their own borders to the counterterrorism
mission.
In June of 2012, Pakistan demonstrated its commitment to a stable and
secure Afghanistan by reopening the ground lines of communications. I
certainly regret that previously they had been closed. But this has
eased tensions with the U.S. and improved logistical support for our
troops.
I do think withdrawal of assistance at this time is likely to
polarize Pakistan and exacerbate significant pro- and anti-American
rifts within their military and their government, generally, and I
don't think we need to aggravate a very sensitive relationship that
can, in the future, be more productive to the United States.
I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment but understand, because
we're good friends, his passion and his very, very strong feelings
which he expresses on any number of occasions and has done so
eloquently tonight.
Some would argue this isn't true, but I believe Pakistan does remain
a key U.S. counterterrorism partner. Their cooperation is essential. As
we did during the war in Afghanistan, we're going to have to use air
routes over Pakistan. We're going to have to use their maritime
capabilities. We're going to have to use the land routes to get our
troops and material out; otherwise, we're going to depend on Kyrgyzstan
and Russia. It's going to be expensive. It will probably be $20 billion
worth of expense to withdraw from Afghanistan if we don't have the
cooperation of the Pakistanis.
The other issue is Pakistan is a nuclear power. I think we need to
have a close working relationship with them to make sure that those
weapons in the future never fall into the wrong hands.
So I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I associate myself with
them. I strongly oppose this amendment but obviously respect the
sponsor for his strong views as well.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. As
he mentioned, I do appreciate the passion that the author of this
amendment has brought to this. Obviously,
[[Page H4972]]
there have been problems, and it is incumbent upon this country to make
sure that this is an arm's-length and adult relationship that is, in
the end, beneficial to our Nation.
So I certainly appreciate his objective but am opposed to his
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman noted that this is a
gray world. It is not a gray world in so many cases. This is not a gray
world when people are killing Americans. This is not a gray world when
someone organizes the slaughter of 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and then is
given safe haven by someone who's claiming to be our friend. No, that's
not gray at all.
The Pakistanis decided a long time ago that they consider us their
enemy. When they took Osama bin Laden and gave him safe haven from us
and took our money while they were doing it and used it to finance
terrorist groups that have murdered American soldiers in Afghanistan,
no, that's not a gray world. That's black and white. And we should
stand up for the principle that people who are killing Americans will
not receive American military aid, and we can proclaim this tonight in
this resolution.
I ask my colleagues to join me in standing up to make sure that the
world knows that when they kill Americans, they're not going to be
treated like they're our friends. We're not that stupid.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Stockman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 60
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. STOCKMAN. 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. _. None of the funds appropriated or made available
in this Act may be used for United States military exercises
which include any participation by the People's Republic of
China.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Stockman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This is an important amendment in that the Chinese have demonstrated
time and time again that they're willing to take our tactics and our
technology. Coming up in 2014, President Obama has invited the Chinese
to participate in a RIMPAC exercise, the world's largest international
maritime exercise. Right now, the Chinese plan to use these exercises
to increase their knowledge about our tactics.
The participation in these military exercises is particularly
concerning at this time when China is hacking our computers, stealing
our weapons plans, and escalating the pressure in the South Sea of
China. China's behavior does not appear to be even on the radar of the
administration. I'm really concerned now that they're becoming
belligerent in the Pacific area of the rim. They're declaring rights to
land. And we're going to, by participating with the Chinese, make it
look like we're siding with the Chinese in helping the Chinese allies
and against the United States.
At this time, I yield to my friend, the cosponsor, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment
offered by my good friend from Texas.
The Chinese Communist Party is a gangster regime that rules over a
billion subjects. It is the world's worst human rights abuser and does
not deserve the recognition nor the legitimacy that comes with
participating in military exercises with the Armed Forces of the United
States.
As the greatest threat to world peace and stability, the last thing
we should be doing is helping them fine-tune their military and their
familiarization with the strengths and weaknesses of America's Armed
Forces.
The Chinese military is the armed wing of the Communist Party in that
country. For decades, China has occupied Tibet, East Turkistan, and
threatened the democratic nation of Taiwan with total annihilation. The
Communist Party uses force to control its population. Thousands of
Falun Gong practitioners who do nothing more than promote yoga and
meditation have had their organs ghoulishly ripped from their bodies
before they were executed so that those organs could be sold. The moral
depravity of the Chinese Communist Party cannot be overstated.
