[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11580-11667]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013


                             General Leave

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5856, and that I may 
include tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Reed). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 717 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5856.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1356


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole

[[Page 11581]]

House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
5856) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Marchant in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This is the Defense appropriations bill for 2013. It has been done 
with the cooperation of the Republicans and the Democrats on the 
subcommittee, the Democrats led by Norm Dicks. I would say that Norm 
and I have worked together for so many years in making sure that these 
Defense appropriations bills were strictly nonpolitical--no politics in 
Defense appropriations. And there should not be.
  Our investment in our national defense should be based on what is the 
real threat to the United States and what does it take to protect 
against that threat and what does it take to protect the men and women 
who provide for that national defense.
  I want to compliment Mr. Dicks for having worked together with each 
other so well, regardless of who was in the majority, for 35 years, Mr. 
Dicks. And I just want to recognize that this will be the last Defense 
appropriations bill that Mr. Dicks will preside over on the floor 
because he is seeking retirement at the end of the term.
  This committee will miss Mr. Dicks, the House will miss Mr. Dicks, 
the Congress will miss Mr. Dicks, and I will say the country will miss 
his service to the United States of America for so many years. So Mr. 
Dicks, I extend to you my very, very best and my appreciation and 
thanks for your friendship and your spirit of cooperation over the many 
years.
  The subcommittee held many hearings and many briefings on so many 
subjects that it took most of the year leading up to this date in order 
to do that. I will compliment the members of the subcommittee because 
they were very attentive. The subcommittee hearings and meetings were 
all very, very well attended. The members were very loyal and faithful 
to their assignments and to their responsibilities.
  During these hearings, we heard one word that bothered me a lot, that 
was the word ``risk.'' As we got into the issue of the budget requests, 
we were told that this might bring about a certain risk, or a prudent 
risk, or an acceptable risk. We pursued the issue of what is an 
acceptable risk when it comes to national defense or what is a prudent 
risk. Let me explain briefly some of the things that we heard.
  One, we were told that the United States is going to show much more 
presence in the Pacific area. I certainly agree with that. That is a 
very, very important part of the world, and we have got to be present.

                              {time}  1400

  The other point was that, as we did our hearings, we were told that 
in the Mideast, in the Persian Gulf area, we need a buildup of naval 
forces in order to do the job that has to be done, especially as we 
watch what Iran is doing, what Iran is threatening to do, and the choke 
point of the Strait of Hormuz where much of the world's oil transports.
  Well, these risks, we think, have been met. But on the Navy buildup, 
the budget request actually would reduce the naval capability, the 
number of assets that we have. So we differed with the budget request 
on that, and we added funding. And by the way, with the support of the 
Secretary of the Navy, we added funding for an additional DDG-51 
destroyer.
  In addition, the Secretary of the Navy was really determined to build 
a second Virginia-class submarine for 2014. And it was not in the 
budget, but he convinced us that it was important to do; and so besides 
the DDG-51, we provided the advance procurement to schedule that second 
Virginia-class submarine for 2014.
  In addition, there are three cruisers that were about to be 
decommissioned; and for a lesser fee than decommissioning, we 
determined to keep those cruisers in business and keep them capable and 
keep them available for that naval buildup that our hearings told us 
the Navy felt that they really needed.
  One other issue that I would like to raise is the Air Force--and 
we're not at war with the Air Force, by the way, but we have some 
differences. The Air Force determined to take away aviation assets from 
the Air National Guard in our States. And we heard from all of our 
Governors. We heard from all of our TAGS, the adjutant generals, that 
this would really be crippling to the mission of the Air National Guard 
and the National Guard if those assets were lost.
  So we recommended to the Air Force, we provided $850 million to do 
what we call a ``pause,'' to let's get together and let's work with the 
States, let's work with the Governors, let's work with the adjutant 
generals to see what is the right thing to do here, and not deny the 
States the assets that they need, the aviation assets that they need.
  There's so much more to this bill. The bill has been available 
online. The copies of the bill have been available. The lists of all of 
the issues have been isolated in press releases, so the actual contents 
of the bill have been available for weeks and so at this point I'm not 
going to go further into the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time

[[Page 11582]]





[[Page 11583]]



[[Page 11584]]



[[Page 11585]]



[[Page 11586]]



[[Page 11587]]



[[Page 11588]]



[[Page 11589]]


  Mr. DICKS. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2013 Department of 
Defense bill.
  I first want to thank Chairman Young for his very generous comments 
about my service on the Defense Subcommittee. And he is absolutely 
right, we have always, no matter who was chairman or which party was in 
control, we've always, on a bipartisan basis, worked to take care of 
the needs of our troops to make sure that we were properly funded in 
equipment and to do it on the basis of what was right and what was 
necessary. I appreciate his leadership of this subcommittee, and I wish 
him well as we finish up this year.
  This bill continues the Defense Subcommittee's long tradition, as I 
mentioned, of bipartisanship and finding common ground as members work 
together, under Mr. Young's leadership, to provide for the Department 
of Defense. I'm pleased to report that the subcommittee has again 
crafted a bill that places national security and the needs of U.S. 
servicemembers above partisan politics.
  I strongly support the priorities set in this bill. The bill supports 
our troops. It includes funding for the third consecutive year to 
replace inadequate schools owned by local educational authorities and 
the Department of Education that are located on military installations.
  It includes $40 million above the request for Impact Aid.
  It includes $125 million above the request for traumatic brain injury 
and psychological health, as well as an additional $20 million above 
the request for suicide prevention and outreach.
  And the bill has a total of $1.2 billion in Defense Health Program 
research and development, $545 million above the request.
  The bill continues the committee's longstanding support for peer-
reviewed breast cancer research, peer-reviewed prostate cancer 
research, vision research, spinal cord research, and many other medical 
research initiatives.
  The bill supports the Guard and Reserve. It includes funding to pause 
force structure reductions and aircraft retirements proposed by the Air 
Force that would affect Air Guard and Reserve units across the country.
  And the bill contains $2 billion for the National Guard and Reserve 
Equipment Account.
  The bill supports today's equipment needs and develops tomorrow's 
technology. It supports Secretary Panetta's strategic focus on the 
Asia-Pacific region by including robust funding for shipbuilding and 
the Patriot missile defense system.
  The bill supports DOD's intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance 
needs by providing the resources for Global Hawk UAVs.
  The bill addresses the Navy's strike fighter shortfall by funding F-
18 Hornets and providing advance procurement for F-18G electronic 
attack aircraft.
  The bill provides for ground equipment such as the Abrams tank, 
Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and HMMWV modernization. This funding 
provides for Army equipment needs, including the Guard and Reserve, and 
helps maintain a stable industrial base.
  The bill includes $250 million for the Rapid Innovation Fund that 
will continue the committee's efforts, started in 2011, to promote 
innovative research and defense technologies among small businesses; 
and the bill includes funding above the request for joint U.S.-Israeli 
missile defense activities, including $680 million for Iron Dome.
  The bill funds operations in Afghanistan consistent with the 
President's plan to wind down our presence as agreed to in the Lisbon 
Accord of 2010 and this year's NATO summit in Chicago.
  The bill also includes important restrictions on DOD activities. The 
bill prohibits permanent U.S. bases in Iraq or Afghanistan and 
prohibits U.S. control over Iraqi oil resources. The bill prohibits the 
torture of detainees. The bill prohibits training foreign military 
forces if these forces are known to commit gross violations of human 
rights. And the bill limits reimbursements to Pakistan until the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, 
certifies that Pakistan is working cooperatively with the U.S. against 
terrorist activity.
  While I support the funding level and priorities included in this 
bill, I must also express my objection, not to Mr. Young, but to the 
majority decision to renege on the bipartisan agreement reached less 
than a year ago in the Budget Control Act. I believe the reduced 
discretionary allocation in the Ryan budget threatens to stall economic 
growth and job creation; and in the near term, it introduces 
uncertainty in our appropriations process that imperils our ability to 
produce these bills in a timely manner.
  Accordingly, it is my belief that we could save a considerable amount 
of time in the appropriations process if we simply returned to the 
agreement reached last year in August, the $1.047 trillion allocation 
level for this year, a level which even the Republican other body 
leadership concedes is where we will eventually end up.
  Despite this reservation, I want to congratulate Chairman Young for 
producing a bill that meets the most pressing needs of the Department 
of Defense, and for doing so in the best tradition of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  And I must say that I feel we have one of the best staffs on the 
whole Hill. And I know Paul and Tom have worked together when Paul was 
the clerk and Tom was representing Mr. Young as the ranking member. And 
the cooperation of all the staff members has been extraordinary, and 
they've worked very hard to prepare this bill for the floor, and I want 
to congratulate them on their good efforts.

                              {time}  1410

  Also, I want to thank Mr. Rogers for his efforts to restore regular 
order. I think it's outstanding that we have had this bill in a 
subcommittee markup, a full committee markup, now brought to the floor 
under an open rule. This is the way this committee should operate, and 
I appreciate his efforts to provide that leadership.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I rise in support of this essential bill.
  It provides more than $519 billion in critical resources for a strong 
national defense, supporting our warfighters and protecting the 
American people. This is an increase of $1.1 billion over last year and 
more than $3 billion more than what the President asked of us. It is 
also more than $8 billion over what the Senate Democrats would like to 
provide.
  This Nation, with all the opportunities it provides and the rights it 
grants, would not be the bastion of freedom without the greatest 
defense system in the world. Freedom is not free. As we continue to 
face threats to our safety and way of life, we must deal with the costs 
of war, keep our military at the ready, and stay constantly vigilant.
  This bill supports and takes care of our troops at the highest level 
possible, providing a 1.7 percent pay raise. We have also increased the 
critical health and benefits program that our troops deserve, providing 
$35.1 billion for health and family programs, including funding for 
traumatic brain injury research and suicide prevention outreach 
programs.
  This legislation keeps America at the forefront of defense 
technologies by continuing research and development efforts. We boost 
key training and readiness programs to prepare our troops for combat 
and peacetime missions with an increase of $12.1 billion for operations 
and maintenance. We also enhance our military arsenal with $102.5 
billion for equipment and upgrades, and we continue fighting the global 
war on terror by including $88.5 billion for overseas contingency 
operations.
  But, in this environment of fiscal austerity, the committee 
recognized that even the Pentagon should not

[[Page 11590]]

have carte blanche when it comes to discretionary spending. We 
increased oversight and took a balanced approach to budgeting. 
Commonsense decisions were made to save tax dollars wherever possible, 
including rescinding unused, prior-year funds and terminating 
unnecessary programs like the Medium Extended Air Defense System; but 
we can guarantee that none of these cuts will affect the safety or 
success of our troops and missions.
  The bill also prohibits funding for the transfers of Guantanamo 
detainees to the U.S. or its territories, prohibits funding to modify 
any facility in the U.S. to house detainees, and places strict 
conditions on the release of detainees--all provisions that were 
authorized under the National Defense Authorization Act.
  I want to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to recognize the 
Appropriations Committee's ranking member, Mr. Dicks, who also serves 
as ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee. He has been a formidable 
servant of the American people and a dedicated usher of appropriations 
dollars for some 36 years, and we appreciate his service. As he moves 
to another phase of his life, we wish him well and Godspeed. He has 
been a great member of this committee and subcommittee and of this 
Congress.
  Also, I want to say a word of thanks to Jerry Lewis of California, 
who has been a member and chairman of the Defense Subcommittee and the 
full committee, for his many years of service to the appropriations 
process and to this Congress.
  We will be sorry to lose the expertise, the leadership, talent, and 
friendship of these two gentlemen when they retire at the end of this 
year, but we wish them well in their next pursuits in life. The 
Appropriations Committee has been made stronger, more responsive, 
responsible, and respectful thanks to these two outstanding and 
upstanding legislators and appropriators.
  I also want to say a word of congratulations and thanks to our 
chairman, Bill Young, and to this great staff that Norm Dicks has 
referred to as the greatest on the Hill, and I can't dispute that. They 
worked long and hard on a very, very tough bill, under austere 
circumstances, in order to put together a bill that is necessary for 
our Nation's defense. These many hours and capable hands that have had 
a touch on this bill, I think, have crafted a successful bipartisan 
bill that all of us can be proud to support.
  So congratulations, Chairman Young, for another great job. You bring 
such expertise and experience to this chore, which is so much 
appreciated by this body.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a must-pass piece of legislation that is vital 
to the security of our homeland and to the safety and health of our 
troops and veterans. I urge my colleagues to support this great Nation 
and to approve this necessary bill.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 3 minutes to a very senior member of the 
Appropriations Committee and a member of the Defense Subcommittee, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio, Congresswoman Kaptur.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Washington for yielding me this time.
  I want to acknowledge the work of our full committee under the 
chairmanship of Mr. Rogers, and obviously the wonderful work of our 
chairman, Bill Young, and of our subcommittee ranking member, Mr. 
Dicks. Their collegial work has made this bill possible, and it will 
benefit our entire Nation, our men and women in uniform, our Armed 
Forces, and all of those who are touched by this legislation.
  I would like to add my voice to those who wish to recognize the 
magnificent work that Congressman Dicks has done during his years of 
service to our country back from the time when he first worked for 
Senator Warren Magnuson. We would like to wish him, his wife, Suzie, 
and their beautiful family many healthy and productive years ahead. We 
thank him for his distinguished and honorable and intrepid service--
always dutiful, always enlightened. When he walks from these Halls 
officially, he takes great knowledge and should take great satisfaction 
with him for a job well done, indeed.
  I want to extend to Congressman Jerry Lewis, as well, deep 
appreciation from the people of our States and country for your 
incredible service.
  I would venture to say, when both of you gentlemen leave these 
Chambers, nearly a century of knowledge will walk with you. You have 
left America with her strongest defense globally, and you have been a 
part of crafting every single line of these bills. America thanks you 
and the free world thanks you.
  This bill has been written in a bipartisan way by our subcommittee, 
and I thank the members for working collaboratively together. It is a 
model for our committee and Congress on how to do the work necessary to 
meet the needs of the American people.
  The bill includes $125 million above the President's request for 
funding health research for traumatic brain injuries and posttraumatic 
stress, which are the signature wounds of the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Our bill includes an additional $246 million for cancer 
research, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and 
lung cancer.
  The bill also includes necessary funding for the Iron Dome. During 
the last decade of war, our National Guard and Reserve units have 
proven themselves as the strategic reserve force for our Nation. The 
Air Force, in submitting its FY13 budget, did not appear to 
appropriately appreciate the importance of the Guard and Reserve 
because they targeted those units for mission reductions and 
cancellations. Our subcommittee has fixed this oversight by providing 
the necessary funding to allow the Guard and Reserve to continue their 
missions, which they do extremely well and at considerably less cost 
than the Air Force does.
  Our bill fixes a continuing issue from the executive branch and 
maintains our Nation's industrial base by making sure we do not end the 
domestic production capability for tanks for the first time since World 
War II. The bill averts a plan to shut down the production line for 2 
years. Shutting the lines would have cost the American taxpayers more 
money than producing tanks over the same time and would dismantle the 
critical, fragile supplier network.
  The legislation also continues the military's commitment to lead our 
Nation towards energy independence. The Pentagon, as the largest 
petroleum user in the world, must lead our Nation toward energy 
independence. No challenge could be more vital to our national security 
and economic security interests. High fuel costs are an enormous burden 
on America's families. It is also a severe and wasteful burden on our 
service branches, and it diverts funds from important readiness and 
modernization needs.
  Thank you, Mr. Dicks, for this time. Godspeed to you and to your 
family in the years ahead.
  Thank you, Congressman Lewis. To you and to your wife, Arlene, may 
you enjoy many wonderful years ahead.
  Thank you, Chairman Young, for being a chairman who brings this 
Congress together at the subcommittee level, and Chairman Rogers, at 
the full committee level. Thank you for working with all of our Members 
to meet the needs of our Nation and our Nation's defense.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), who is an 
extremely important member of this subcommittee and also represents 
this subcommittee with the Intelligence Committee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, 
and for his leadership, and that of Mr. Dicks, as well.
  In preparation for this debate, the subcommittee held a lengthy 
series of hearings examining such varied issues as our operations in 
Afghanistan, the so-called pivot to the Asia-Pacific region, Army 
modernization, Navy shipbuilding, Marine end strength, and the Air 
Force restructuring proposals.
  Most of these issues relate, as the chairman has said, to mitigating 
risk

