[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.

                          ____________________