China is aggressively using military expansion to back up territorial
claims against India, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and
other countries. The Chinese military is guilty of even more aggression
in cyberspace, as we have just heard from my colleague from Texas. They
have stolen dozens of our defense systems. They have vast amounts of
intellectual property they've stolen, as well as the business records
for many of our companies. The damage has been estimated in the
trillions of dollars.
Any cooperation with the Chinese military only weakens our own moral
credibility and discourages our allies in the face of threats from
Communist China. We should be drawing a clear distinction between us
and the Chinese military, not helping them train to become even more
efficient.
I call on my colleagues to vote for Congressman Stockman's terrific
amendment, again, making sure that we stand up and are counted when
there is a threat to the freedom and stability of the world.
Mr. STOCKMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment seeks to block
funds for our military to participate in any exercise in which China
participates as well. The Chinese President confirmed last month in
meetings with President Obama his navy's attendance to participate in
the rim of the Pacific, known as RIMPAC, in 2014. An invitation to
participate had been extended to China during then-Secretary of Defense
Panetta's visit to that country in September of 2012.
RIMPAC is the world's largest international maritime exercise, where
28 countries and more than 40 ships and submarines work together. In
2012, not all participants were our traditional allies. Russia and
India, for example, were participants.
I believe the amendment is shortsighted and attempts to place an
unneeded stumbling block in the path of a relationship that is tenuous.
I would suggest that the Secretary would not have extended the
invitation if the Department and the United States Navy did not feel
that there would be a benefit to be gained by these exercises with
Chinese participation. I refuse to believe, as a Member of the United
States Congress, that the Department would take such a position.
The United States gains maritime knowledge and renewed relationships
with other navies of the world and considers participation in this
exercise as crucial to their mission. RIMPAC participation has gained
an ever-greater meaning with the Defense Department's rebalance to the
Asia Pacific, and I do think that this amendment should not be adopted
by the House.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the
military works for Congress, not the other way around. So if we direct
the military to do something, they do it. If they object, they're not
going to object and say, We're not going to do it. We're the body that
controls the military, and we're responsible for this Nation's future.
It's so obvious what we're doing is giving away our secrets. I can
tell you right now that they've stolen the plans to the F-22. They're
building more F-22s than we are.
They're not part of the negotiation for nuclear weapons right now. We
only negotiate with Russia. We have no idea how many weapons they have.
We have
[[Page H4973]]
no idea how many nuclear weapons they have. We are blindsided by what
they're doing. They're shooting down satellites, and they could blind
us.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and
would agree with his assertion that we do have civilian command of the
Department of Defense and the United States Navy; and, God bless the
United States Navy, they follow orders. But also having dealt with the
Navy for some number of years as a member of this subcommittee, I would
suggest to my colleagues, if the Navy had reservations or had some
concerns, we would have had a whiff of that objection and concern
wafting from the Potomac to this particular building, and I have not
sensed that myself.
I would yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let me associate myself with Mr. Visclosky's remarks. I think there's
some benefit for us to have a joint military exercise. They may learn
something about us; we may learn something about them.
I can assure you the committee isn't in a state of denial. We know
the Chinese are very aggressive, setting out a strategy for a blue
navy. I think these joint exercises may be extremely beneficial to us
in terms of their naval strategy, and to be part of an overall Pacific
rim program gives us a pretty good opportunity to take a look at their
capabilities.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stockman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 61 Offered by Mr. Turner
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 61
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. TURNER. 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 made available by this Act may
be used to reduce the strategic delivery systems (as defined
in section 495(e)(2) of title 10, United States Code) of the
United States in contravention of section 303(b) of the Arms
Control and Disarmament Act (22 U.S.C. 2573(b)).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Turner) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would restrict President
Obama from unlawfully divesting our Nation's strategic delivery
systems.
Since the enactment of the New START Treaty in 2010, the President
has continued to jeopardize the security of the United States by
unilaterally pursuing policies and international agreements that call
for the drastic reduction of our Nation's nuclear deterrent. Not only
are these proposed policies and agreements harmful to the United
States, but also they are in violation of standing laws such as the
Arms Control and Disarmament Act, which states that international
agreements cannot limit or reduce the military forces of the United
States unless enacted pursuant to a treaty or congressional-executive
agreement.
{time} 0045
It is unfortunate that amendments such as this one have become
necessary, as the President chooses to ignore the role of Congress when
negotiating arms reductions.