[[Page 11591]]

in the Defense budget in what is called the ``new strategic guidance'' 
from the Department of Defense. It's what I would characterize as 
protecting our gains in the Middle East and elsewhere, as well as 
preparing for future and current threats, such as China's growing 
military capacity, instability in the Korean peninsula, civil war in 
Syria, Iran's pledge to close the Strait of Hormuz, and others.
  As you'll hear during this debate, the committee weighed in with its 
own options. As the chairman said, we pause the Air Force restructuring 
decisions. In light of the tyranny of distance that characterizes the 
Asia-Pacific region, we bolster the Navy's shipbuilding accounts and 
add back in a Virginia-class submarine and a Burke-class destroyer.
  Our goal here, and throughout the bill, was to provide the resources 
to support our warfighters now and in the future whenever the next 
crisis arises. We clearly recognized the Nation's debt and deficit, and 
found areas in programs where reductions were possible without 
adversely impacting our Armed Forces and modernization readiness 
efforts.
  Exercising our mandate to adhere to sound budgeting, we reclaimed 
funding for programs terminated or restructured since the budget was 
released. We've achieved savings for favorable contract price 
adjustments, such as multiyear procurements of complicated weapons 
systems. We cut unjustified cost increases or funding requested ahead 
of need. We also took recisions from surplus from prior year funds. 
Frankly, it is important that we find savings without harming readiness 
or increasing the risks incurred by our warfighters.
  Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us includes funding for critical 
national security needs and provides the necessary resources to 
continue the Nation's vital military efforts abroad. In addition, the 
bill provides essential funding for health and quality-of-life programs 
for our men and women in uniform--all volunteers--and their families.
  I want to thank Chairman Young, Ranking Member Dicks, Chairman 
Rogers, and all the Members of the subcommittee for their work, and the 
excellent staff we have, and our past leadership and our continued 
leadership from Congressman Jerry Lewis of California. We were all able 
to work together in a bipartisan manner to ensure that our men and 
women in uniform--all volunteers--and their families have the support 
they need. The years ahead will be challenging, but our defense bill 
will meet those needs.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). He and I were in the same 
class together and enjoyed many spirited debates on national security 
issues. I consider him to be a good friend and someone who cares a 
great deal about these issues.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Dicks and I started 36 years ago at the height of the cold war, 
with each country building more and more nuclear weapons, more and more 
defense systems in an ever escalating war of nerves that kept both 
countries and the whole world on edge.
  In this Republican fantasy land, gold-plated nuclear weapons systems 
budget, there are going to be programs that have long outlived their 
usefulness that are lavished with canyons filled with cash. In this 
fantasy land, the cold war never ended. The Soviet menace lives on, 
making it necessary to maintain vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons and 
build new bombers to penetrate the Iron Curtain. In this fantasy land, 
there are mountains of money for intercontinental ballistic missiles 
towering over the landscape and providing shade and comfort to the 
legions of defense contractors making nuclear weapons we no longer need 
and we can no longer afford. In this fantasy land, the Republicans want 
to retroactively re-fight the cold war that we won. This makes no 
sense.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to get real. Sequestration is coming. The 
Republicans, in their budget, are ignoring the doomsday clock that has 
nearly reached midnight for millions of hardworking Americans. We must 
prepare for this reality. The bill the Republicans have brought to the 
floor today provides the Pentagon with a billion more dollars than this 
year's spending level, and $3 billion more than the Obama 
administration requested. Despite sequestration, despite budget 
pressures, despite the fragility of the economy, the Republicans still 
want to increase defense spending. Why? To pay for more radioactive 
relics of the past that no longer are needed in order to protect our 
country.
  But I have good news for my friends on the other side of the aisle: 
the cold war ended more than 20 years ago. The Soviet Union crumbled. 
It's okay to stop funding nuclear weapons to perpetuate a cold war 
rivalry that has disappeared into the mists of history. We don't have 
to buy into this insanity. That is why I plan to offer several sane 
amendments to reduce Pentagon spending on unnecessary, outdated nuclear 
weapons programs.
  Here is the bottom line: beginning January 1 of next year, 5 months 
from now, $55 billion has to be cut out of the defense budget and $55 
billion has to be cut out of civilian social programs. That is $55 
billion and $55 billion apiece. The Republicans are increasing defense 
spending heading into that. Moreover, they're saying, Don't cut defense 
at all, cut the social programs.
  What does that mean? That means cutting the NIH, cutting CDC, cutting 
the National Cancer Institute. They're already going to be cut under 
sequestration. What the Republicans are proposing is to really create a 
true doomsday machine, and that doomsday machine is the lack of a cure 
for Alzheimer's, for Parkinson's, for all of the other diseases which 
actually do pose a terrorist threat to families across the country when 
they get the call that once more that disease has come through their 
family because we--that is, the Republicans--have decided that they're 
going to continue to cut the research for the cure for disease and 
instead build more nuclear weapons to be aimed at targets that no 
longer exist.
  This is an important debate to have. It's a sequestration 
anticipation debate where we begin to be forced to get real. We have to 
have a debate about what the priorities in the 21st century are going 
to be, and not some Dr. Strangelove smiling from his grave, being so 
happy that we're still debating additional nuclear weapons.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I want to say to the House that we understand the importance of 
sequestration, and we've got to stop sequestration. It's just not good, 
especially for our national defense. This Congress, this committee has 
not ignored the issue.

                              {time}  1430

  Last year, last year alone, this committee recommended a bill that 
reduced fiscal year '12, fiscal year '13, a total of $39 billion, but 
we did it carefully. We did it by not just going across the board, 
cutting muscle out of our national defense. We took money that wasn't 
going to be spent anyway. We understand the importance of meeting 
deadlines on funding reductions.
  We don't want sequestration. It is not good for the military, it is 
not good for the country, and it is not good for the economy.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), who 
is one of our subcommittee chairmen on Appropriations.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in 
strong support of this legislation.
  Let me first say thank you to the chairman, Chairman Young, and 
Congressman Dicks, the ranking member. Thank you not only for your 
leadership in bringing this bill to the floor, but thank you for your 
spirit of cooperation, your spirit of bipartisanship, which has 
pervaded our subcommittee. As we bring this before the full House, I 
think there is great agreement among those that serve on the 
subcommittee.
  When you stop and think about the fact that national security is 
probably the number one responsibility of the Federal Government, the 
only way to keep America safe is to keep America strong, and I think 
this bill does that.

[[Page 11592]]

Now, you'll hear people say, you just heard people say, why do we need 
to spend so much money on defense, the cold war is over, we're pulling 
out of Afghanistan, we're no longer going to be in Iraq; why don't we 
just kind of pay a peace dividend?
  Well, as Chairman Young just pointed out, we are in the midst of a 
program where we are reducing spending on national defense. We looked 
at every agency. The Federal Government said you've got to do more with 
less, you've got to tighten your belt, and the Defense Department is no 
different.
  We're in the middle of actually reducing spending $487 billion over 
the next 10 years. Then, of course, we face this draconian cut of 
sequestration. I think that we have got to keep in mind that it is the 
number one responsibility. We ask our troops, ask our military to do 
things. We certainly have the best trained and the best equipped 
military in the history of this world.
  But you look at our Navy, for instance. We have half as many ships as 
we had 30 years ago, half as many, and yet we're asking them to do so 
many things. Sure, the ships are more technologically advanced. Sure, 
we've got better trained people. But stop and think about it. When you 
ask the Navy to go out and interdict drug runners in the Caribbean, and 
you say chase the pirates off the coast of Somalia and send a carrier 
into the Mediterranean, guard the Strait of Hormuz when Iran rattles 
its saber, conduct humanitarian missions down in Haiti, and, by the 
way, keep an eye on the Pacific Rim, because that's where China is 
flexing its muscle, remember, numbers matter. The world is no smaller.
  We still haven't solved the problem of how do you have one ship in 
two places at the same time. So it's important that we continue to 
provide the resources that we need to have a strong national defense.
  I think this bill does that. I think we should all support this.
  Mr. DICKS. We have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a very important member of this 
subcommittee.
  Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, as I am the most junior 
member of this subcommittee.
  But I would be remiss not to echo the praise of my colleagues, both 
for the chairman and the ranking member. They have worked together 
extraordinarily well in a way that makes us all proud. Frankly, Mr. 
Dicks, I am going to miss you greatly from this committee. You have 
been a mentor and a friend. Thank goodness Mr. Young will be here, and 
I will have somebody's knee to learn at.
  This is a good bill. It does, as has been mentioned earlier, add 
roughly a billion dollars from roughly $519 billion in the base defense 
bill. What hasn't been mentioned, though, is that our overseas 
contingency fund, 8, $8.5 billion, is actually down $27 billion, so we 
are actually spending less overall on defense this year.
  We reduced the number of personnel by over 21,000. We ought to 
recognize, for those of our friends who think we're spending too much, 
we are actually at the beginning of a long drawdown. If you look over 
the next 5 years, sadly, we're going to reduce defense spending by $500 
billion. That means less capability. That means 70,000 fewer soldiers, 
20,000 fewer marines. That means 25 fewer combat vessels--288 instead 
of 313. Seven fewer aircraft fighter wings. Real reduction in 
capability.
  A lot of our friends think we spend too much on defense. The reality 
is we spend less and less as a percentage of our Federal budget and our 
overall wealth every year. In the 1970s we were spending 40 percent 
plus of the Federal budget. This year, it's less than 20. We were 
spending 9 percent of GDP at the height of the Cold War, this year 
barely 4.
  For those of us that think that this investment hasn't made a 
difference, I would just recommend in closing, please read Robert 
Kagen's splendid book, ``The World America Made,'' and think how much 
freedom and security we have enjoyed for a relatively small price and 
think about the risk we have run as we go forward if we reduce too far 
too fast.
  I want to thank again the chairman, the ranking member, for making 
sure that didn't happen. I look forward to working with him to make 
sure sequestration does not occur. As he rightly points out, it would 
be devastating.
  We should pass this bill, and we then should get about the longer 
term challenge of making sure sequestration does not occur.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Florida for the time and 
for your leadership on this critically important bill.
  Mr. Chairman, in the push and pull and give and take of the 
congressional appropriations process we have had many important debates 
on the proper role of the Federal Government in society. But despite 
our differences and competing priorities, it is clear that Americans 
believe in a Federal Government that provides a strong common defense 
as a priority.
  American military leadership is important for our own security but 
also for global stability and global human rights. It is also important 
for my home State of Nebraska. Over the past 10 years, Mr. Chairman, 
15,000 Nebraskans in uniform have served overseas. Today, 17,000 men 
and women stationed in Nebraska work tirelessly to strengthen our 
national security. American troops are steadfast, selfless, and 
undeterred in their service and deserve our unwavering support.
  This bill, I believe, reflects responsibly the challenges of our 
times. Further amendments may actually strengthen the bill creatively 
in balance with our fiscal responsibility obligations, but moving 
forward with our primary obligation to govern in defense of our Nation 
should be our guiding principle here.
  Let me add, Mr. Chairman, that I learned in this debate that this is 
Mr. Dicks' retiring session, and I also want to add my thanks for your 
many years of good service.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the 
gentleman if he has further speakers on the general debate.
  Mr. DICKS. I have no further speakers. Is the chairman going to 
close?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I want to take a minute to thank the staff who have worked tirelessly 
on this bill, Mr. Dicks mentioned them earlier on. We have the 
responsibility to appropriate for the authorization of the Intelligence 
Committee and for the authorization legislation of the Armed Services 
Committee. You can imagine that that is quite a responsibility. The 
staffing is extremely important because our staff is limited in size to 
the combined numbers of staff on those two committees that we do 
appropriate for.
  But I want to call special attention to, for example, the minority 
staff who worked directly with Mr. Dicks, Paul Juola and Becky 
Leggieri. Paul Juola actually worked in that capacity for the majority 
staff when we were the majority. In fact, when I was chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, I hired Paul. So you can see, this is a very 
nonpolitical subcommittee.
  I would also like to recognize Brooke Boyer on the majority staff; 
Walter Hearne; Tom McLemore, who is the chief clerk of the majority 
staff; Jennifer Miller; Tim Prince; Adrienne Ramsay; Ann Reese; Megan 
Rosenbusch; Paul Terry; BG Wright; and Sherry Young. They are quite a 
team.

                              {time}  1440

  They are able to analyze the budget requests, the budget 
justifications, and keep the membership advised. So I want to thank 
them very much for the good work that they do.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 5856, the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2013. We are 
still

[[Page 11593]]

a nation at war. Our troops continue to remain in harm's way fighting 
for our country in Afghanistan. Our consideration of this legislation 
must begin with an acknowledgement of this critical fact.
  In that light, I am pleased that this legislation gives our troops 
the support they need while they are serving our Nation abroad. The 
bill provides $519.2 billion for the Department of Defense's base 
budget, and $88.5 billion in funding for the war. It also gives a 1.7 
percent pay raise to our troops and provides $2.3 billion for family 
support and advocacy programs. I am also very pleased to see the 
Committee include $181 million in funding to keep the M-1 Abrams tank 
production line in operation, which will help ensure our military 
industrial base is strong and vibrant. The legislation also provides 
$1.6 billion for activities to counter Improvised Explosive Devices 
(IEDs), which continue to be a leading killer of our troops abroad. All 
of these programs are an accurate reflection of our priorities as a 
nation.
  That being said, I am dismayed that House Republicans chose to write 
all of this year's appropriations bills under a lower limit than was 
established under the Budget Control Act (BCA). The BCA represents a 
bipartisan compromise on Federal spending and it should be respected. 
The Senate Committee on Appropriations is moving forward with the limit 
established under the BCA with the blessing of the Republican 
leadership. Such a disconnect between the two bodies on an issue of 
critical significance only adds to the uncertainty surrounding our 
economy and is not in our national interest.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital 
legislation so our troops can know they have the support of the 
Congress.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chair, it is DoD policy that when a servicemember 
becomes a casualty, his remains are returned to the family as quickly 
as possible with the utmost respect and dignity.
  This policy was revised and mandated by Congress in 2008 when new 
requirements were established for transportation and honor guards for 
the remains of combat casualties.
  As a nation, we owe our fallen heroes and their families a debt that 
can never truly be repaid. The dignified transfer of a casualty is the 
least that we can do to honor the sacrifice paid by the men and women 
who volunteer to lay their life down in the defense of others.
  I am happy that this bill in front of us today fully funds the 
transportation and escort of these heroes, and want to thank the 
Chairman and the Ranking Member for continuing to make this a priority.
  I remember meeting with a family from my district last year whose 
son, Corporal Johnathan W. Taylor, gave his life defending our freedom 
on February 22, 2011 in Afghanistan.
  Now beside his fellow brothers in uniform, his parents, Mark and 
Deborah, have said that they were proud to have seen their son off on 
what they like to call his final tour of duty.
  This final tour of duty was important for his family, as well as his 
friends and fellow Marines.
  It was important because they all had the opportunity to see Corporal 
Taylor return home for the last time, with the honor and military 
escort he has so rightfully earned.
  Continuing to fully fund this important mission will allow other 
families, who have made the most difficult sacrifice imaginable, the 
opportunity to watch their children return home and laid to rest as a 
national hero.
  Army SPC Clarence Williams III will be laid to rest next Monday, on 
July 23, in the Florida National Cemetery. He was killed in action in 
Afghanistan last week.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, as Co-Chair of the Congressional Brain 
Injury Task Force, I have spent the last eleven years I have fought for 
patients with brain injuries, both on and off the battlefield. We all 
know that traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the signature wound of the 
conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and while we made great progress on 
ensuring our soldiers have the best care, there is still more work to 
be done.
  An Institute of Medicine study was released last week about the 
effects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on our troops who have 
served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am particularly concerned with the 
report's analysis of the Department of Defense's efforts to identify 
and treat PTSD. The 2010 Defense Authorization required this study as 
well as mandated the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs to report a response to this report the relevant Committees by 
no later than January 1, 2013.
  As this report shows, there is still more work to be done when it 
comes to caring for our soldiers suffering from Post Traumatic Stress 
Disorder. The report notes that the prevalence of PTSD in 2.6 million 
service members who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan is at a 
staggering rate of 13% to 20%. This statistic points to the importance 
of finding better ways to identify and treat this ailment. The report's 
many recommendations include the need for the Department of Defense to 
collect data on the delivery and effectiveness of all prevention, 
screening, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitative services currently 
in use to determine best practices, as well as ensuring that PTSD 
screening occurs once a year. The report also points out barriers to 
care faced by returning soldiers to accessing care.
  It is clear that the Department of Defense must do more to ensure 
that soldiers who suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder are 
identified, the effectiveness of treatments are tracked, and that 
returning soldiers suffering from PTSD are encouraged to come out of 
the shadows. Making sure that funding for Defense Health programs and 
research into Post Traumatic Stress Disorder addresses the concerns 
raised in the IOM report is extremely important. This year's Defense 
Appropriations bill provides $125 million for traumatic brain injury 
and psychological health research, and $30 million for suicide 
prevention and outreach programs. We must continue to make the 
investments in these critical areas to ensure the health and safety of 
all our returning soldiers.
  I hope that going forward, these recommendations will be factored 
into the research and funding undertaken by the Department of Defense-
Defense Health Programs. With continued work and adequate funding for 
research and treatment for PTSD and TBI, I know our service members 
will be able to attain improved health outcomes, live more productive 
and satisfying lives, and ultimately, save our nation millions of 
dollars in future care costs.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Mr. 
Young's statement. As a fellow National Guard veteran, as is Bill 
Young, and as a father of four sons currently in the military, I find 
the suggestion that the Department of Defense spends too much money 
recovering the remains of our military men and women who are killed in 
action to be absolutely offensive and insensitive to military families. 
As Chair of the Military Personnel Subcommittee I appreciate the 
extraordinary efforts of recovery worldwide.
  Our service members who are engaged in combat operations make a 
solemn vow to one another: ``I will never leave a fallen comrade 
behind.'' The military, consisting of all the branches of service have 
a similar responsibility to the families of our service members. When a 
service member is killed in action, the military service branch that 
they belong to has a responsibility to return the remains home to the 
family. They have a responsibility to return the remains to their final 
resting place with dignity and honor.
  The military men and women who are killed in action overseas are 
heroes who make the ultimate sacrifice to preserve the freedom that we 
all enjoy. The military rightly does everything necessary to return our 
service members' remains to their families. I believe that the military 
does a superb job under very trying circumstances, and I know that our 
military families are very grateful. I know firsthand of this issue. I 
sadly was present for the return of a brother-in-law killed overseas as 
a Marine pilot. Our family appreciates the proven love of the American 
people, which has been promoted by Congressman Bill Young and his wife, 
Beverly.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I support passage of H.R. 5856, the Department 
of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which supports our 
servicemembers and makes important investments in our national security 
and in the health, well-being, and readiness of our Armed Forces.
  Our country owes a debt of gratitude to our military and their 
families for their service and selfless sacrifices. We in Hawaii are 
proud of the men and women in our military that have served and are 
currently serving in Afghanistan. Above all, we must also never forget 
those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Supporting 
our servicemembers and their families, whether it's during deployment 
or as they transition back into civilian life, is a solemn commitment 
we must keep.
  Many of our men and women in uniform are suffering from serious 
wounds from their service, both visible and invisible. That's why I'm 
pleased to see increases in traumatic brain injury and psychological 
health funding as well as suicide prevention and outreach. The bill 
also boosts resources for peer-reviewed research on Gulf War Illness, 
Lou Gehrig's disease, breast cancer, prostate cancer, vision and spinal 
cord conditions, and many other medical research initiatives.
  This legislation will further protect access to health coverage for 
Hawaii's military retirees, who have dedicated their careers in service 
to

[[Page 11594]]

our country. Through the adoption of an amendment offered by 
Representative Stearns, no funds could be used to implement a fee to 
enroll in TRICARE for Life.
  Hawaii has a strong military presence and is home to thousands of 
military families. As a strong advocate for Impact Aid, I welcome the 
increased amount of this funding, which helps ensure the federal 
government does its part to support our nation's local school districts 
and military families and educate military-connected children.
  By providing support for the operation, maintenance and procurement 
for our military's installations in Hawaii, including Joint Base Pearl 
Harbor-Hickam, Schofield Barracks, and Kaneohe Marine Corps Base, H.R. 
5856 protects jobs and advances President Obama's strategic refocusing 
on the Asia-Pacific region. The measure also affirms the critical role 
of our citizen soldiers and airmen in the defense of our nation in 
providing for critical Army equipment needs and rejecting force 
structure reductions and aircraft retirements proposals that would have 
negatively affected Air Guard and Reserve units across the country.
  With turmoil continuing in the Middle East, now more than ever we 
must stand strong with our friend and ally Israel. This measure 
includes additional funding for joint U.S.-Israeli defense cooperation, 
and continued support for Iron Dome system, which has protected and 
saved lives from the daily threat of rockets aimed at towns and cities 
in a country surrounded by hostility and instability.
  While H.R. 5856 supports our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in 
Hawaii and around the world, this defense appropriations bill contains 
provisions that raise serious concerns. For example, this bill slows 
down the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan; it is over the 
President's budget request and over the Budget Control Act passed last 
year. H.R. 5856 excludes funds requested by the President for the 
production of domestic biofuel for our military, an important 
initiative our military leadership supports. Furthermore, the bill 
places a significant amount of our nation's resources in certain 
weapons systems the Defense Department neither requested nor needed.
  It is my hope that Senate will address these serious issues and that 
we can pass a final bill that is fiscally responsible, reaffirms the 
American people's commitment to our servicemembers and protects our 
national security.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I cannot support this bill in its current form.
  It's telling that every domestic program in this year's budget is 
taking a hit--in some cases, a huge hit. The House majority seems 
perfectly fine with cutting grant funding for our firefighters, our 
cops, and other first responders. The House majority thinks it's good 
public policy to cut programs designed to help the most vulnerable in 
our society, but any suggestion that we need fewer defense contractors 
provokes howls of protest. Any suggestion that national security-
related corporate welfare should be ended--and I'm referring to the 
over-budget F-35 program as a prime example--evinces the most 
hysterical rhetoric about ``weakening America's defenses.''
  Let's deal with the facts. We spend more on defense than most of the 
rest of the world combined. We won the Cold War over 20 years ago, yet 
this budget continues to fund unnecessary and radically over-cost Cold 
War legacy weapons programs that we don't need, can't afford and won't 
help us deal with the kind of terrorist threat we face now and into the 
future. The House majority is throwing the poor under the bus even as 
it throws a kiss to the military-industrial complex.
  The bill also continues funding a war that should have been over long 
ago. As I've said since 2009, our continued presence in Afghanistan is 
prolonging the conflict, not helping end it. The President's ill-
considered assassination-by-drone policy in Pakistan, which now 
features Vietnam war-style ``signature strikes'' against groups of 
individuals without verification of their status as terrorists, has led 
to the deaths of an increasing number of innocent civilians. Indeed, 
the escalation of the drone strikes and the loosening of the 
intelligence standards under which they operate comes even after Osama 
bin Laden was killed last year.
  The original rationale for invading Afghanistan--getting bin Laden 
and his associates--no longer exists, yet this bill continues to fund a 
war whose purpose has clearly been achieved. There is perhaps no 
greater example of a policy on autopilot than our war in Afghanistan, 
which is one of the many reasons I do not support this bill.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 
5856, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. While I strongly 
oppose some provisions of H.R. 5856, I voted in favor of this 
legislation in order to support our troops, military families, and 
veterans, and to advance other important priorities for our national 
defense.
  I applaud the leadership of Chairmen Rogers and Young and Ranking 
Member Dicks in crafting a bill that provides an increase to service 
members' pay, strengthens health care services, and advances critical 
research for cancer, Traumatic Brain Injury, and other conditions. H.R. 
5856 supports a continued investment in small businesses through the 
Rapid Innovation Program, provides for the production of two Virginia-
class attack submarines, advances the Iron Dome program, and seeks to 
hold Pakistan accountable by ensuring they are cooperating with the 
United States in counterterrorism efforts, including dismantling and 
disrupting the manufacture of improvised explosive devices--an issue 
that I specifically addressed through two successful amendments to the 
National Defense Authorization Act offered earlier this year.
  However, I must also note my strong disappointment that this 
legislation breaches the Budget Control Act of 2011--the bipartisan, 
bicameral agreement enacted into law last year, which was designed to 
help rein in spending and stabilize our nation's finances. Despite the 
fact that over $1 billion in spending was reduced through the 
successful adoption of an amendment offered by Representative Mulvaney 
and Representative Frank, effectively freezing defense spending in the 
bill at current levels, H.R. 5856 still exceeds the budgetary cap set 
by last year's Budget Control Act by several billion dollars. An 
additional amendment was offered by Representatives Lee, Van Hollen, 
and Smith that would have brought the bill's spending in line with the 
levels set by last year's Budget Control Act. Unfortunately, while I 
voted in favor of this amendment, it was not adopted by the full House. 
Moreover, I offered an amendment to H.R. 5856 to strike funding for the 
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund (AIF). As originally presented in the 
full House of Representatives, H.R. 5856 proposed $375 million in 
spending over the next fiscal year for large-scale water, power, 
transportation and other projects in Afghanistan through the AIF while 
our national infrastructure is crumbling here in America and in my home 
state of Rhode Island. While my amendment did not pass, I did vote in 
favor of a successful amendment offered by Representative Cohen to 
reduce AIF funding by $175 million.
  With President Obama's announcement of the U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic 
Partnership Agreement in May 2012, our nation took another step toward 
the end of combat operations in Afghanistan and the transition of 
military and security operations to the Afghans by 2014--a timeline 
that had not yet been identified in 2011 during consideration of the FY 
2012 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. I, and many of my 
colleagues in Congress, would prefer an accelerated drawdown of U.S. 
combat troops--one that allows for the safe, orderly, and expedited 
withdrawal of our combat forces. During consideration of H.R. 5856, I 
voted in favor of amendments offered by Representative Lee and 
Representative Garamendi that would have helped bring our troops home 
from Afghanistan sooner. Unfortunately, these amendments did not pass. 
As the White House has affirmed in reference to the Partnership 
Agreement, the decisions regarding future troop levels and funding will 
need to be made in consultation with Congress.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate 
in a bipartisan fashion to reach an agreement in the coming weeks that 
advances the important priorities I have identified while also 
fulfilling our commitment under the Budget Control Act, ending the War 
in Afghanistan as quickly and safely as possible, and recognizing the 
urgent need to reinvest in our own economy and our own infrastructure 
right here at home.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 
5856, the FY2013 Department of Defense Appropriations Act.
  Last summer, Congress and the President enacted the bipartisan Budget 
Control Act, BCA, a difficult compromise by both Democrats and 
Republicans. As a result, caps on both discretionary and defense 
spending were significantly tightened for Fiscal Year 2013 
appropriations. Because this bill fails the test of balance and funds 
billions of dollars of unnecessary programs within the Defense 
Department, while disregarding the caps set forth by the BCA, I cannot 
support it in its current form. I hope to support this bill when it 
returns from the Senate.
  I would refer my colleagues to the Budget Control Act and to Section 
302, enforcement of budget goals. It's right there in plain English 
what the defense appropriation number will be. That was the Budget 
Control Act that was

[[Page 11595]]

supported and voted on by the Chairman of the Budget Committee, the 
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the Chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
  In fact, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers, 
said last year when we passed it, and I quote: ``Tough choices will 
have to be made, particularly when it comes to defense and national 
security priorities, but shared sacrifice will bring shared results.'' 
He went on to say, ``The Appropriations Committee has already started 
making tough decisions on spending and will continue under the spending 
limits and guidelines provided in this bill,'' meaning the Budget 
Control Act. That was August 1st of last year.
  The Chairman of the full Committee was right last year but the bill 
that's before us violates that bipartisan agreement. As a result of 
that violation, the Defense Appropriation Bill exceeds significantly 
what was requested by the Defense Department. The reality is the other 
bills that are coming through the Appropriations Committee are taking 
much deeper cuts--cuts to education, cuts to affordable health care, 
cuts to public safety--because of the funding increases in this defense 
bill. In other words, our investment in jobs, and the economy, and our 
kids future is being slashed as a direct result of the fact this 
defense bill exceeds the spending level set in the Budget Control Act 
agreement
  Mr. Chairman, I would refer our colleagues to the statements made by 
Admiral Mullen, who served as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff. Admiral Mullen pointed out that our military strength depends on 
our economic strength and our economic strength depends on our long-
term fiscal health. Admiral Mullen said, ``Our national debt is our 
biggest national security threat.'' He went on to say, ``with the 
increasing defense budget, which is almost double, it hasn't forced us 
to make the hard trades. It hasn't forced us to prioritize. It hasn't 
forced us to do the analysis.'' We can no longer go along with business 
as usual if we are going to get our fiscal house in order.
  That is why this House agreed to the Budget Control Act last summer, 
and it's unfortunate that this bill comes to the floor in violation of 
the agreement, in violation of an understanding that in order to get 
our fiscal house in order, we had to make tough decisions on defense 
and non-defense alike. And by violating the agreement in this regard, 
what the Committee is saying is they are not willing to make really 
tough decisions. In fact, they're making irresponsible decisions with 
respect to the nondefense domestic spending.
  I agree with Admiral Mullen who said we all need to share in this 
responsibility. I agree with what my Republican Colleagues said last 
year when we passed the Budget Control Act. Let's stick to an agreement 
and let the American people know that when this body comes to an 
understanding after a hard fought compromise, we stick with it for the 
public good.
  The Defense Appropriations bill provides $606 billion in defense 
spending in FY13. It includes $518.1 billion in funding for non-war 
related expenses. It also provides an additional $13.7 billion for 
Military Personnel Programs and $63.5 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance Programs. I am also pleased that the bill provides a 
requested pay raise for military personnel and supports critical 
funding for the DoD Peer-Reviewed Prostate Cancer Research Program and 
the DoD Breast Cancer Research Program.
  However, the bill provides billions of dollars in funding that the 
Department of Defense says it neither requested nor needs. For example, 
it continues to fund unnecessary aircraft programs that the Defense 
Department did not allot for in its budget this year, and spends $138 
million to resurrect C-27J contracts that the Air Force decided not to 
renew. Many other wasteful items that are unnecessary to our national 
defense are included at the expense of national funding priorities that 
directly impact our country's future economic growth, including 
investments in education, seniors, and research and infrastructure.
  During this difficult fiscal period we have to be much smarter and 
more efficient about how we shape our defense budget. Throughout this 
debate, I have made clear that we must take a balanced approach to 
cutting the budget including eliminating unnecessary spending. There is 
no doubt that Congress has a responsibility to pass a Defense 
Appropriations bill which reflects a commitment to the millions of 
dedicated men and women and their families who sacrifice to keep our 
country safe. However, as testimony before the Budget Committee and 
House Armed Services Committee has made clear, we can reduce defense 
spending even as we continue to provide for our men and women in 
uniform, for our veterans and for their families, without compromising 
national security.
  Unfortunately, the FY13 Defense Appropriations bill upends the 
balance painstakingly designed by the BCA and appropriates funds 
unnecessarily to some programs at the expense of other high-priority 
programs. The unrequested funding provided in this legislation will 
result in direct cuts to such national priorities as education, health 
care, research and development, and vital job training. I am also 
concerned that this bill deprives deserving employees of the Department 
of Defense of a modest cost-of-living adjustment by not providing for a 
civilian pay raise of .5 percent, as proposed by the Administration.
  Mr. Chair, there is no higher priority than providing for the 
security of our country. However, during these difficult economic 
times, we have to be smarter and more efficient in how we shape our 
defense budget. In the end, the strength of our military depends on the 
strength of our economy. If we don't reduce our long-term deficit and 
get our fiscal house in order, we will weaken our capacity to fund a 
strong military. At the end of the day, this bill falls short of 
accomplishing that objective.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 5856, 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2013. H.R. 
5856 provides $519.2 billion for the base budget of the Defense 
Department in fiscal year 2013 which is $3.1 billion above the 
President's request and $1.1 billion above the fiscal year 2012 level.
  In addition, the Department of Defense (DOD) appropriations bill 
provides $88.5 billion in fiscal year 2013 contingency funding for 
ongoing military operations in Afghanistan, at the President's request 
and $26.6 billion below the fiscal year 2012 level. The contingency 
funding being $26.6 billion below the fiscal year 2012 level reflects 
the continued drawdown of U.S. activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I support this bill for three reasons:
  (1) Provides all service members a pay raise of 1.7 percent, the 
level included in the President's request;
  (2) Provides $33.9 billion, $334 million above the President's 
request, for Defense health care programs for our troops, their 
families, and retirees; and
  (3) Provides $1.6 billion for measures to counter improvised 
explosive devices in Afghanistan.
  I would like to thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks for 
ensuring that there were no reductions in the number of C-17s that are 
in use by our Armed Services in the Fiscal Year 2013 Defense 
Appropriations bill. The C-17 is the Air Force's premier strategic 
transport aircraft and remains the military's most reliable and capable 
airlift aircraft. The C-17 has proven capable of delivering more cargo, 
troops, and non-war humanitarian missions than any other aircraft. The 
C-17 delivered needed relief supplies and search and rescue teams 
immediately in the aftermath of the destruction in Japan. The C-17 also 
delivered over 10,005 tons of disaster relief supplies and carried 
13,812 passengers in response to the earthquake that struck Haiti in 
2010.
  Mr. Chair, in my remaining time let me briefly highlight additional 
key provisions. This legislation provides increased funding of $246 
million for cancer research, $245 million for medical facility and 
equipment upgrades, $125 million for Traumatic Brain Injury and 
psychological health research, and $20 million for suicide prevention 
outreach programs. Also, provides $2.3 billion for family support and 
advocacy programs.
  This bill provides $181 million in additional funds not requested by 
the President to keep open production lines for the M-1 Abrams tank and 
the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. As our nation goes through an Armed 
Forces reduction, protecting critical industries such as U.S. combat 
vehicle is imperative. Maintaining a modest and continuous Abrams 
production line is necessary to persevering superior battlefield 
capabilities. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin 
Dempsey said, ``capability is more important than size.'' I agree. In 
April, I signed onto a letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta 
expressing that sentiment.
  H.R. 5856 maintains our military superiority by continuing the 
research and development of current and future military equipment. This 
bill provides $5.9 billion for procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike 
Fighter. Provides $2.6 billion for procurement of modified F-18 Super 
Hornets, which is $562 million and 11 aircraft more than the 
President's request. Also, provides $1.8 billion to develop the KC-46A, 
the Air Force's next-generation aerial refueling aircraft.
  This bill also provides $250 million above the President's request 
for the Rapid Innovation Fund. This will continue the efforts started 
by the Armed Services Committee in fiscal year 2011 to promote 
innovative research in

[[Page 11596]]

defense technologies among small businesses. H.R. 5856 includes $519 
million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, known as Nunn-
Lugar, to assist in the denuclearization and demilitarization of the 
states of the former Soviet Union.
  Finally, let me note my opposition to a number of provisions in this 
bill. This bill provides no funding for the Medium Extended Air Defense 
Systems (MEADS) program, which is a joint U.S.-German-Italian effort 
planned to replace Hawk and Patriot systems worldwide by 2018. Provides 
$118 million less than the President request for necessary F-22 
warplane modifications. Reduces the Defense Acquisition Workforce 
Development Fund (DAWDF) by $224 million from the fiscal year 2013 
budget.
  Mr. Chair, this bill is based upon a $1.028 trillion discretionary 
spending cap for fiscal year 2013, which is $19 billion below the 
$1.047 trillion discretionary spending cap agreed to in the bipartisan 
Budget Control Act. With my colleagues across the aisle squeezing our 
discretionary spending, they are hampering our ability to support many 
key national security priorities.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support and join me in 
voting for the bill on final passage.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5856, the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2013. Until we 
can rein in defense spending and treat it like all other federal 
programs facing damaging funding cuts, I cannot support yet another 
bloated defense budget. Republicans talk about how entitlements like 
Medicare are driving the debt. But it is clear that defense spending 
has become just as much of an entitlement, complete with a team of 
lobbyists and members of this body that are more interested in 
protecting defense contractors than protecting our country.
  This bill marks the 12th fiscal year the United States has been 
fighting and funding the War in Afghanistan. During this time, we have 
pursued a variety of strategies and plans--none of which have delivered 
peace and stability to Afghanistan or the region. The War has, however, 
contributed to fiscal instability in our own country. Since 2001, we 
have spent $634 billion on the Afghanistan War alone. This 
appropriations bill is going to cost another $608.2 billion that we do 
not have. Yet the cycle continues.
  This year's bill exceeds the Republicans' own funding caps set by the 
Budget Control Act by almost $8 billion. This bill ignores 
administration proposals to delay or terminate several military 
programs while providing funding for weapons programs the DoD said it 
doesn't want or need. Apparently, funding wars and weapons instead of 
better health care, education, and repairing our crumbling 
infrastructure are more important to the Republican Majority. It is 
unconscionable for us to be cutting these vital programs at the same 
time we're increasing the defense budget. That is why I joined with 
Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) to offer an amendment to cut that $8 
billion from the defense appropriations bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and join 
me in voting against this out of control defense spending bill.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment who has 
caused it to be printed in the designated place in the Congressional 
Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5856

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2013, for military functions 
     administered by the Department of Defense and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Army on active 
     duty, (except members of reserve components provided for 
     elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; for members of the 
     Reserve Officers' Training Corps; and for payments pursuant 
     to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
     402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund, $40,730,014,000.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. McCollum

  Ms. McCOLLUM. I have an amendment at the desk printed in the 
Congressional Record.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 22, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $96,950,000)''.
       Page 3, line 9, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $25,550,000)''.
       Page 3, line 20, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $23,710,000)''.
       Page 4, line 8, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $23,900,000)''.
       Page 8, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,100,000)''.
       Page 8, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,360,000)''.
       Page 8, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,230,000)''.
       Page 8, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $3,970,000)''.
       Page 153, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $187,770,000)''.