As recently as last month, President Obama delivered a speech in
Berlin in which he outlined his plan to further reduce nuclear warheads
by as much as one-third. Since that time, the administration has given
no indication that he would seek to negotiate or seek Senate
ratification of a formal treaty as required by law. Instead, the
administration continues to engage directly with the Russian Federation
while averting a formal treaty process in coordination with the Senate.
These drastic reductions by the President are ill conceived and have
only encouraged the further proliferation of nuclear weapons by
countries like Russia, China, and North Korea, which continue to expand
their nuclear weapons programs.
This amendment seeks to rein in the President's misguided policies by
ensuring that none of the appropriated funds be used to reduce the
strategic delivery systems of the United States in contravention of
section 303(b) of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. We have had a number of amendments in this vein this
evening. Again, I would allude back to some of my earlier comments that
we have proposals and discussions and consideration taking place, and I
don't think it's our duty to stop all of that from happening.
The fact is, none of these weapons have ever been used in the United
States or elsewhere on the planet Earth. I would hope, as an
institution, we would take this much time to consider the asymmetrical
threats that have occurred against this country and its citizens and
our allies across the country, such as the attack on the USS Cole, the
U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, and the events of 2001.
I think about the instability and the strategic challenges we face
now in Egypt, in Syria, in Libya, in North Africa; the continuing
challenge of Iran, which supports terrorist organizations with regional
and global aims; the effort that we are going to have to put into the
prioritization of an Asia-Pacific region focus, with a particular
emphasis on China and North Korea; and the instantaneous and continual
attack by cyber against our Nation and our assets.
Again, as far as deliberation and consideration, I don't think we
should simply be here all evening saying no, no, no. The President
obviously, if there is any further reduction according to a treaty,
would have to have that ratified through the United States Senate.
So I do oppose the gentleman's amendment and would reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. TURNER. With all due respect to the gentleman from Indiana, I
won't question his historical description of the issues of the use of
nuclear weapons, although I find it confusing.
I will say that this amendment and its terms are not about the issue
of the use of or even the number of weapons the United States or Russia
might have. This is about the Constitution and the laws of the United
States. All this says is that the President has to follow the
Constitution, make certain that he seeks Senate ratification of any
formal treaty, or that he conform with the Arms Control and Disarmament
Act, which would prohibit him unilaterally taking action.
The concern and the reason why this amendment is necessary is because
the President felt the need to actually leave this country and go to
another country and announce his attention, perhaps, to undertake
unilaterally--both as President, and unilaterally, without even getting
a bilateral agreement with another nation--his intention of further
reducing our nuclear weapons.
This amendment is not about numbers, it's about the law. It's about
our Constitution, it's about upholding it, and requiring that the
President of the United States conform to it in something certainly as
important as our national security.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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 amendment was agreed to.
[[Page H4974]]
Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mrs. Walorski
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 62
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mrs. WALORSKI. 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 made available by this Act may
be used to transfer or release to the Republic of Yemen (or
any entity within Yemen) a detainee who is or was held,
detained, or otherwise in the custody of the Department of
Defense on or after June 24, 2009, at the United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentlewoman
from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Indiana.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, in May, the President declared a renewed
intention to transfer detainees from Guantanamo. He also announced he
was lifting his self-imposed suspension on the transfers of detainees
to Yemen. I believe it's a dangerous policy, both for our troops
fighting terror overseas and for our citizens living in the homeland.
The amendment I am offering prohibits any funds in the defense bill
from being used to transfer Gitmo detainees to Yemen. This amendment is
similar to an amendment I offered in this House past during
consideration of the FY14 NDAA.
I believe this amendment is needed because detainees at Guantanamo
Bay represent some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world. After
Yemen was the starting point for the foiled airline bombing over
Detroit, the Obama administration correctly decided not to transfer
these terrorists back to this troubled nation.
Detainees at Gitmo pose a real threat to our national security. In
addition, transfers to Yemen should be prohibited because the country
has become a hotbed for terrorist activities. The Director of National
Intelligence testified in 2011 that AQAP remains the affiliate most
likely to conduct a transnational attack. AQAP remains resolute on
killing as many Americans as they can if we don't stop them first.
It makes no sense to send terrorists to a country where there is an
active al Qaeda network that we know has been engaged in targeting the
U.S. The Christmas day Detroit bombing attempt, the ink cartridge bomb
plot, the radicalization of the Fort Hood shooter all can be traced
back to Yemen.