  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Before I do my prepared remarks, I would very much also 
like to thank both Chairman Rogers and Chairman Young for the 
courtesies and all the help that they and their staffs have given me 
since being on the Appropriations Committee in the positions they are 
in.
  Mr. Dicks, I would especially like to thank you for being a mentor 
and a guide star through this, not only on the Defense Appropriations 
bill, but on the Interior bill and, just in general, working on health 
care. Thank you so very much.
  Over the past 4 years, the Department of Defense has spent a stunning 
$1.55 billion on military bands, musical performances, and concert 
tours around the world. That's right, $1.55 billion in taxpayer funds 
for 4 years for military bands. This amendment reduces the Pentagon 
spending for military bands and musical performances from the $388 
million in this bill to $200 million for fiscal year 2013. The $188 
million reduction is a transfer to the deficit reduction account. In 
the National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 4310, the House included 
language to limit the authorization for military musical units not to 
exceed $200 million. This amendment conforms with the defense 
authorization while cutting spending by $188 million.
  Our Nation is in a fiscal crisis. The Pentagon is on pace to spend $4 
billion over the next decade on military bands. Is the United States 
really going to borrow money from China and other foreign countries so 
the Defense Department can spend billions of dollars for its 140 bands 
and more than 5,000 full-time professional musicians? How does this 
enhance our national security?
  Congress has a duty to provide the necessary resources for our Armed 
Forces and to ensure our national defense. We also have an obligation 
to ensure that every dollar in this bill is strengthening our national 
security. Spending $388 million of taxpayers' money on military music 
does not make our Nation more secure. It is a luxury the Pentagon and 
the taxpayers can just no longer afford.
  Before he retired last year, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates 
said:

       We must come to the realization that not every defense 
     program is necessary, not every defense dollar is sacred and 
     well spent, and that more of everything is simply not 
     sustainable.

  Mr. Chairman, the defense dollars I want to cut from military musical 
units is not necessary; it is not sacred and not well spent with so 
many other pressing needs. In this fiscal environment it is simply not 
sustainable.
  I don't think anyone here today will tell the American people that 
there is no waste or excess in the Pentagon's

[[Page 11597]]

budget. This Congress should not be protecting waste and excess in the 
Pentagon. It should cut it.
  There's a lot of talk, mostly from my Republican colleagues, about 
protecting defense from the sequester and protecting millionaires and 
billionaires from expiring tax cuts. Protecting every single defense 
dollar means shifting the burden and the pain for billions of 
additional budget cuts onto local communities, middle class families, 
seniors, the poor, and vulnerable children.
  Is this Congress going to really kick more kids off the school lunch 
program or make deeper cuts to our first responders in order to justify 
paying for more military music? Well, that will not be my choice. That 
does not reflect my values, and it is not the legacy I want to leave 
behind as a policymaker.
  This amendment cuts a program that has grown out of control. It 
reduces the deficit, and it does nothing to impact military readiness, 
mission strength, or our troops' ability to defend our Nation. I urge 
my colleagues to support the McCollum amendment and cut unnecessary 
funding for military bands.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I'm reluctant to do that because I have the 
privilege of working with Ms. McCollum on other subcommittee and on the 
full committee, and she's always very sincere and very generous in the 
way she treats the issues that she's working with, but I just don't 
think that we want to eliminate military bands.
  First, I must tell you that those who play in the band are trained as 
basic combat troops and they are called upon in a time of emergency. 
They are called upon to provide security for military headquarters, 
wherever it may be located. So I don't think that we want to do away 
with that capability.
  Now, 91 percent of the money that goes to these military bands is to 
pay the members and their allowances--their uniform, their food--and I 
just don't think that we want to do that. Our military bands play for 
the President, play for military functions; but many communities in our 
country are constantly inviting military bands to come play patriotic 
programs in our hometowns, and this is good for our community. This 
lets us be part of our military. This doesn't put our military in a 
barracks someplace and keep them isolated from the general population, 
and I think the military should be part of our general population.
  I just believe that this is not a good idea.
  Ninety-one percent of this money will come out of the military 
personnel account, which pays for very important things like salaries, 
military expenses of feeding and caring for our military personnel. Why 
should we have our military isolated in the community? They should be 
part of our communities. It's an all-volunteer force, and this country 
needs a good shot of patriotism because we've had too much negativism 
coming at us from all different directions.
  This is a positive country. This is a patriotic country. We ought to 
allow our military to show off their talents not only on the 
battlefield where they risk their lives, lose their lives, or are 
terribly injured.
  So I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota will be 
postponed.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 2013 
Defense appropriations bill.
  First, I want to thank my chairman and friend, Chairman Young, and my 
friend, Ranking Member Dicks, for their hard work, and their staffs, 
both the majority and the minority, for an extremely thoughtful and 
balanced bill.
  In crafting this bill, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee held 
countless hearings and ensured that strong congressional oversight was 
alive and well. It's been an honor to serve on the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, and I can attest to the hard work that's 
gone into this bill.
  Our Nation's first priority is the protection of our citizens and our 
national interests around the world. This bill fulfills that duty. The 
FY13 Defense appropriations bill also fulfills a promise to our U.S. 
servicemembers that they will continue to receive the best training, 
equipment, and health care. Likewise, the bill fulfills needed 
requirements to ensure that our commanders have the tools they need to 
accomplish U.S. missions around the world and support America's defense 
industrial base.
  I understand that many Members may have objections to the overall 
funding level of the defense bill, and there's no doubt that every 
aspect of government, including defense, must come under close fiscal 
scrutiny. However, the short-term benefits of decimating defense will 
only leave us in a more economically precarious position in the future. 
This bill properly balances the need to make responsible cuts while 
ensuring that America maintains its military superiority.
  On a personal basis, I want to thank some friends that are leaving 
the committee, Jerry Lewis and Norm Dicks, for their many years of 
service. Not only are they colleagues, but they're good friends, and 
we're going to miss their service here in this institution. So I thank 
you for all your hard work.
  Lastly, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, this year marks the 12th consecutive 
appropriations season that the United States has been funding and 
fighting the war in Afghanistan. Sometimes it's easy to forget that we 
are still deep in war in Afghanistan. The threat of nuclear weapons in 
Iran, drone strikes in Pakistan, and the nightmare of mass murder in 
Syria garner the attention of the news media, but we currently have 
more than 90,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan and about 110,000 
contractors.
  Some of these troops are slated to come home over this summer, but 
many more, approximately 88,000, will remain. And the exact number of 
troops that will remain in Afghanistan as the U.S. and allies 
transition to local security forces through 2013 and 2014 is still 
unclear. Neither the Pentagon nor the administration has publicly laid 
out post-2014 plans, but they are clearly leaving open the possibility 
of a significant military presence. This is the reality we face as we 
open debate on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not convinced that there is any light at the end 
of the tunnel. I am not convinced that this war is coming to an end, 
and I do not believe we should continue sacrificing the dedication and 
blood of our servicemen and -women for a deeply flawed and corrupt 
government that is simply not ``fixable.'' Oh, we can change the names, 
the programs, and the projects, but it's simply more of the same 
problems over and over and over again.
  It is regrettable that this war is not more of a priority in public 
debate, and it is unconscionable that debating this war is not a top 
priority for this Congress. The majority wouldn't even let us have a 
full debate and vote on an amendment during the Defense authorizations 
bill to make sure that the

[[Page 11598]]

commitments made by the administration to draw down our troops over the 
next 2 years are kept.
  Congress is deeply complicit in maintaining and continuing this war. 
We've allocated $634 billion for military operations in Afghanistan 
since 2001, including the $85.6 billion in this bill. We're not just 
spending those billions, Mr. Chairman, we're borrowing them. Every 
single penny for the war in Afghanistan has been borrowed, put on the 
national credit card, exploded our deficit and our debt--every single 
penny.
  Each week of the war in 2012 costs about $2 billion. If the 
Pentagon's ``enduring presence'' means thousands of troops remaining in 
Afghanistan after 2014 for who knows how long, then we are looking at a 
trillion dollar war.
  Meanwhile, we're cutting funds for our schools, preparing to slash 
billions of dollars from the safety net that's supposed to keep our 
people out of poverty. We're watching our roads and our bridges 
crumble, water systems and infrastructure decay, and we're told there's 
no money to invest in health care and scientific research.
  And for what, Mr. Chairman, for what? Show me where our military 
might has put a permanent end to instability, violence, or corruption. 
Even though the media isn't focused on it, the violence in Afghanistan 
goes on.
  The U.S. death toll for Operation Enduring Freedom is over 2,000--
1,919 of those deaths happened in Afghanistan. Members of the Afghan 
military and security forces continue to turn their guns on our troops 
and murder them. According to the Pentagon, 154 Active Duty soldiers 
committed suicide in the first 159 days of this year--that's almost one 
per day. And as for our veterans, the VA estimates that a veteran dies 
by suicide every 80 minutes.
  How long will we ask our troops and their families to pay this price? 
Because they're the only ones paying for this war, Mr. Chairman, the 
only ones.
  I don't believe we should abandon the people of Afghanistan, but I do 
believe we must end this war sooner rather than later. And I'm not 
convinced we're anywhere close to an end.
  And it's the fault of Congress. We approve the money, and we remain 
silent year after year after year. We need to stop. We aren't 
supporting our troops; we're committing them to suffer lifelong trauma 
from too many deployments for too long a time over too many years for a 
war without end, for a war that always needs just a little more time 
and just a few billion dollars more.
  Enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to support amendments over the 
next 3 days to reduce the funding for this war, bring it to an end, and 
honor the sacrifice of our troops by bringing them and our tax dollars 
back home.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I join my friend from Massachusetts and 
anyone else, Republican or Democrat, who says it's time to bring our 
troops home from Afghanistan.
  I want to thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks for an 
excellent bill. I agree with probably 80 percent of it, but I cannot 
continue to support legislation that sends billions and billions and 
billions of dollars to Afghanistan.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a book here in my hand called ``Funding the 
Enemy: How U.S. Taxpayers Bankroll the Taliban.'' And one of the 
critiques I would like to read on the back of this book is from the 
State Department Foreign Service Officer named Peter Van Buren:

       Sober, sad, and important, ``Funding the Enemy'' peels back 
     the layers of American engagement in Afghanistan to reveal 
     its rotten core: that the United States dollars meant for 
     that country's future instead fund the insurgency and support 
     the Taliban. Paying for both sides of the war ensures 
     America's ultimate defeat.

  Mr. Chairman, the reason I'm here today is because I have Camp 
Lejeune Marine Base in my district. I have signed over 10,474 letters 
to families who have lost loved ones since we were lied to in order to 
go into Iraq.
  And while we were continuing to support Karzai, I saw where Vice 
President Cheney was on the Hill yesterday. I have seen my colleagues 
today talking about sequestration. I didn't see Mr. Karzai here. No. 
Why should he be here? He's got his money in this bill. He doesn't have 
to worry about sequestration. All he's got to do is take care of his 
corrupt government in Afghanistan.
  It is time, Mr. Chairman, it is time that the Congress listen to 72 
percent of the American people who say: Bring our troops home now, not 
later. And I join my friend from Massachusetts, my concern about 
cutting programs for children who need milk in the morning and senior 
citizens who need sandwiches in the afternoon. We're going to cut their 
money, but we're going to still continue to support the Taliban who are 
killing American kids in Afghanistan because we have no accountability 
where this $88 billion is going.
  It is time for this Congress to come together and say, Yes, we will 
support our military, but we will not support a corrupt government who 
is not going to survive anyway. The enemy, the Taliban, will take over 
Afghanistan when it's all said and done.
  Please, America, bring pressure on the Congress to bring our troops 
home from Afghanistan. God help our men and women in uniform.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, we'll be spending the next several days 
debating the Department of Defense budget, a whopping $519.2 billion. 
By anyone's accounting, that's a lot of money.
  What we won't be debating is the future of our presence in 
Afghanistan. You'd think a Congress obsessed with the deficit and 
cutbacks would take a look at the costliest item on our books: the war 
in Afghanistan.
  Nope. No debate on that. Instead, a few of us are coming here to the 
well to take a handful of 5-minute slots. This is for a war that has 
cost our Nation in blood and treasure, in ways we may never be able to 
add up.

                              {time}  1500

  What are those costs? As of today, we've spent $548 billion on the 
war. That's $10 billion a month. Actually, it's more than this year's 
DOD budget.
  This year, we face the 2,000th death in Operation Enduring Freedom. 
More than 15,000 of our brave men and women in uniform have returned 
home wounded. Every day we lose one more servicemember to suicide. And 
the Afghan people, how many of them have died and been wounded?
  So the other side of the aisle wants to talk about cost. Well, let's 
do that. What has this misguided war cost us in international standing? 
Is the U.S. more popular in the Middle East and Central Asia? No. Are 
we any safer? Probably not. As a new generation of Afghan children grow 
up in an occupied country, aren't they learning to hate the West? Yes.
  What's the cost here at home? How many cops could we have put on the 
beat? How many homes could have been saved from foreclosure? How many 
farmers could get drought relief? How many small business jobs could 
have been created? How many more patients could we have cared for at 
our veterans hospitals? We'll never know. Because instead of having an 
honest and open debate about our spending priorities, we have to grab 5 
minutes here and 5 minutes there. That's not what the American people 
want. They want transparency. They want more debate. Further than that, 
they want this war to be over. They want our troops to come home.
  So, yes, by all means, let's talk about cost; but let's not squeeze 
it in among $500 billion worth of weapons, planes, and the rest of the 
military industrial complex.
  I urge the House leadership to have a real debate on the war in 
Afghanistan, and let's shine some light on how much it costs.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 11599]]


  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to talk a little bit about the 
appropriations that are going on, in particular, the appropriations for 
the very, very long war in Afghanistan. Nobody knows when it's going to 
end.
  There's always a pretense. There's always a thought that tomorrow's 
going to be a better day. I was in the military in the sixties, and 
there was always this promise that we're just around the turn, and 
we're going to have peace and prosperity and have perfect results. 
Well, so far we have not had any perfect results in Afghanistan--there 
is a lot of unknown--and here we are appropriating even more money to 
continue this war.
  When you talk about war power and the resolution on how we go to war, 
it becomes very complex today. It was originally intended to be very 
simple: you went to war when there was a declaration; and the people, 
through their Congressman, voted up or down on whether you should have 
a war. Today, we slip and slide and we fall into these traps. We go to 
war under the U.N. banner and NATO. We never know why we go to war and 
what the goals are and when the war is over. And they persist.
  But there is one analysis made which bothers me a bit and, that is, 
even if there isn't a declaration of war, if some of the Members come 
along, as we have been for quite a few years, and say, you know, the 
Congress never really declared war, the argument they make is, well, as 
long as you fund a war, you give it credibility, and therefore you 
indirectly support the war.
  Of course, the argument is not so much on how we go to war, but if we 
get into war, the whole thing is you can't vote against any money. 
Well, then you don't care about the troops. Oh, you're un-American. 
Don't do that. That carries the weight of the argument, and people shy 
away and say, no, I don't like the war, we shouldn't have done it, but 
I can't go against the troops.
  Well, I've had a little experience in the last several years 
traveling the country and talking about issues like this and looking 
for support for a position which is quite a bit different than what we 
have followed here recently. Let me tell you, guess what, the troops 
give me strong support. They gave me a lot of support. It was huge. For 
anybody to argue that you don't want to send troops carelessly into no-
win, endless wars, to think you're against the troops, it's nonsense.
  When I was in the military--I was still in in '65, and that's when 
the escalation came in Vietnam--the last thing I was wanting to say is, 
oh, I want somebody in there that wants to expand the war. Why don't we 
go into Cambodia and Laos. No, I didn't want that. Troops don't want to 
go to war. I was in a Guard unit as well as Active Duty. People join 
the Guard and Reserves because they want to defend the country. They 
don't want to take six trips to the Middle East and endlessly see 
what's happening.
  I get stories all the time about their buddies being killed, the loss 
of limbs. Then they say, well, we're fighting for freedom. Think about 
it seriously. How in the world does going over there and fighting in 
either Iraq or Afghanistan have anything to do with our freedom? Oh, 
we're fighting to defend our Constitution. Well, we never had a 
constitutional declaration of war. So that's all a facade. That's all 
to make people feel guilty that if you don't keep the war going--in 
Vietnam, it was we have to win, we have to win. So we lose 60,000 
troops and we didn't win. So what does that mean?
  After McNamara wrote his memoirs and was a bit apologetic about it, 
he was asked: Does this mean you're apologizing for the kind of war 
you're in in Vietnam? He said: No. What good is an apology if you don't 
change policy? That is the thing. If this is not doing well and not 
doing right, just to say either you're sorry, you're continuing it, we 
have to have victory and pretend there is a victory around the corner, 
I think we're fooling ourselves.
  We shouldn't deceive ourselves. We should wake up. If we lived within 
the Constitution and lived within our means, believe me, we would not 
be in Afghanistan.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentlewoman from 
Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
calling for an end to the war in Afghanistan and the removal of U.S. 
troops and security contractors.
  We face real and ongoing challenges from terrorist groups around the 
world; but after 10 years of fighting, it is clear that an ongoing 
military presence in Afghanistan is simply not the answer. The over-
$630 billion we've spent on this war over the past 10 years has not 
brought us security, and we cannot bring stability to Afghanistan 
through an ongoing troop presence.
  I support the President's efforts to begin the withdrawal of U.S. 
troops, and I applaud him for starting that important process. Yet we 
need, in my opinion, to act faster to end the war. We need an 
accelerated timetable for troop withdrawal and a plan to ensure that 
all U.S. forces are redeployed.
  Madam Chairman, over 2,000 Americans have given their lives in 
Afghanistan in service of their country. That includes almost 1,500 
since January 2009 and an estimated 400 since the death of Osama bin 
Laden. Another 12,000 have been wounded. Perhaps most staggering, more 
soldiers have committed suicide than have died in combat in 
Afghanistan. Our troops bear devastating physical and psychological 
wounds of war.
  The war in Afghanistan has placed a devastating strain on our 
military, our troops, and their families. We've asked more and more 
from them, with many soldiers serving multiple dangerous deployments, 
taking them away from their homes and their families for long periods 
of time.

                              {time}  1510

  The suicide rate, again, is a stark reminder that we're not meeting 
our obligations to these men and women.
  Madam Chairman, keeping our troops in Afghanistan comes at great cost 
to us. Not only does it cost some $8 billion a month, but it continues 
to cost American lives. It is time for us to end this war. Instead of 
more boots on the ground, we need to redirect funding toward diplomatic 
and economic engagement with the Afghan people.
  We need to invest in Afghan women, ensuring that they have basic 
human rights protections, as well as educational and economic 
opportunities, because Afghanistan will never be stable and prosperous 
if half of its population is oppressed.
  The bottom line is this: hundreds of billions of dollars, and over 
2,000 American lives, have not brought us security. Keeping our troops 
in Afghanistan will not end the threat of terrorism, nor will it bring 
stability to the Afghan people. We need a new strategy, shifting from 
military force to true engagement.
  Madam Chairman, we are fighting a war that has no military solution. 
In fact, far from making us safer, our ongoing troop presence actually 
fuels the insurgency and breeds anti-American sentiment. Instead of 
pouring another $88 billion into continuing this war for another year, 
I strongly believe we need to end funding for military engagement in 
Afghanistan and finally bring our troops home.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

  Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 2, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,359,624,000)''.
       Page 3, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,197,682,000)''.
       Page 121, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,359,624,000)''.
       Page 122, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,197,682,000)''.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, the amendment is subject to a 
point of order, but I am going to reserve the point of order to allow 
the

[[Page 11600]]

gentleman to have his 5 minutes to explain what it is he wants to do.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman and also the ranking 
member for the opportunity to present this amendment.
  Madam Chair, the amendment is something different for me. It is not 
an amendment to reduce spending, and it's also not an amendment to 
increase spending. In fact, this amendment is outlay neutral.
  Similarly, consistent with what the chairman and the ranking member 
discussed when introducing the bill, this amendment is not a partisan 
amendment. I do not seek to lay blame on either party or on the 
President or on the Congress for the circumstance in which we find 
ourselves.
  This amendment regards simply a policy, a policy that traditionally 
has had bipartisan support in this House, and that policy is that we 
keep separate spending on the base defense budget, and spending on the 
Overseas Contingency Operations, or the war budget.
  It has come to our attention, and both the CBO and the GAO have 
confirmed, that there is $5.6 billion in the Overseas Contingency 
Operation budget, in the war budget, that should be in the base budget. 
We have taken things such as the base salaries for men and women in 
uniform who are not deployed and are charging that spending this year 
to the war budget.
  Madam Chair, since 9/11 we have had a policy in this House of keeping 
those two items separate so that we know the real cost of the war 
against terror. We have taken the base defense spending and accounted 
for it in one fashion, and accounted for the war budget in an entirely 
separate system. This year, for the first time, Madam Chair, we are 
blending those numbers. We take $5.6 billion of what should be in the 
base budget and move it to the OCO budget.
  Madam Chair, the committee itself recognizes that it is not good 
policy. If you look at the bill, you will see that the committee itself 
says let's make sure not to do this next year and the year after that 
and the year after that. And indeed, we have not done it since 9/11. 
But we do it this year, this year only in this particular bill, and I 
think it's important that we continue to abide by the policy that 
accounts correctly for the cost of the war overseas.
  So, Madam Chair, what I say to you is, this amendment is not about 
spending more money. It's not about spending less money. It is about 
accounting accurately for the spending that we do so that we can tell 
folks back home exactly what we spend on the base defense of this 
Nation and what we spend in the wars overseas. And for that reason, 
Madam Chair, I would ask for a ``yea'' vote on this particular 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed 
a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2013 on May 22, 2012, 
House Report 112-489.
  The adoption of this amendment would cause the subcommittee general 
purpose suballocation for budget authority made under section 302(b) to 
be exceeded, and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act, and 
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. MULVANEY. I ask to be heard on the point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Chair, it is true that a new point of order was 
created under the Budget Control Act preventing any legislation from 
being considered in the House that would cause discretionary spending 
to exceed the caps established in the Budget Control Act. Under that 
part of the act, Madam Chair, the entire bill is technically out of 
order because the entire bill exceeds the BCA caps by $7.5 billion.
  Ironically then, if this point of order is sustained, then we will 
effectively keep within the shadows a nonpartisan policy, something 
that everyone has supported in the past, a good governance issue, while 
allowing the entire bill, which also violates the same point of order, 
to proceed.
  My amendment is outlay neutral. It does not increase spending, it 
does not decrease spending. It simply moves spending from the war 
budget to the base budget, and vice versa. If the amendment were agreed 
to, the budget authority in the bill will be exactly the same as it is 
if the amendment fails, $608,213,000,000.
  Accordingly, the amendment does not violate section 302(f)(1) of the 
Congressional Budget Act, and overruling the point of order gives us 
the chance to abide by the precedent established long ago and embraced 
by both parties.
  I respectfully ask that the Chair overrule the point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  Under House Concurrent Resolution 112, as made applicable by House 
Resolutions 614 and 643, the Subcommittee on Defense has both a General 
Purposes allocation and an Overseas Contingency Operations allocation. 
The accounts in the bill on pages 2 and 3 are under the General 
Purposes Allocation. The accounts on pages 121 and 122 are under the 
Overseas Contingency Operations allocation. The amendment transfers 
funds from the latter to the former.
  The Chair is authoritatively guided under section 312 of the Budget 
Act and clause 4 of Rule XXIX by an estimate of the chair of the 
Committee on the Budget that an amendment providing any net increase in 
new discretionary budget authority in either allocation would cause a 
breach of that allocation.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina would 
increase the level of new discretionary budget authority in the bill 
under the General Purposes allocation. As such, the amendment violates 
section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
  Mr. WELCH. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WELCH. Madam Chair, the war in Afghanistan had a legitimate 
purpose when it began. That was the grounds from which Osama Bin Laden 
engineered the attack on the World Trade Center. Congress supported 
going into Afghanistan to take out Osama Bin Laden and to deny a safe 
haven to terrorists. At a certain point, the policy transformed from an 
effort to protect us against a base of operations into a nation-
building mission.

                              {time}  1520

  That was a grave mistake. Adopting nation-building will be seen 
through the lens of history as being about as effective as trench 
warfare in World War I.
  Our military will do whatever is asked of them. Our job is to make 
requests of them that are reasonable for them to do. It is not the job 
of the men and women who serve in the U.S. military to build nation-
states in Afghanistan. That policy failed militarily. That policy is 
unsustainable economically. That policy does not make us more secure. 
Why?
  One, it is not the job of the military to build nation-states. It is 
the job of the military--and it is one they do very well--to protect 
America from attack.
  Two, if you are attempting a nation-building strategy, you need an 
ally that is going to be a partner with you. The Karzai government is 
corrupt. It is infected with corruption. It has exceeded our wildest 
and most pessimistic expectations of what corruption can be. We do not 
have a reliable partner.
  So the question becomes: At what point do we step back when we have 
the responsibility to set a policy that protects this Nation, to set a 
policy that respects our taxpayer, to set a

[[Page 11601]]

policy that acknowledges the willingness of men and women to serve but 
that accepts our burden of giving them a policy that is worthy of their 
unrelenting ability and willingness to sacrifice?
  As we know, the American people believe it is time to come home from 
Afghanistan. They understand it. The President of the United States has 
said that we will bring our troops home by the end of 2014. So the 
policies have been changed. The war in Afghanistan, in fact, is over. 
The question for Congress is: Will we end it?
  We are giving it ever more money for a policy we know doesn't work. 
We know the Karzai government is incapable and unwilling to be an 
honest partner. We know that nation-building is a strategy that cannot 
succeed. We know that the threat of terrorism, as persistent as it is, 
is not a nation-state-centered threat. It is dispersed, and our 
military response to that has likewise become dispersed.
  So why are we pursuing this policy when we have renounced it, 
acknowledged that it has failed?
  The American people don't support it. It's inertia. It is the 
unwillingness of Congress to take a definitive action where our policy 
should match our deeds. We are bringing our troops home. We should have 
as a policy that we bring those troops home as quickly--as quickly--as 
we responsibly can.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I deeply appreciate the difficult job 
that Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks have. This is important 
legislation, difficult balancing. It is a time of strain in terms of 
the budget, and it is a time of strain for the military. But I do think 
that my colleagues who come to the floor and who are questioning 
whether we need to continue the same policy, the same funding, the same 
direction with Afghanistan are right on point. This Congress should be 
spending more time actually engaging in a debate on our policy, our 
practices, our future in Afghanistan.
  We initially went to war to deal with the protection of the United 
States. It was in Afghanistan that Osama bin Laden hatched the plot 
that led to the 9/11 attacks. He was protected by his Taliban enablers, 
and it was entirely appropriate for the Bush administration and this 
Congress to go after him to end that threat and obtain justice.
  Sadly, before the job was done in Afghanistan, before Osama bin Laden 
was actually captured, we veered into a tragically misguided, flawed, 
and expensive mission in Iraq. As were many of the colleagues who are 
joining us today on the floor, I was strongly against it. It was a 
mistake in terms of strategy; it was a horrible price paid by our 
troops; and it was dramatically unsettling. It has limped along to an 
unsatisfactory resolution, but it wasn't until 9 years later that we 
finally finished the job with the death of Osama bin Laden.
  I commend the President for being in charge of that operation. But 
it's done. It's over. We killed Osama bin Laden. It is time for us to 
stop the longest war in American history, whether it is formally 
declared or not, and I strongly identify with many of the comments from 
my friend Ron Paul on the floor here a moment ago.
  It is time for the United States to stop spending more in a month in 
Afghanistan than it would cost to hire every man and woman in 
Afghanistan of working age. That's what we're spending. You could rent 
the country for a year for what we are spending for a month, and the 
resolution is going to be exactly the same. Whether it's 2013, 2014, 
2015, whether it's another 100, another 1,000 American lives, whether 
it's $10 billion or $100 billion, it is time for us to give the 
military a break, to listen to the American public, to reposition and 
deal with the challenges at hand.
  Madam Chair, I am haunted by the notion that we have lost more men 
and women to suicide than we have to hostile action. There are terrible 
consequences for this operation that need go on no longer.
  I suggest it's time to end--to save lives, to save money, to save the 
strain on our military--and for this Congress to get to work on things 
that will make a difference for international peace and security, for 
restarting the American economy and for making our communities safer, 
healthier, and more economically secure. If we do our job in 
Afghanistan, in scaling it down and in getting the troops out as 
quickly as we responsibly can, we will take an important step in that 
direction.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, first of all, let me note that our 
goal after the vicious terrorist attack on the United States on 9/11 
was to eliminate Osama bin Laden and to clear Afghanistan, which had 
been the staging area of the 9/11 attacks, of Osama bin Laden's allies, 
who happened to have been the Taliban.
  My fellow colleagues, Osama bin Laden is dead. The Taliban were 
cleared from Afghanistan years ago. So it is time for us to declare 
victory and to bring our troops home. It is not time for us to declare 
that there is going to be an extension of the deployment of our troops 
and to leave them there to expend their lives for a cause that has 
already been decided. They have done their duty. We have accomplished 
the mission. Let's have a victory parade, not an extension of 
deployment.
  Why are we in this predicament? Why are we even discussing $88 
billion and perhaps hundreds, if not thousands, of more American lives 
being sacrificed halfway around the world, in some canyon somewhere, 
where some young American loses his life or loses his legs? Why are we 
even discussing the expenditure of the billions of dollars that we 
really need so much here at home if, for nothing else, than to help 
bring down this level of deficit spending?

                              {time}  1530

  Why are we in this position now? Why are we not recognizing this? 
First of all, let's just note that we are now in a situation where year 
after year it is taking place after we've actually accomplished our 
goals in Afghanistan, and our troops are still there losing their 
lives. It's almost like a ``Twilight Zone'' episode. It is worse than 
some of the situations that we saw in Vietnam that degenerated year 
after year after year of America's deployment of forces there. We don't 
need to spend this money. We don't need to lose their lives. We just 
need to say we've done our job and come home. Who are we watching out 
for?
  The State Department ended up basically stealing victory out of the 
jaws of defeat. We won this years ago. Years ago the Taliban were 
cleared out of Afghanistan. Now we find the situation getting worse. 
I've been in Afghanistan. I fought with the mujahadeen against the 
Soviets there personally. Over the years, I was deeply involved with 
Afghan policy, and people know that. The longer we stay there, the more 
enemies we're going to make for the United States.
  It's going to be harder for us to get out next year than it is for us 
right now, and we will have made more enemies out of those people when 
they see foreign troops. Who cares if there is someone in a canyon far 
away screaming that he hates America? So what. Our guys are going out 
there right now and investigating situations like that and putting 
their lives on the line because someone was heard to say good things 
about the Taliban in some desolate canyon somewhere. What a waste of 
American lives. What a waste of our resources. On top of it, our State 
Department has created a system of government--we created a system of 
government--for the Afghan people, and we're shoving it down their 
throats now, the most highly centralized and corrupt system of any 
government in this world. Mr. Karzai is creating a kleptocracy in 
Afghanistan. No matter how much we're trying to help, that

[[Page 11602]]

money is disappearing. We're not able to accomplish it, even though the 
money is going out.
  We should recognize that we cannot make history for the Afghan 
people. They will have to make it for themselves. We have cleared 
Afghanistan of the Taliban. We have eliminated Osama bin Laden. The 
Afghan people will now have to shape their own destinies. It is not up 
to us to expend more of the lives of our young people in order to get 
the goal that we want, especially when we know now that our government 
is allied with such a corrupt regime that it will never succeed.
  It is time for us to cut the spending, get the troops home as soon as 
we can, and not waste the lives of more of our people.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, first of all, let me just say 
thank you to my colleagues, Representative Jones and Representative 
McGovern, and to all of the Members today in calling for a real debate 
on the war in Afghanistan, which really should have occurred when it 
was authorized in 2001, which, of course, I could not support then 
knowing it was a blank check. It was an overly broad resolution for war 
without end. I have to thank my colleagues today for their leadership 
in calling for a safe and swift end to this war in Afghanistan. We all 
know the simple truth: there is no military solution in Afghanistan. 
Earlier this summer, we passed the sad milestone of 2,000 American 
lives lost in Afghanistan. Tens of thousands suffer more from wounds 
both visible and invisible.
  As we remember and honor our dead and our wounded and pray for their 
families and their loved ones, we also have the duty and responsibility 
and opportunity to act today to ensure that further losses are avoided 
and that we accelerate the transition to Afghans ruling Afghanistan.
  Later on today, I'm going to introduce an amendment to this Defense 
appropriations bill to limit funding in Afghanistan to the responsible 
and safe withdrawal of troops. We have the power of the purse strings 
in this House. For those who believe enough is enough, we should vote 
for this amendment.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to support the Lee amendment, which 
will save at least $21 billion and, most importantly, the lives of 
countless Americans and Afghans. Quite frankly, as has been said 
earlier, it is time to use these tax dollars to create jobs here at 
home. It is time to rebuild America and also to provide for the 
economic security of our brave troops. They have done a tremendous job. 
They have done everything we have asked them to do. They have carried a 
tremendous load over the past decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
Asking them to stay in Afghanistan 2 more years when there is no 
indication that circumstances on the ground will change is really 
unconscionable.
  Before we send our men and women in uniform into Afghanistan or ask 
them to stay for another 2 years, we have an obligation to answer 
simple questions like: What national security interest does the United 
States currently have in Afghanistan? To what extent does the United 
States presence in Afghanistan destabilize the country by antagonizing 
local Afghans? How critical is the overall effort in Afghanistan 
compared to other priorities in our own country?
  Earlier this year, along with my colleagues Congressman Walter Jones 
and Congresswoman Woolsey and Congressman McGovern, we held a hearing 
on Afghanistan with Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis. This was an ad hoc 
hearing, mind you, because we should have had the authority to hold 
that hearing in the House Armed Services Committee or the House 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, but quite frankly the leadership would 
not let us have a formal hearing. So we had our own.
  We had an ad hoc hearing with Colonel Daniel Davis, a brave, 
outspoken whistleblower, who risked his career to tell the truth about 
what he saw on the ground in Afghanistan. It was a hearing that every 
Member of Congress should have heard before voting to spend tens of 
billions of dollars and risking the lives and limbs of tens of 
thousands of Americans in uniform.
  Those of you who attended the hearing or read the witnesses' 
testimony understand that the current strategy of propping up a corrupt 
regime in Afghanistan will almost certainly fail. Instead of having a 
full debate on the current strategy in Afghanistan, instead of having a 
real debate about what we hope to gain with more years in Afghanistan, 
we are limited to these brief opportunities on the floor to remind 
Congress that the American people overwhelmingly want to bring the war 
in Afghanistan to an end. People are war-weary, and they want this 
over.
  This Congress has the opportunity once again to stand with seven out 
of 10 Americans who want to bring the war in Afghanistan to an end by 
voting ``yes'' on several of the amendments that we're going to be 
considering. My amendment I will introduce later in this debate will 
limit the funding to the responsible and safe and orderly withdrawal of 
United States troops and contractors from Afghanistan.
  Madam Chair, let me thank once again our colleagues, Congressman 
McGovern and Congressman Jones, for gathering us here this afternoon. 
We have very limited opportunities to reflect the majority of the 
American people's sentiment in terms of their weariness of this war. 
It's time to end it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, we have now had combat troops in 
Afghanistan for over 10 years. It has become the longest war in the 
history of our Republic. Over 2,000 brave American men and women have 
perished in this conflict.
  Because of their sacrifice and the hard work, dedication, and 
sacrifices of thousands more brave young men and women, al Qaeda has 
been decimated and Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator of the September 11 
attacks against Americans, has been brought to justice.