Lastly, we should not transfer detainees to Yemen because of their
poor track record of securing its prisons. Let's look at the facts. A
Yemeni citizen, the convicted mastermind of the USS Cole bombing who
took the lives of 17 American sailors, was being held by Yemeni
authorities when he escaped from prison in 2003. Luckily, he was
recaptured, but he was able to escape again from Yemeni custody in 2006
with 22 other terrorists. Why would we risk another jailbreak by people
who intend to do us harm?
Just this morning I woke up to headlines describing how 500 prisoners
escaped from an Iraqi prison after their comrades launched a military-
style assault to free them. Many of these prisoners were senior members
of al Qaeda who were convicted and received death sentences.
Unfortunately, it's an example of what happens when the U.S. delegates
its national security interests to other countries. This is a
commonsense amendment with the purpose of protecting Americans.
I believe it's prudent that this Congress receive the Department of
Defense's report on factors that contribute to re-engagement so that
informed choices about future transfers can be made. That report is
mandated by law and is still currently overdue.
In 2012, the DIA reported that the combined suspected and confirmed
re-engagement rate of former Gitmo detainees has risen to almost 30
percent. I ask my colleagues to consider the national security
implications of transferring detainees to Yemen and join me in support
of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. WALORSKI. May I inquire of the balance of my time, Mr. Chair?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlelady has 2\1/4\ minutes remaining. The
gentleman from Indiana has 5 minutes remaining.
Mrs. WALORSKI. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from the
State of Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine).
Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Walorski
amendment to prohibit transfer or release of Guantanamo Bay detainees
to Yemen.
Mr. Chairman, over the weekend, hundreds of convicts, including
senior members of al Qaeda, broke out of Iraq's Abu Ghraib jail. The
Abu Ghraib prison break perfectly demonstrates that most countries
cannot credibly secure highly dangerous terrorists, including Yemen.
Indeed, Yemen has a particularly bad record of prison breaks involving
al Qaeda terrorists.
In December 2011, several al Qaeda militants escaped from an Aden
prison. In 2006, 23 al Qaeda militants broke out of a Sanaa jail and
established the core leadership of al Qaeda in Yemen, a group which has
since metastasized into al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Given Yemen's terrible track record, it seems obvious that we should
not consider transferring a single detainee to Yemen. Yet President
Obama is so ideologically committed to fulfilling his misguided promise
of closing Guantanamo Bay that I fear he may try.
Mr. Chairman, recidivism among the transferred Gitmo detainees is a
huge problem. According to the Director of National Intelligence, the
latest report, 97 of the 603 transferred Gitmo detainees have re-
engaged in terrorism. A further 72 are suspected of re-engaging. Nearly
one-third of all transferred Gitmo detainees are either confirmed or
suspected of getting back in the fight. Clearly, Congress needs to get
involved and set acceptable boundaries on the President.
As a Navy pilot with combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can tell
you that our troops' job is already difficult enough. We don't have to
fight the same people twice.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that this is the
first instance that my friend and colleague from Indiana and I are
participating in a debate on an amendment on the House floor, which is
why I respectfully and regretfully have to oppose her amendment, as
well-intentioned as it is.
I do not believe that we should impose on ourselves the legal and
moral problems arising from the prospect of indefinite detentions at
Guantanamo. Working through civil courts since 9/11, hundreds of
individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related
offenses and are now serving long sentences in Federal prison. Not one
has ever escaped custody.
But we're told we cannot bring these detainees to the United States
for trial or custody. And we are told in three other instances in the
bill that we cannot close Guantanamo. But I think the rationale for
establishing Guantanamo in the first instance was a misplaced idea that
the facility could be beyond the law--a proposition rejected by the
Supreme Court. As a result, continued operation of this facility
creates the impression in the eyes of our allies and enemies alike that
the United States selectively observes the rule of law. With this
amendment, now we would have a fourth restriction within this bill, and
I think that is not the best policy for this country to pursue.
For that reason, respectfully, I do oppose the gentlewoman's
amendment, and would reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire on the balance of my
time?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Indiana has 45 seconds
remaining, and the gentleman from Indiana has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mrs. WALORSKI. With all due respect to my esteemed colleague from
Indiana as well, this amendment isn't about whether Gitmo stays open or
Gitmo closes. This amendment is specifically about not allowing
transfers of highly dangerous terrorists to the country of Yemen
because Yemen has proved it is not capable of holding these terrorists.
[[Page H4975]]
The job of this Congress and what we're talking about with this
amendment is protecting the American people, which is what we're
charged with.
I would respectfully ask our body to approve and support this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. WALORSKI. 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 Indiana
will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 63 printed in House
Report 113-170.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 64 printed in House
Report 113-170.