                              {time}  1540

  Now, almost 11 years after we first arrived, it is time to bring our 
military involvement in Afghanistan to an end. Afghanistan is its own 
sovereign country, and its citizens need to take responsibility for 
their destiny. As for us, we need to bring our troops home and to start 
reinvesting in America again.
  At the recent NATO summit in Chicago, President Obama and NATO 
leaders announced an end to combat operations in Afghanistan in 2013 
and a transition of lead responsibility for security to the Afghan 
Government by the end of 2014. These are important steps, but the 
President also recently signed an agreement in Kabul that could keep 
American troops in the region until 2024. We need to bring our troops 
home now, not 16 years from now.
  This war is costing American taxpayers $130 billion a year. 
Especially at a time when we are trying to cut the deficit, reduce 
unnecessary spending, and reinvest in our own economic growth, this is 
far too much. The entire GDP of Afghanistan is $30 billion, less than a 
quarter of what we are spending year in and year out.
  The nation and Government of Afghanistan face many tough challenges 
ahead, including working to foster economic development in the 
foundations of civil society, such as literacy, education, agricultural 
development, and the empowerment of women. But these are not challenges 
that are primarily military in nature. As such, it is time to let local 
Afghans do local jobs and build their economy rather than rely on 
government contractors.
  I have visited in Afghanistan twice over the course of this conflict 
and saw firsthand how our renewed attention to the region since 2009 
and the counterinsurgency strategy developed by General Petraeus has 
brought marked improvements in securing areas, in training security and 
police, in establishing

[[Page 11603]]

the rule of law, and in developing local economies.
  Perhaps, most importantly, on a trip last March, I felt a sense of 
optimism in Afghanistan that was not there before, as well as an 
understanding among our military that the Afghans must soon take over 
and govern their own nation.
  The time is now. For over a decade, our troops have accomplished the 
mission that they were given. They have performed heroically. They, 
including thousands of brave servicemembers from Connecticut, have been 
operating in one of the most inhospitable environments one can imagine, 
making sacrifices for their country by serving, as well as losing this 
time with their families.
  It is time to bring our troops home and for the people of Afghanistan 
to forge their own destiny.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, after 11 years, over 2,000 Americans 
killed, 16,000 Americans wounded, nearly $400 billion spent, and more 
than 12,000 Afghan civilians dead since 2007, we have to question the 
U.S. presence in Afghanistan.
  Should we continue America's longest war? At what cost and for how 
long?
  The American people have questioned and continue to question time and 
time again--or should we be there, and the answer has always been a 
resounding no. It's not new news that the American public, Democrat, 
Republican and everyone else has soured on the war. The national 
security rationale has lost its resonance, and the economic and human 
cost in Afghanistan are crippling our ability to recover from our own 
deep recession.
  According to The New York Times/CBS report, more than two-thirds of 
those polled, 69 percent, thought the United States should not be at 
war in Afghanistan. The U.S. war in Afghanistan is costing the U.S. 
taxpayers nearly $2 billion per week, over $100 billion per year. 
Meanwhile, in the wake of the worst economic crisis since the Great 
Depression, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work, 
struggle to pay their bills, and look to us for job creation and 
support.
  Americans who feel the sting of doing more with less are connecting 
the dots between our Federal priorities and spending and the pain 
they're feeling at home. Americans struggling to put their kids through 
college without Pell Grants or running out of employment benefits with 
no new job on the horizon cannot ignore the cost of the war.
  Arizona families in my district have paid nearly $777 million for the 
Afghan war since 2001. For that same amount of money, the State of 
Arizona could have had 336,000 children receiving low-income health 
care for 1 year; 15,000 elementary school teachers employed in our 
schools for 1 year; 93,000 Head Start slots for children for 1 year; 
over 100,000 military veterans receiving VA medical care for 1 year; 
over 10,000 police officers and law enforcement officers securing our 
communities and neighborhoods for 1 year; 113,000 scholarships for 
university students for 1 year; 139,000 students receiving Pell Grants 
of $5,550. These are just some of the bad trade-offs we are making with 
our national resources, our treasure and our blood on a war instead of 
fixing the problems here at home.
  I would like to take a brief second to thank, to honor, and to 
commemorate those warriors from my district, District 7, for your 
ultimate sacrifice to our country: Sergeant First Class Todd Harris, 
Sergeant Martin Lugo, Sergeant Justin Gallegos, Master Sergeant Joseph 
Gonzales, Sergeant Charles Browning, First Lieutenant Alejo Thompson, 
Sergeant First Class Jonathan McCain, Staff Sergeant Donald Stacy, 
Private First Class Adam Hardt.
  Our servicemen and -women have performed with incredible courage and 
commitment in Afghanistan. They have done everything that has been 
asked of them; but the truth is, they have been put in an impossible 
position, a war with no foreseeable end and a war that is costing not 
just them and their families, but our country, the ability to prosper 
and to move forward.
  It's time to say enough is enough. It's time to take the 
responsibility to end this war in Afghanistan, be responsible, but end 
it. The cost to America, the cost to our future is too enormous to 
continue on the path that we're on, a path that has no end.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Madam Chair, the appropriations process and the budget 
is not only a spending plan about future priorities, it's also a 
statement about our values.
  The United States in 2001 went into Afghanistan and took out the 
Taliban government. We have also taken out Osama bin Laden.
  The United States is proposing to spend $88.5 billion again this year 
in Afghanistan. We're going into our 11th year of U.S. involvement in 
Afghanistan. Eleven years ago, Afghanistan was among the poorest and 
most corrupt countries on the face of the Earth. Today, it is still 
among the most corrupt and poorest countries on the face of the Earth.
  We've lost 2,000 American soldiers, 16,000 wounded. Last week the 
U.S. Government decided to spend $105 billion rebuilding the 
infrastructure of this country, less than $53 billion in each of the 
next 2 years for a Nation of over 300 million.
  You've just spent $78 billion rebuilding the roads and bridges of 
Afghanistan, a nation of 30 million people. It's time that we do 
nation-building right here at home.
  Of the 34 provinces in Afghanistan, the spiritual and financial home 
of the Taliban are Kandahar and Helmand provinces, because that is 
disproportionately where the poppy fields are that finance the Taliban. 
The literacy rate for women in Kandahar province is 1 percent. The 
literacy rate for men is about 15 percent.
  How do you build up an Afghan police force and Afghan national army 
with people who are illiterate? We have to build schools and we have to 
build roads to get them to those schools and electricity to power those 
schools.
  That, Madam Chairman, is nation-building in Afghanistan.

                              {time}  1550

  We need to do nation-building right here at home. This $88.5 billion 
should be directed immediately to rebuild the roads and bridges of this 
Nation, in America.
  According to Transportation for America, we have 69,000 structurally 
deficient bridges. In New York State alone, we have over 2,000 
structurally deficient bridges. In my home community of western New 
York, we have 99 structurally deficient bridges, and no plan to address 
that. Every second of every day, seven cars drive on a bridge that is 
structurally deficient.
  We need to get our priorities in order. We need to reaffirm our 
values. We need to have a vision for rebuilding America. And the best 
way to do that is start with this appropriation and reprogramming it 
right back here at home for nation-building here in America.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I support the military 100 percent and I think 
we ought to give them all the equipment and spend the funds that are 
necessary to make sure they're prepared to fight a war anyplace. And I 
think we need to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda and make sure that the 
threats to America are eliminated, at least as much as is humanly 
possibly.
  The reason I took 5 minutes to speak today is not because I don't 
support the military or the appropriation for the military, but because 
I was shaving the other day before I came into work and I heard the 
newsman talking about a young family and a young man that was in the 
military. I came out while I

[[Page 11604]]

was shaving and I looked at the television. It was a beautiful family--
young man and a woman and their child. And they announced that he had 
just been hit with an IED and lost both arms and both legs, and I was 
thinking what a tragedy for this young man and for his family and the 
horrible things they're going to have to endure throughout the rest of 
their lives.
  And then I started thinking about all the technology we have. We have 
satellites that can pinpoint a pack of cigarettes on the ground, and we 
have drones that can fly over enemy territory and pick out a target and 
hit somebody with a Hellfire missile and blow them to smithereens. And 
somebody from a thousand miles away sitting at a computer with a 
television screen can direct that drone and that Hellfire missile. And 
I started wondering to myself: Why in the world don't we use more of 
those instead of sending young American men and women into harm's way 
day in and day out like we do? We have the technology to knock out 
anybody anyplace in the world that we want to.
  So I would just like to ask this question of my colleagues: We have 
to have special forces. We have to go into certain spots and knock out 
bad guys. We've got to do that. But when we don't have to, when we know 
that the enemy is in a certain area, instead of sending our young men 
and women in there, why don't we send a drone over to a site that we've 
discovered from a satellite and blow the hell out of those people? 
Don't send our young men and women into that kind of a situation where 
they're going to lose their arms and their legs when we've spent all 
the money on this technology to stop the enemy. And that's my biggest 
concern. Why in the world don't we use that technology instead of young 
men and women going into harm's way when it's not necessary?
  I understand war is important. I know we have to defeat the Taliban 
and those who would take away our freedoms. It's extremely important. 
And we should support the military every way we can, give them all the 
tools that are necessary. But let's use the tools that we have to stop 
the enemy as much as possible without putting young men and women in 
that situation. I don't want to turn on the television next week or 
next month and see more young men and women who have suffered this way. 
I've been out to Bethesda and Walter Reed and I've seen the damage that 
war does. And so if we're going to go to war--and we have to go to war, 
only when we have to. But if we do, let's use the technology we have 
and defeat the enemy and minimize the loss of life that our young men 
and women are experiencing.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I regret what I am about to say could have 
been and was said a year ago. Not much has changed, but more lives have 
been destroyed and more billions of dollars have been wasted, all to no 
intelligent purpose.
  The whole premise of the Afghanistan war is wrong. The rationale for 
the war is to fight al Qaeda, but most of the day-to-day fighting is 
against an entrenched Taliban insurgency that will outlast any foreign 
fighters. Fighting in Afghanistan does not enhance the security of the 
United States in any way.
  In 2001, we were attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had bases in 
Afghanistan, and at that time it made sense to go in and destroy those 
bases--and we did. But that took about 3 weeks. We should have 
withdrawn after those 3 weeks.
  The CIA told us a couple of years ago that there are fewer than 100 
al Qaeda personnel in all of Afghanistan. So why do we still have 
70,000 troops there, troops who will continue to risk their lives every 
day in a war that has already claimed far too many lives? And why 
should we continue pouring billions of dollars into an intractable mess 
when we should be devoting those funds to our own economy, our own 
jobs, our own schools, our own bridges and roads and highways, our own 
housing, social programs, and education?
  Afghanistan is in the middle of what is, so far, a 35-year civil war. 
We do not have either the need or the ability to determine the winner 
in that war, which is what we're trying to do. If we continue on this 
course, in 2 years there will be hundreds more dead American soldiers, 
several hundred billion more dollars wasted, and two or three more 
provinces labeled ``pacified.'' But as soon as we leave, now or in 2014 
or 2016 or 2024 or whenever, those provinces will become 
``unpacified,'' the Taliban and the warlords will step up the fighting 
again, and the Afghan civil war will continue its normal, natural 
course.
  Our troops are fighting valiantly, but we are there on the wrong 
mission. We should recognize that rebuilding Afghanistan in our own 
image, that setting up a stable government that will last is both 
beyond our ability and beyond our mandate to prevent terrorists from 
attacking the United States.
  We fulfilled the mission in protecting America from terrorists based 
in Afghanistan over 10 years ago. We should have withdrawn our troops 
10 years ago. We should withdraw them now. We shouldn't wait until 
2014. We shouldn't have several thousands advisers or troops helping 
the Afghanis for another 10 years. They have their own civil war they 
have been fighting for 35 years.
  I wish we could have waved a magic wand and ended it, but we can't. 
We should not participate in an Afghan civil war. We do not need to 
pick the winner in that civil war. We do not have the ability to pick 
that winner in that civil war. All we are doing is wasting lives, 
wasting limbs, wasting people, and wasting dollars. We ought to end our 
involvement in Afghanistan as rapidly as we can physically remove our 
troops.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Navy on active 
     duty (except members of the Reserve provided for elsewhere), 
     midshipmen, and aviation cadets; for members of the Reserve 
     Officers' Training Corps; and for payments pursuant to 
     section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 
     note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement 
     Fund, $27,075,933,000.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Marine Corps on 
     active duty (except members of the Reserve provided for 
     elsewhere); and for payments pursuant to section 156 of 
     Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to 
     the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $12,560,999,000.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Air Force on 
     active duty (except members of reserve components provided 
     for elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; for members of 
     the Reserve Officers' Training Corps; and for payments 
     pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund, $28,124,109,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army 
     Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10302, and 3038 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active 
     duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent 
     duty or other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 
     of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the 
     Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $4,456,823,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for

[[Page 11605]]

     personnel of the Navy Reserve on active duty under section 
     10211 of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on 
     active duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States 
     Code, in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent 
     duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, 
     United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund, $1,871,688,000.

                    Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Marine 
     Corps Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or while serving on active duty under 
     section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and 
     for members of the Marine Corps platoon leaders class, and 
     expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United 
     States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund, $651,861,000.

                      Reserve Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air Force 
     Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10305, and 8038 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active 
     duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent 
     duty or other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 
     of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the 
     Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $1,743,875,000.

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army 
     National Guard while on duty under section 10211, 10302, or 
     12402 of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States 
     Code, or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of 
     title 10 or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or 
     other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 
     10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund, $8,089,477,000.

                  National Guard Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air 
     National Guard on duty under section 10211, 10305, or 12402 
     of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States Code, 
     or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of title 10 
     or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or 
     other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 
     10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund, $3,158,015,000.

                                TITLE II

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Army, as authorized by law; 
     and not to exceed $12,478,000 can be used for emergencies and 
     extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Secretary of the Army, and payments may be 
     made on his certificate of necessity for confidential 
     military purposes, $36,422,738,000.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kingston

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

       Page 8, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $4,100,000)''.
       Page 8, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $4,200,000)''.
       Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,300,000)''.
       Page 8, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,900,000)''.
       Page 10, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 11, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $700,000)''.
       Page 12, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $53,900,000)''.
       Page 13, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,200,000)''.
       Page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $72,300,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I offer this amendment with Ms. McCollum 
from Minnesota today. In fact, it was her amendment from last year that 
got me involved in this. Basically, what this does is stops the Defense 
Department from using major sports sponsorships, such as NASCAR motor 
sports and bass fishing, for a recruitment tool, which is no longer 
necessary.

                              {time}  1600

  There are a number of reasons for this:
  Number one, it's not effective. On May 18, 2012, Major Brian Creech 
said in the USA Today that the National Guard's spending $26.5 million 
dollars to sponsor NASCAR got 24,800 inquiries. Of those, they got 20 
potential recruits. Of those, what did they get for the $26 million? 
Not one single recruit. I want to say again, $26 million, 24,000 
inquiries, zero--zero--recruits. It's not effective.
  Now, the National Guard support group has been going around with this 
document saying, Oh, yes, but look at all the images that we get. Well, 
again, out of this, according to their own document, they got 40 
recruits. So for the money, if you do the math, that's $72,000 per 
recruit.
  And why is that? Well, perhaps because the demographic of NASCAR is 
that 69 percent of the people are over 35. So when they go and they're 
pushing their brand or advertising at NASCAR, nearly 70 percent of the 
people aren't eligible. That's not their target group.
  The RAND Corporation, in its 2007 study of recruitment, said that if 
you want to increase recruitment, then you have to increase the number 
of recruiters, period. That was the number one thing. That's why on 
July 10, the Army dropped out of it, and they said:

       Although it is a beneficial endeavor for us, it's also 
     rather expensive, and we decided we could repurpose that 
     investment into other programs.

  So when Ms. McCollum actually originally offered this, it was an $80 
million reduction into the savings account, but since the Army dropped 
it, now we're offering $72 million.
  Secondly, very, very important for us to remember is that the 
military is reducing its size now, not because of sequestration, before 
sequestration. They're dropping the number of troops in the Army and 
the Marines by 103,000, alone. The Defense Department's recruiter has 
said that the recruitment is high right now because of the economy.
  Now, number 3, this program has no accountability. In February, our 
office, as a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, we 
asked the Pentagon: What are your hard numbers? If you're spending $72 
million sponsoring major sports programs, what are you getting out of 
it? And they couldn't come up with it. Now, that disturbs me as a 
fiscal conservative, because I want to believe that if the Pentagon is 
spending that much money on something, they're able to defend it.
  The Miller Beer Company actually put it this way. They said it this 
way. They said, on exposure:

       I don't care how much exposure we get, what that is 
     supposed to be worth, or what our awareness is versus the 
     competition. I need to be able to tell our CEO and our 
     shareholders how many additional cases of beer that I sold.

  In short, the Army can't tell us how many recruiters they really do 
get from this.
  And, number four, we've got sequestration facing us, on top of a $487 
billion defense cut over the next 10 years, plus a troop reduction of 
over 100,000 already. We may have additional cuts. And Secretary 
Panetta has said that we need to work together to find better ways to 
spend the money and stretch our dollars.
  I'm as pro military as they get. I'm proud to say I believe the First 
District of Georgia has as much military as any district in the 
country. I have four major military installations and two guard 
facilities. We have every branch of the military, and we have a bombing 
range in there. The only thing that has a bigger population than my 
military are my NASCAR fans. And yet they're saying to me, We're pro 
NASCAR, but

[[Page 11606]]

we realize the situation in America today is that for every dollar we 
spend, 40 cents is borrowed. We can spend this money a lot better than 
we are today.
  Again, look what we're spending per recruit. According to the 
National Guard document which they provided our office--at least they 
did provide us with a document which we did not get from the Pentagon--
it is still costing us over $700,000 per recruit, from their own 
documentation.
  We can do better than this, and that's why Ms. McCollum and I have 
worked together and reached across the aisle to say we can spend this 
money elsewhere more effectively.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I certainly appreciate my colleagues, Ms. 
McCollum and Mr. Kingston, and what they're trying to achieve, and I 
certainly support paring down the budget where it is appropriate and 
where it actually saves money.
  My colleague references some numbers that come from the Army. The 
Army is getting out of this type of sponsorship. The numbers that I 
want to give you are from the National Guard that intends to stay in 
this form of advertising for recruiting purposes and also for building 
goodwill among the American people.
  This sponsorship program that the National Guard has, in one form, 
one very specific form of sponsorship that they have, as well as a 
number of others, but this one form of sponsorship for NASCAR, the 
National Guard saw a nearly 300 percent return on their investment. 
Now, that comes from $68 million in media exposure. It comes from 5.5 
million pieces of merchandise and apparel that has ``National Guard'' 
on it, which has a value of roughly $70 million. This is a huge return 
for the buck. This is why Fortune 500 companies actually advertise 
through NASCAR--not because it feels good, but because it delivers 
results.
  And the fact is that no matter the size of the military, you're going 
to still need recruits. And the fact remains, if we look at the example 
of 2005 where the Army didn't meet their recruiting goals, what we had 
to do is increase the budget for retention. So the fact of cutting one 
area of recruiting means that in a couple of years we'll have to 
actually pay more for retention in order to keep the same folks in the 
National Guard that we currently need.
  Furthermore, back to this one particular form of advertising, I think 
it's highly inappropriate for this Congress to get into the business of 
specifying how best the National Guard, or whatever branch, should 
spend their dollars on recruiting.
  The Appropriations Committee has done a yeoman's task of making sure 
that we scrub the Department of Defense budget from top to bottom. I 
think this is a very strong and good appropriations bill. It does have 
bipartisan support. But let's face it, when we start micromanaging 
advertising programs to try to recruit National Guard members, we've 
sort of slipped into the absurd.
  The National Guard, from the experience that they've had in NASCAR 
advertising in particular, they generated 54,000 leads. I wish my 
colleague had referenced that other than these other numbers that you 
referenced before, which I think are a good reason why the Army is not 
continuing with that program. They didn't design it appropriately, 
apparently. But the National Guard has got a huge bang for the buck and 
has actually gotten recruits because of this form of advertising.
  I would encourage my colleagues, if they voted ``no'' on the McCollum 
amendments last year--there were two different amendments that deal 
with this very same issue. If they voted ``no'' on those two 
amendments, they need to vote ``no'' again.
  Madam Chairman, I would say this again. If you voted ``no'' on those 
two amendments that are structurally the same, vote ``no'' again. I 
would encourage my colleagues to do that, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Well, we just heard from the last speaker that part of 
what all this money is being spent on is branding and goodwill and that 
the Congress, and we today, should not be making any changes and 
micromanaging what the National Guard is doing.