Amendment No. 65 Offered by Ms. Bonamici
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 65
printed in House Report 113-170.
Ms. BONAMICI. 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) None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used to retire, divest, transfer, or prepare to
divest, retire, or transfer, C-23 aircraft assigned to the
Army.
(b) The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are revised
by reducing and increasing the amount made available for
``Operation and Maintenance--Operation and Maintenance,
Army'' by $34,000,000.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentlewoman
from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment to provide
our National Guard with the aircraft it needs to perform its missions
effectively and efficiently.
The National Guard relies on C-23 Sherpa aircraft for a variety of
uses, and they're especially important for missions stateside. These
small cargo aircraft transported relief supplies and personnel after
Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina. They support special operations missions
and training, and they aid the Guard in fighting wildfires.
These planes are flexible, they can be put into use quickly and--this
is important, Mr. Chairman--they're less expensive to operate than
other options.
{time} 0100
Despite opposition from the National Guard Association of the United
States and from Governors around this country, the Army now wants to
eliminate use of the Sherpa. The C-130 planes they propose using
instead are almost two times as expensive to operate. Plus, eliminating
the Sherpa would require that the Guard rely on the Air Force for the
use of planes. This would add up to a week to access planes, cutting
off the Guard's ability to be responsive and flexible. Additionally,
the Sherpa is extremely popular with the Special Operations community.
Last year, the House voted to prohibit the Sherpa's retirement. My
amendment would uphold current law and prevent the retirement,
divestment, or transfer of C-23 aircraft. It would also ensure their
continued viable operation, preventing the Army from getting around the
law by mothballing the Sherpa into ``flyable storage.''
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
amendment. Let's listen to the men and women of the National Guard and
support their success to the fullest extent possible.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose the
amendment.
The Army has made it clear to our committee that it does not want to
retain C-23s, the Sherpas, the workhorses, that have been doing some
remarkable work for over 30 years, or acquire any replacement platform.
In fact, the Army is already taking steps to put the aircraft out of
operation while stopping short of full retirement.
At the beginning of fiscal year 2013, the Army National Guard was
operating 34 of these Sherpas. As of July, 14 of those had been turned
into Fort Sill, Oklahoma, where they are being maintained in semi-
flyable storage. That tells you something. The remaining aircraft are
scheduled to be turned into Fort Sill by the end of October of this
year.
Because this amendment only applies to fiscal year 2014, the aircraft
likely will be out of operation before this amendment would take
effect. Unfortunately, because the C-23s will already be in storage by
the time this amendment takes effect, it is unlikely it will accomplish
its intent.
We do not believe that taking funds from other critical readiness
programs to apply to the C-23 operations is the best use of the Army's
increasingly limited resources. Thus, reluctantly, I oppose this
amendment, and reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the comments of the
chair. However, if we are talking about limited resources, it makes so
much more sense to use planes that are less expensive. Give the men and
the women of the National Guard the flexibility and the aircraft that
they need.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. BONAMICI. 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 Oregon
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 66 Offered by Ms. Hanabusa
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 66
printed in House Report 113-170.
Ms. HANABUSA. 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 made available by this Act may
be used to implement an enrollment fee for the TRICARE for
Life program under chapter 55 of title 10, United States
Code.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentlewoman
from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In the President's budget the past 2 years, there has been a push to
phase in substantial TRICARE fee increases. Even the TRICARE For Life
program, the promise of life-long health care many were given when they
first joined the military, has been the subject of proposed enrollment
fees.
The House Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, and other
Congressional defense committees, have declined to grant the authority
for these fee increases.
My amendment would do nothing more than ensure that the funds in this
act are not made available to implement any new enrollment fees in the
TRICARE For Life program.
Year after year, we hear from the Department of Defense that health
care costs of our soldiers and veterans are spiraling out of control
and that TRICARE is crippling the DOD with its rise in costs. Yet, Mr.
Chairman, for the past 2 fiscal years, the Pentagon has found a way to
reprogram hundreds
[[Page H4976]]
of millions of dollars from defense health accounts to higher
priorities. These reprogramming actions totaled $708 million last year
in 2012 and $500 million in the prior year in 2011.
DOD has explained that the surplus was due to ``uncertainty about
medical inflation and health care use, and the impact of continual
benefit changes and efficiency initiatives.'' If there is uncertainty
about costs, the assertion cannot be made that added fees are necessary
for even our most senior veterans.
DOD's own documents prove military health care costs are not
exploding. The combined personnel and health care costs are less than
one-third of DOD's budget and the same as they've been for 30 years.
The overestimation of cost growth that has resulted in hundreds of
millions of dollars being reprogrammed by DOD the past 2 years is proof
that costs are not growing as much as anticipated. In fact, they are
not growing at all.
The relatively low cost of health care and strong benefits are the
foundational elements and they are necessary not just to recruit, but
also to sustain an all-volunteer force. Significant cuts to the
critical incentive packages that sustain a top-quality career force
will undermine long-term retention and readiness.
I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment and uphold our
commitment to the brave men and women of our armed services, as well as
the millions of veterans in need of health care today. Again, I
reemphasize this amendment is to prohibit funds to be used to add any
enrollment fees to the TRICARE For Life program.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition
to the gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would begin my remarks by suggesting
that I deeply appreciate the gentlewoman's concern and her commitment
to make sure everyone who has taken that oath of office and put on the
uniform of the United States of America receives the health care
benefits they deserve and that they have earned.
But I would point out, as I have on a number of occasions this
evening, that we have got to start looking ahead and begin to make some
very difficult decisions.
I would quote again from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments that has noted that over the last decade, rather than
getting larger and more expensive, the military has just grown more
expensive. This reality makes our future choices even more difficult,
and it is imperative that Congress joins with the Department in working
through these decisions in an arm's length relationship, but also as a
partner.
The Department has made recommendations, one of which we are debating
at this moment, that are very difficult decisions to have to make. On
the other hand, we have to begin to not reflectively reject these
recommendations out of hand.
I understand what the gentlewoman is trying to do with her amendment,
but she does rightfully describe it as saying that no funds shall be
used to implement an enrollment fee. Is that enrollment fee 25 cents?
Is that enrollment fee $1? Is that enrollment fee $2? Is that
enrollment fee $250 for an individual and $500 for a family? We are
going to have to consider the pressure that the budget is under.
The gentlewoman has indicated that the Department has reprogrammed
money, and that means that, in fact, costs have not gone up. The fact
is I do believe that the Department has, if you would, underexecuted
and overrequested moneys in past years.
The subcommittee mark in the bill we are debating tonight cut $400
million from the request of $15.8 billion based on the execution
history. We would not have done that if we thought we had endangered
anyone's health. And in fact, these costs are going up.
The cost of military medical care has risen almost by triple in the
past 12 years, rising from $19- to $56 billion. If the increase
continues at this rate for another decade, coupled with sequestration,
military health care could consume close to 20 percent of all defense
spending.
According to a report published by the Congressional Budget Office
entitled ``Long-Term Implications of the 2013 Future Years Defense
Program,'' the annual cost to the Department's health care program
could grow from $51 billion in fiscal year '13 to $65 billion in 2017
and $90 billion by 2030.
If we continue to block enrollment fees for TRICARE For Life, defense
funding for this program will place other programs at risk. The Center
for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimates that pay and benefits
for each Active Duty servicemember grew by 57 percent in real terms
between 2001 and 2012, or 4.2 percent annually.
I am not suggesting our servicemembers do not deserve adequate
compensation for the risks they take in the defense of this country,
but we have to understand what the growth of those costs means for the
overall budget and the future implications. Operation and maintenance
costs per Active Duty employee grew by 34 percent.
I oppose the amendment respectfully because I am worried that if we
don't address the rising cost of health care now there will be even a
smaller pool of resources to make our military ready in the future.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the ranking
member, however, the facts are as stated: DOD has reprogrammed $708
million last year alone and $500 million in the prior year. These have
been from the health accounts.
In addition to that, we must look at the fact that the DOD budget as
to personnel and health costs are less than one-third of the DOD
budget, and that has been a consistent percentage for the past 30
years.
The health care fund has been the one that has been taking the hit
every time. It has been the bogeyman to say that is where we are going
to have to cut and that is what is rising the costs out of control, it
is spiraling out of control. But that is, in fact, not true.
I think that to threaten health care or to not give our men and women
in uniform, and the veterans, in particular, the security with which
they joined the military for--these are one of the benefits they looked
for--by not being able to ensure them that, especially health care, is
the worst that we can do. When we don't have the evidence that this is
where we should cut, we should not cut and add any additional
enrollment fees.
As I stated, this amendment is to prevent any funds to be used to
increase any enrollment fees for the TRICARE For Life.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, 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.
2397) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes, had come
to no resolution thereon.
____________________