                              {time}  1610

  I would call to our colleagues' attention legislation, Public Law 
106-398, in the 106th Congress. The Legislative Information System, 
which is available to all of us, directs us as to what really took 
place in the 106th Congress.
  We directed the Secretary of the Army, during a period beginning on 
October 1, 2000, and ending December 1, 2005, to carry out a pilot 
program to test various recruiting approaches. One of them was to be an 
outreach that the Army was going to do with motor sports. It doesn't 
work, and that's why the Army has dropped it.
  The National Guard, through what Mr. Kingston had, didn't come to us 
directly. We were provided some sponsorship information through NASCAR 
of all the contacts and all the hits. Everybody who walked through the 
gate was counted as being part of branding. Folks, this was not 
supposed to be about branding; it was supposed to be about recruiting. 
That's why the Army spokesman on CNN said, when they announced that 
they were ending their 10-year, multidollar, taxpayer-funded 
relationship with NASCAR, ``It was not a great investment.
  The Navy pulled out. The Marine Corps pulled out of NASCAR years ago. 
But yet the Pentagon has paid one racing team--Mr. Earnhardt's team--
$136 million in taxpayer funds for the National Guard logo on his car 
in the name of recruitment. This year, they're paying Mr. Earnhardt 
again $26.5 million, to which the National Guard has reported--this is 
what the Guard told me--20 qualified candidates expressing interest, 
zero actual recruits.
  For the past 2 years, the National Guard has spent more than $20 
million in taxpayer funds on professional bass fishing tournaments. 
Folks, we're in a fiscal crisis here. Bass fishing is not a national 
security priority. This Congress is cutting services to communities and 
needy families because we're in a fiscal crisis, yet the Pentagon is 
spending in excess of $80 million on NASCAR racing sponsorships, 
professional bass fishing, ultimate cage fighting, and other sports 
sponsorships. The program is a waste of taxpayer money; it doesn't 
work.
  Over the past few days, the professional sports lobby has come out in 
full force to protect their taxpayer-funded subsidy. For the purposes 
of the 2013 Defense appropriation bill, those pro teams are military 
contractors who have failed to deliver on their contract in the past 
for the taxpayers for recruits.
  I want to thank Representative Kingston for his leadership on this 
and joining me to cut a Pentagon program that's just not effective.
  This committee, in which we're having this bill discussed right now, 
has been bipartisan in the way the bill has been put together and 
bipartisan in the way this amendment has been offered. If the private 
sector wants to pool their money to sponsor military race car teams to 
demonstrate their patriotism, I say fantastic and go for it. But it is 
my job to be a steward of taxpayer funds.
  I want to be clear about something else this amendment does not do. 
This amendment in no way, shape, or form prohibits or limits military 
recruiters from recruiting at NASCAR races or any other sports event. I 
just want the military recruiters to attend those races and community 
events where there are potential recruits.
  We need, as Mr. Kingston pointed out, more recruiters doing their job 
in the right way. They have ideas, folks, on how they can do this 
better. We need to listen to the recruiters.
  So, I think it will be just irresponsible and outrageous that 
Congress

[[Page 11607]]

would go ahead and continue to borrow money from China to pay one race 
car driver's team $26 million for delivering zero recruits. Our Nation 
is facing a fiscal crisis. Communities and families and seniors and 
vulnerable children are bearing the brunt of deep and painful budget 
cuts. Congress needs to get its priorities in order and stop protecting 
military spending that doesn't work.
  I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Kingston's amendment. It's an 
honor to be a partner to it. We need to cut the wasteful spending in 
programs and reduce this deficit.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

     Hon. Betty McCollum.

            CRS Response: DoD Spending on NASCAR Sponsorship

       In response to your request for U.S. Department of Defense 
     spending on NASCAR sponsorships, we are providing the 
     following information.

     Budget:

       Each of the Military Services use a variety of marketing 
     and advertising strategies to meet their annual recruiting 
     targets. For example, the U.S. Army has sponsored NHRA and 
     NASCAR vehicles and events, as well as the Golden Knights 
     Parachute Team and other activities. The different 
     advertising strategies and approaches are designed for 
     maximum impact upon the target population and derived from 
     annual youth surveys.
       U.S. Military recruiting advertising for each of the 
     branches is budgeted under ``Operations and Maintenance.'' At 
     this level, we only have visibility of the Service's overall 
     budget for advertising, not the specific sub programs.

     Authority:

       Each of the U.S. Military branches receive authority to 
     conduct ``marketing/advertising'' under the auspices of 
     recruiting requirements. Please see the attached document 10 
     USCS Sec. 3013 for the Department of the Army.
       An article published on the U.S. Army web site states ``The 
     U.S. Army Motorsports Program began in September 2000 when 
     Congress directed the secretary of the Army to conduct a 
     five-year motorsports outreach test. In 2003, building upon 
     the success of the NHRA program, NASCAR was added.'' For the 
     full article, please: http://www.army.mil/article/30553/armv-
to-continue-nhra-nascar-sponsorships/

 Legislation Public Law No: 106-398 [106th]

       The Legislative Information System (LIS) summary states the 
     following: ``Subtitle F: Matters Relating to Recruiting--
     Directs the Secretary of the Army, during the period 
     beginning on October 1, 2000, and ending on December 31, 
     2005, to carry out pilot programs to test various recruiting 
     approaches. Requires one program to be a program: (1) of 
     public outreach that associates the Army with motor sports 
     competition; (2) under which Army recruiters are assigned at 
     postsecondary vocational institutions and community colleges 
     to recruit such students and graduates; and (3) that expands 
     the scope of the Army's current recruiting initiatives. 
     Authorizes such Secretary to expand or extend a pilot program 
     after notification of the defense committees. Requires a 
     report on the above programs.''
       For more information see House Report 106-945, Subtitle F--
     Matters Relating to Recruiting. This report is available at: 
     http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-106hrpt945/pdf/CRPT-
106hrpt945.pdf
       We hope that you find this information helpful.

     Nese F. DeBruyne,
       Information Research Specialist; Foreign Affairs, Defense 
     and Trade Section; Knowledge Services Group; Congressional 
     Research Service.

  Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Like my colleague, Mr. McHenry, I also am rising because 
I do oppose this amendment, saying that the Department of Defense has 
to limit what they do and decide how they can recruit. And mainly, it's 
micromanaging.
  The biggest issue here is this approach is not going to save a dime 
in the long run because when recruitment goals aren't met--and that is 
a challenge--the military pays out nearly $1 billion a year in extra 
recruitment bonuses to maintain needed recruitment numbers. We're 
talking, of course, about the National Guard, who did have a 4-1 return 
on investment in motor sports.
  But we've got to be aware that we've got to recruit men and women 
where they are. We need the best men and women that we can in our 
military service. Of course, we owe all of those who are currently 
serving a great debt of gratitude, but I don't believe that we need to 
tell them how to best do their recruiting.
  I'm also a conservative, and I believe strongly in rooting out 
government waste, but that's not what this amendment does because in 
the long run we end up spending more money on recruitment.
  As my colleague said before, the House has twice voted down this 
amendment--it's the same vote--and I urge them to do so again.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Just this past weekend, I had the great honor and privilege to send 
over 150 young men and women off to Fort Bliss to prepare for their 
final training to go overseas. This is the 857th Engineering Company. 
Their mission is horizontal construction, which is pretty much they're 
going to be clearing roads. As we know, that's one of the most 
dangerous missions in Afghanistan.
  Now, I was too busy shaking hands and talking to families and others 
to notice what I would probably have seen in the parking lot, and that 
would have been a lot of bumper stickers. On those bumper stickers, 
there wouldn't be faces or political advertisements--of course, I wish 
there would be some--but it was more numbers: number 3, number 11, 
number 24, number 14. Most likely, there would have been a few number 
88s out there, which is the car Dale Earnhardt drives for NASCAR. So 
with that, right now there is absolutely no reason this Congress should 
be telling the Department of Defense how and where to spend money on 
recruitment.
  Sport sponsorships have continually been a major source of 
recruitment and provided a great deal of return on investment. The only 
other option is to spend more on recruitment and retention bonuses. As 
my colleague just mentioned, when they fall below a certain number, 
they spend billions of dollars, and we're not talking about billions of 
dollars. So this actually saves taxpayers' money so we can continue to 
find the young men and women to serve in our Nation's military.
  As it currently stands, the National Guard cannot advertise on 
television, which significantly limits their opportunities to reach the 
audience that they want to reach. This is an effective program that 
remains a key tool for our National Guard and other branches of our 
military services.
  This bill is already taking serious cuts from advertising and 
marketing budgets for the Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and National 
Guard accounts. They have all been cut significantly already before 
this amendment. There is no reason why we should continue to tie their 
hands by cutting more funds from the budget.
  These sponsorships provide the ability to market and create branding 
opportunities and familiarity with the service branches in areas where 
market research shows that the target audience spends its time. For 
example, data shows that NASCAR fans are very large, up to 70 million--
I think that's a low number--very patriotic, very pro-military fan 
base, and are extremely loyal to sponsors of teams and drivers. This is 
exactly who we want joining our U.S. military.
  Madam Chair, we are currently dealing with very serious cut to our 
military because of sequestration. This is not the time or the place to 
be cutting the tools that our military is using to recruit the very 
best, patriotic young people who want to serve our Nation in the 
military.
  The military is maximizing their resources to fulfill their mission 
at home and abroad. If this wasn't successful, they wouldn't be doing 
it. I ask that my colleagues oppose the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.

[[Page 11608]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I'd like to voice my opposition 
to the amendment sponsored by Mr. Kingston and Ms. McCollum, aimed at 
banning pro-sports sponsorship by the Department of Defense.
  Truly, we are in an era where the people's government should take 
proactive efforts to trim excesses from the budget wherever possible. 
This measure, Madam Chair, does not attack an excess of government. If 
accepted, the U.S. Government would be cutting out a proven successful 
investment in our Nation's military personnel.
  The Army, the National Guard, and the National Guard Association 
strongly oppose this amendment. Last year, over 280 Members, in a 
bipartisan vote, opposed this amendment.

                              {time}  1620

  Appropriations Committee Chairman Rogers and Defense Subcommittee 
Chairman Young have both been opposed to this measure in committee 
votes and floor votes. Chairman Young has repeatedly said in 2012 that 
he opposes it.
  Our military deserves access to the most qualified potential recruits 
available. A vote in favor of this amendment would handicap our 
military's recruiting efforts.
  Starting in 1999, marketing the military through sports opened the 
door for the DOD's efforts to brand and to showcase their services to a 
specific target audience. The National Guard cannot advertise on 
broadcast television, so professional sports sponsorships become an 
efficient, effective means of reaching target markets for recruiting 
and retention of citizen soldiers and airmen.
  Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are athletes. It only makes 
sense to advertise and market to professional sports venues. Athletes 
share common values with the military such as honor, integrity, 
individual responsibility, teamwork, and self-sacrifice.
  Additionally, athletes are a key demographic in the men and women we 
want to serve. With the DOD's strict requirements for a recruit to 
qualify, only one in every four young people is even eligible to join. 
The DOD's success rate in recruiting stems from their direct access to 
potential recruits and influencers of men and women, like-minded about 
their interest in joining the military, often found at sporting events.
  Pro sports sponsorships increase the DOD's visibility, generate 
recruitment opportunities at events, and provide a national platform to 
promote each branch's image.
  In addition to recruitment and a recognizable national profile, 
military sponsorships in motorsports spotlight a good return on 
investment, dollar for dollar. In 2011 alone, the Army National Guard 
spent $44 million on motorsports sponsorships. But based on market 
value, the total media exposure the Guard received totaled over $150 
million, a 336 percent return on investment.
  If less is spent on advertising, history proves that DOD will have to 
increase dollars for bonuses to retain current military personnel and 
increase dollars for recruiting bonuses.
  DOD motorsports partnerships have resulted in key transfers of 
technology. For example, the first Humvee sent to Iraq had canvas 
doors. Additional armor added created challenges to the Humvee's 
suspension systems. The marines turned to NASCAR engineers to help 
solve the problem.
  An additional project developed by the marines is the mine roller. 
Pushed in front of trucks, the roller can detonate explosive devices, 
while protecting the marines in the vehicle. One of the first rollers 
in Iraq took a blast and saved the three marines inside. The mine 
roller uses new suspension technology developed by the Joe Gibbs NASCAR 
racing team. Base commanders say that cooperation between base workers 
and businesses across the country is saving troops' lives.
  Beyond the direct investment, DOD pro sponsorships positively 
influence communities surrounding our Nation's personnel. For example, 
the National Guard works together with their partners in Panther racing 
and IndyCar to address unemployment affecting servicemembers and their 
families by sponsoring hiring fairs, outreach efforts, and employer 
education.
  This amendment would likely limit the military from participating in 
the Olympics, flyovers over games, sponsoring marathons such as the 
Marine Corps Marathon, as well as the Blue Angels, the Thunderbirds, 
and the Golden Knights.
  Cutting all funding towards DOD pro sports sponsorships hinders 
military recruitment of qualified candidates, impairs employment 
resources for our Nation's military families, and severely damages a 
positive financial investment for our military.
  To directly quote the DOD:

       To ensure the Nation fields a military fully capable of 
     performing any assigned mission, we must recruit highly 
     qualified men and women from across America. This amendment 
     will directly impact the recruiting quality and overall 
     mission requirements, increasing costs, and forcing 
     reductions in the standards for accessions.

  A vote for this amendment is a vote against the effectiveness of our 
military. Please join me in opposing this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KISSELL. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. KISSELL. I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I'm not 
going to repeat what my colleague from Georgia just said. He covered 
the facts well.
  I think it's important here that we recognize that relationships 
matter; and the relationship that we have seen with the military and 
especially NASCAR seems to be getting the brunt of the attention here, 
a long-time relationship, an important relationship.
  NASCAR grew up in North Carolina. Its home is in my district in 
central North Carolina. While NASCAR has spread out throughout the 
Nation, which we're excited about, still the roots are here at home and 
in kind of rural America.
  I don't think it's any coincidence that when we look at our military 
forces, about 41 percent of our military is from what we describe as 
rural America, which is only 17 percent of our population. And that 
relationship between the military and rural America is very important. 
The relationship between NASCAR and rural America--and all America--is 
very important. We don't need to interfere with that relationship.
  I don't think it's any surprise that the most popular driver in 
NASCAR drives the National Guard car, No. 88, Dale Earnhardt, Jr. This 
brings kind of the relationship and the viewing that cannot be done in 
many other ways, and so we don't need to strike that relationship. We 
need to build upon that.
  And when you start looking at the ramifications, as my colleague 
talked about earlier, other ways that this money can be used to help 
build this relationship, we look at NASCAR, the Special Forces working 
with NASCAR to develop equipment for our military.
  I'm cochair of Invisible Wounds, the idea of how we can absorb the 
energy to help our soldiers that are in combat situations. NASCAR works 
on this.
  The tickets that are given to our military families, to the military 
themselves, this is all part of that relationship. It works. We need 
for it to work.
  I oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to also oppose it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POSEY. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POSEY. We were at home watching NASCAR on television a couple of 
years ago, and my wife said, What are the armed services doing 
sponsoring NASCAR cars? Don't they have a better use to spend their 
money than to spend those big bucks on NASCAR?
  And I said, Well, Katie, I can understand why you would think that. 
But, you know, we have a volunteer military, and they have to advertise 
for recruits somewhere. Where would you think the money would be better 
spent?

[[Page 11609]]

  Do you think they should advertise at the philharmonic? Or maybe you 
think they should advertise at the ballet. We could surely get some 
burly, mean paratroopers if we advertised at the ballet. I think that 
NASCAR is a very appropriate place to advertise for recruits, just like 
boxing rings might be, cage fights might be.
  So I made some inquiries about it to our armed services, and they 
said, you're exactly right on point. As our good friend, Mr. McHenry, 
from North Carolina shared with you a little while ago, the statistics 
are overwhelmingly in favor of expenditures where you get the greatest 
return. And the NASCAR sponsorship seems to have the greatest return, 
which results in the greatest savings for our taxpayers back home.
  Now, I wish we were spending this time right now, rather than trying 
to micromanage how our military most efficiently advertises for 
recruits, discussing the $14 billion our government overpaid to people 
who were not entitled to unemployment compensation, but got it anyway.
  I wish right now we were discussing the $4 billion in refunds in the 
form of tax credits our government has given to bogus dependents of 
people who are here illegally.
  I wish we were talking about the millions of dollars we've wasted in 
the GAO.
  I wish we were talking about the millions of dollars we've wasted in 
crony capitalism investment in Solyndra and the like, and so-called 
green energy enterprises.

                              {time}  1630

  But no, we're not. We are sitting here today. Some people are trying 
to micromanage how our military gets recruits for its all-volunteer 
Army, and they are telling the people who are best at managing our 
military how to do their jobs. It's an old adage. It's an old cliche. 
It seems like everybody knows how to make a baby stop crying except the 
person holding it. I think, in this case, that applies, and I think we 
should yield to the best judgment of our armed services in how they 
feel they need to recruit.
  I have seen Democratic Presidential candidates advertise on NASCAR. I 
saw a Democratic gubernatorial candidate advertise on race cars. As far 
as Okeechobee Speedway, I was at Okeechobee Speedway once, and I ran 
into somebody from the other side of the aisle whom I never expected to 
see at a racetrack.
  I said, What are you doing here?
  She said, Well, when person ``blank,'' who was running for Governor, 
decided we needed to focus on middle America, she decided she wanted to 
sponsor a race car at Okeechobee Speedway.
  Before that, I didn't even know there was an Okeechobee Speedway.
  She said, Do you know what? It was the best investment of campaign 
money we've ever spent.
  These are from the other side of the aisle. I'm sure I could talk a 
lot about my friends on this side of the aisle and about how they've 
made good and wise investments, too.
  Again, in this case, I'd like for you to rely upon and reflect upon 
the comments made by Mr. McHenry, who talked about the very pure and 
simple results and accountability that has been achieved by letting the 
military--the people we trust the most with protecting our country and 
our freedoms--do the job that they are entitled to do.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Much of the debate that I would have on this 
amendment would be very similar to the one I'd had earlier when the 
issue was of the military bans, so I won't repeat those again.
  I would mention the fact that this amendment was defeated by this 
same House several times last year on the Defense appropriations bill. 
We have an interesting situation here, though, today. This amendment is 
very similar to language later on in the bill that is subject to a 
point of order. It has been skillfully rewritten so that this one is 
not subject to a point of order, but it is basically the same issue.
  Now, understand the United States of America does not have the 
largest military in the world. We do have, by far, the best--but not 
the largest--and our military is all volunteer. Members of the military 
serve because they want to. Yet, as the all-volunteer force rotates and 
changes, members are leaving--they retire; their time is up; they get 
out; they have to constantly be replaced. There has to be a constant 
flow of recruits coming in as the older members leave. The military has 
been running recruiting programs for years and years and years and 
very, very successfully. They know a little bit about what it takes to 
encourage recruiting.
  The amendment, itself, does more than just strike out the sports--
NASCAR--and all of these issues. It actually cuts $30 million more than 
is spent on these issues. I don't know why they won't take that extra 
$30 million. Anyway, we should not pass this amendment. It is, like I 
said, very similar to one that is already in the bill that is subject 
to a point of order.
  I say let the military run the recruiting as they have done 
successfully for all of these years in order to maintain an all-
volunteer force--a powerful message to the young Americans or the older 
Americans who want to serve. Men and women want to serve their country 
in the military, and these recruiting programs get their attention and 
direct them where they need to be directed. So I think this just isn't 
a good idea to pass this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered 
by my colleagues, Rep. McCollum and Rep. Kingston. And let me say that 
while I wholeheartedly agree to the notion that this body must take the 
lead in putting our nation back on the path towards fiscal 
responsibility, the move to prohibit our military services from 
advancing recruitment and retention goals through various athletic 
sponsorships is unwise.
   At a time when the men and women of our Armed Forces are undertaking 
operations around the world, we must not move to end the successful 
platforms used by the Department of Defense to recruit able men and 
women into their ranks.
  Contrary to popular belief, these sponsorships also go far beyond 
driver appearances, commercials and decals on race cars. In fact, the 
National Guard's sponsorship of the Panther Racing IndyCar team has not 
only been successful in raising the Guard's profile and getting it in 
front of potential recruits, but also technology transfers between 
these entities will allow for our service members to be better 
protected when downrange.
  J.R. Hildebrand, who drives the National Guard IndyCar, wears ear 
sensors that measure the G-forces he experiences during a crash on the 
racetrack. Those sensors, known as an Integrated Blast Effects Sensor 
System, are now worn by troops in harm's way. The information gathered 
can be very useful to neurosurgeons who treat soldiers suffering from 
Traumatic Brain Injury, often the result of roadside bomb attacks.
  Understanding the nature and effects of Traumatic Brain Injury 
advances the ways in which we protect and treat our fighting men and 
women, and those same sensors worn by J.R. Hildebrand have a direct 
benefit to our troops in Afghanistan. Furthermore, helmet technologies 
developed in IndyCar and the National Football League have been adapted 
for military use. And these represent just a few of the results from 
the military's sponsorships, or partnerships with professional sports.
  As our service members return to civilian life, they are often faced 
with a continuing unemployment crisis. In partnership with the National 
Guard, Panther Racing continues to work with the Employer Support of 
the National Guard (ESGR) program, an agency within the Department of 
Defense designed to connect citizen soldiers with employers. Panther 
Racing continues to work with the Chamber of Commerce to support the 
Hiring our Heroes program. At race events across the country, the 
National Guard partnership with Panther Racing brings military members 
and their spouses together with CEO's of local businesses and 
ultimately helping get our nation's veterans back to work.
  Madam Chair, utilizing military partnerships with professional sports 
can be a vital tool in improving the lives and care of our service men 
and women. The results of these programs speak for themselves. 
Amendments similar to the one currently before this body have been 
rejected by wide margins and I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the 
aisle, to stand with those who wear the uniform and oppose the 
Kingston/McCollum amendment.

[[Page 11610]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, after more than a decade of war, it is 
time to accelerate our drawdown of troops in Afghanistan and bring this 
war to a close.
  We've sent our brave servicemen and -women to Afghanistan to 
eliminate the international terrorists who would do us harm. They have 
successfully executed this mission with phenomenal dedication and 
capacity: they have driven al Qaeda from Afghanistan, destroyed their 
training facilities, killed or captured most of their top leaders. 
Under President Obama's decisive leadership and thanks to the courage 
and competency of our special forces, the 9/11 mastermind--Osama bin 
Laden--has met his just end.
  The President has outlined a plan for winding down this war, and I 
support drawing down our military presence in Afghanistan even more 
quickly than the President has suggested. We should welcome our troops 
back as heroes and ensure they receive the support and care that is due 
when they return.
  Our military servicemembers and their families have borne and 
continue to bear far more than their share of the burden of this war. I 
am a member of the House Armed Services Committee, and I represent the 
10th District of California, which is home to Travis Air Force Base--
the largest Air Mobility Command unit in the Air Force. Nearby in 
Marysville, California, is Beale Air Force Base, which is the leader in 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Together, 16,000 
servicemembers across the active duty National Guard and Reserves, as 
well as over 75,000 veterans, live in my district and in the 
surrounding area. These are the people who are disproportionately 
bearing the cost of this war.
  As their Representative, I owe it to them to make sure that we do not 
ask of them any more than is absolutely necessary in order to ensure 
America's national security. But the majority here in this House is 
determined to prevent even a serious debate about ending the war in 
Afghanistan. They have inserted language into the National Defense 
Authorization Act that would actually slow down the withdrawal of U.S. 
forces and keep nearly 70,000 troops in Afghanistan until at least 
2015.
  When the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee tried 
to offer an amendment to replace this provision, the majority said it 
was out of order. When a bipartisan group of Members of Congress joined 
together on an amendment replacing this provision, the majority blocked 
that amendment. This is the longest war in America's history, claiming 
thousands of lives and costing hundreds of billions of dollars, and the 
majority simply doesn't want to talk about it.
  We must talk about this war. We must take time to think deeply about 
the sacrifices of those who are serving and who have served. To date, 
1,875 of our military servicemembers have been killed in Afghanistan, 
leaving thousands more to endure the unimaginable grief of the loss of 
a loved one. 15,322 of our troops have been wounded seriously, 
suffering life-altering injuries. Not included in that number are those 
with psychological wounds--invisible but no less devastating. We have 
spent a half a trillion taxpayer dollars on the war in Afghanistan, and 
this legislation would allocate $88 billion more to be spent in this 
year alone.
  There are some who would continue this war indefinitely. They oppose 
the fixed timeline for ending combat operations and for bringing our 
troops home. They oppose any concrete plans for transitioning full 
responsibility for Afghanistan's security as quickly as possible. Even 
worse, they would have American troops continuing to fight against a 
domestic insurgency in Afghanistan, and they think it's America's job 
to defeat those armed factions that threaten the Karzai Government, 
which is, perhaps, the most corrupt government in this world. In fact, 
they have inserted language into this bill that says the U.S. objective 
in Afghanistan is to defend the Karzai Government against the Taliban. 
They also have an interest in American troops defeating the Haqqani 
Network and any other faction that is taking on the Karzai Government, 
involving us in a multisided civil war.

                              {time}  1640

  It was never the American mission in Afghanistan, nor should it be. 
As President Obama clearly said last week, ``Our goal is to destroy Al 
Qaeda.'' We began a military operation in Afghanistan with a very clear 
reason. It's time for us to end this war and bring our troops home.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Navy and the Marine Corps, 
     as authorized by law; and not to exceed $14,804,000 can be 
     used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be 
     expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the 
     Navy, and payments may be made on his certificate of 
     necessity for confidential military purposes, 
     $41,463,773,000.

  Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, I want to have a colloquy between myself, the 
chairman, and the gentleman from Washington on an issue regarding costs 
associated with the security clearance process.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I would be happy to discuss the costs of the security 
clearance process.
  Mr. FARR. As the gentleman knows, security clearances are necessary 
to protect our national security and are required for thousands of 
jobs. This process is also expensive.
  DOD pays billions of dollars to the Office of Personnel Management, 
OPM, to manage the DOD security clearance program. OPM has made some 
improvements in their investigation process so the program is no longer 
on GAO's high-risk list, but the problem remains that OPM relies on 
manual labor to process DOD security clearances.
  The research scientists at Personnel Security Research Center, 
PERSEREC, under the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Personnel 
and Readiness, have developed a suite of automated tools. Those tools 
could save millions of dollars without sacrificing quality if these 
tools were incorporated into the security reinvestigation process. I 
greatly appreciate that the chairman and ranking member of the Defense 
Subcommittee have included report language encouraging DOD to 
investigate more in automated tools for the security clearance process.
  Would my colleagues agree that DOD needs to leverage the resources of 
PERSEREC to integrate their research, called ACES, into the DOD 
security reinvestigation process?
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. To my good friend from California, I appreciate the 
attention that you bring to this issue. It seems that this is a 
commonsense thing that the Department can do to save millions of 
dollars with no negative impact to the security clearance process. 
Requiring DOD security reinvestigators to use the Automated Continuing 
Evaluation System, ACES, tool will preserve national security despite 
the tight budget constraints that the DOD is facing.

[[Page 11611]]


  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for his 
response.
  I had hoped to attach to the bill language directing DOD to conduct a 
review, but in the interest of the House rules and jurisdictional 
matters, I chose not to.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman from California yield?
  Mr. FARR. I yield to the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from 
Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I am aware of the gentleman's deep interest and 
appreciate his flexibility in finding ways to address this issue. Like 
my good friend from Washington (Mr. Dicks), I agree that we should work 
with our good friend, Mr. Farr, to ensure that DOD is leveraging the 
security clearance research of the PERSEREC to improve the DOD security 
reinvestigation process.
  Mr. FARR. I thank both of you for your friendship, leadership, and 
cooperation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Marine Corps, as authorized 
     by law, $6,075,667,000.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

        For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for 
     the operation and maintenance of the Air Force, as authorized 
     by law; and not to exceed $7,699,000 can be used for 
     emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the 
     approval or authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, and 
     payments may be made on his certificate of necessity for 
     confidential military purposes, $35,408,795,000.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Gallegly

  Mr. GALLEGLY. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 8, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $24,000,000)''.
       Page 13, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $8,000,000)''.
       Page 27, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $16,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Madam Chairwoman, my amendment will provide funding to 
the Air National Guard so it can obtain much-needed firefighting 
equipment so they can more effectively combat the devastating wildfires 
that destroy millions of acres of land and homes every year in the 
western United States.
  The likelihood of calling upon MAFFS-equipped Air National Guard and 
Air Force Reserve C-130s has increased significantly. MAFFS are modular 
air firefighting systems that drop retardant to create firebreaks.
  In 2003, the U.S. Forest Service had 44 fixed-wing aerial 
firefighting aircraft. By 2004, the number had dwindled to 19. And as 
of June 3 of this year, that number stands at only eight. An additional 
aircraft, on interim contract with the Forest Service, and air tankers 
borrowed from Canada and Alaska are being utilized to try to fill the 
shortfall.
  While the Forest Service firefighting fleet has gotten significantly 
smaller, the number of wildfires have been increasing. In fact, in 
2011, 74,000 fires burned 8.7 million acres. The most recent 10-year 
average indicates that the fires burned an average of 7.4 million acres 
a year.
  As the fleet diminishes, stress on remaining aircraft increases. 
Further, the distance between fires and available aircraft have been 
increasing. The result is more fires burning out of control. 
Additionally, an increase of flight time and cycles contributes to an 
earlier demise of the remaining aircraft.
  Only eight C-130s equipped with MAFFS units are equipped to 
supplement the Forest Service fleet. Even when all eight are called 
upon, the number of heavy air tanker aircraft is less than half that 
existed in 2003. We clearly need more aircraft, and the Forest Service 
is not likely to produce aircraft capable of meeting the need for the 
next 2 or 3 years, or probably longer.
  My amendment will provide an interim solution to this problem by 
providing $8 million to the Air National Guard so they can make two 
existing Guard wings capable of operating and flying two legacy MAFFS, 
one unit each. That will give us four additional tanker aircraft to 
fight wildfires that have been ravaging the western United States.
  My amendment will also appropriate $16 million for the Air Force to 
procure two new aerial dispersal units for use by the Air National 
Guard. Activating the legacy MAFFS units will help get more planes 
fighting fires this next year while these new aerial dispersal units 
are being produced and hopefully available for use within 2 years.
  Our Nation desperately needs our aircraft to fight wildfires, and the 
Air Guard is ready to go to work. The U.S. needs more aircraft 
available to fight the wildfires that have ravaged Colorado, New 
Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah this season alone. I urge the support 
of my colleagues.
  With that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. This amendment seeks to add more funding to purchase 
equipment vital to the disaster mission of the Air National Guard.
  Recently, forest fires have been devastating Colorado, and the Air 
National Guard has been fighting alongside the Forest Service. The 
Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System, or MAFFS, provides emergency 
capability to supplement existing commercial tanker support on wildland 
fires. This system aids the Forest Service. When all other air tankers 
are activated but further assistance is needed, the Forest Service can 
request help from the Air Force's MAFFS unit, who can be ready in a few 
hours notice with this modular system.
  When the Air National Guard adds the Modular Airborne Fire Fighting 
System to their C-130 aircraft, they are adding another capability to 
their aircraft. Creating a dual-mission aircraft without major 
modifications to an existing piece of equipment is efficient and cost 
effective.
  Quite frankly, we need to get new C-130Js for the Guard. I hope that 
we can do that. That's been a problem we've had with OMB over the 
scoring on this, whether you can lease them or buy them. This is an 
interim step, which is a good one, and I think we should accept the 
gentleman's amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1650

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of activities and agencies of the 
     Department of Defense (other than the military departments), 
     as authorized by law, $31,780,813,000: Provided, That not 
     more than $30,000,000 may be used for the Combatant Commander 
     Initiative Fund authorized under section 166a of title 10, 
     United States Code: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $36,000,000 can be used for emergencies and extraordinary 
     expenses, to be expended on the approval or authority of the 
     Secretary of Defense, and payments may be made on his 
     certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes: 
     Provided further, That of the funds provided under this 
     heading, not less than $35,897,000 shall be made available 
     for the Procurement Technical Assistance Cooperative 
     Agreement Program, of which not less than $3,600,000 shall be 
     available for centers defined in 10 U.S.C. 2411(1)(D): 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act may be used to plan or 
     implement the consolidation of a budget or appropriations 
     liaison office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the 
     office of the Secretary of a military department, or the 
     service headquarters of one of the Armed Forces into a 
     legislative affairs or legislative liaison office: Provided 
     further, That $8,563,000, to remain available until expended, 
     is available only for expenses relating to certain classified 
     activities, and may

[[Page 11612]]

     be transferred as necessary by the Secretary of Defense to 
     operation and maintenance appropriations or research, 
     development, test and evaluation appropriations, to be merged 
     with and to be available for the same time period as the 
     appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, That 
     any ceiling on the investment item unit cost of items that 
     may be purchased with operation and maintenance funds shall 
     not apply to the funds described in the preceding proviso: 
     Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under 
     this heading is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     provided elsewhere in this Act.


               Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

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

       Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $88,952,000)''.
       Page 16, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $88,952,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, we take great pride in the American 
military, trained fighting force. We work hard to make sure they are 
properly equipped, but decades of military training has left dangerous 
explosives and harmful chemicals on millions of acres of United States 
land.
  This contaminated real estate now serves as housing, schools, parks 
and playgrounds in every congressional district in the country. In 
fact, you may have read in the morning paper down at what is called The 
Yards near Nationals stadium, the development that is being done there, 
they discovered a thousand-pound bomb less than 1 kilometer from where 
we're debating today.
  To help the Department of Defense become a better partner for our 
communities and our constituents, I strongly urge that my colleagues 
support an amendment that would preserve the Department of Defense 
efforts to employ skilled labor and high-tech companies to clean up 
these dangerous liabilities and create economic development 
opportunities on these dangerous properties.
  Congress established the Defense Environmental Restoration Program-
Formerly Used Defense Site Program, DERP-FUDS, in 1986 to remove 
hazardous material from former Department of Defense properties and 
allow for safe reuse. Over two decades later, 2,600 properties 
nationwide require cleanup at an estimated cost of over $18 billion; 
and I will tell you, my colleagues, after having worked in this area 
for over a dozen years, that probably understates it.
  The current funding for the program is less than $300 million, one-
half of 1 percent of base defense spending. At this rate, the 
Department estimates, at this low-ball figure of $18 billion, we will 
not finish cleaning up the sites we know about for the next 250 years. 
My amendment would simply restore funding to the current level to 
ensure that we continue work removing these dangerous burdens from our 
communities within our lifetime, to say nothing of our great, great 
grandchildren's.
  At a time when total military spending amounts to more in 1 day than 
what we spend in an entire year, I strongly urge my colleagues to 
reprioritize our investments. These sites are decades--in some cases 
they are hundreds of years old.
  Now, the Defense Department has an obligation to clean up after 
itself, and they have made great progress. They have made critical 
technological breakthroughs in removing unexploded ordnance, making it 
less expensive, and some of the investments that we have made have 
actually saved lives overseas, because the same technology that will 
help us figure out whether it's a hubcap or a 105 millimeter shell can 
make a difference in IEDs overseas in Afghanistan or Iran.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It has 
operational impacts today for our military. It has economic development 
impact, which will help us return millions of acres to productive use; 
and it's the right thing to do.
  I don't want a situation where we shortchange what the Department of 
Defense does. Remember, in prior debates--Mr. Dicks, Mr. Young may 
remember--I brought to the floor Larry the Lizard coloring books that 
we were distributing to school children to warn them of the hazards 
because we hadn't invested enough to clean up, or the children that 
were killed in a former defense operation in San Diego because they 
found a bomb when they were playing.
  I strongly urge that you approve this amendment and simply return the 
funding to the level that we have today. It will make a difference for 
the military now and for generations to come.
  I appreciate your consideration and yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment, 
what he wants to do. But a lot of these sites, there is no disposition. 
We don't know what's going to happen to them.
  Will they stay as owned by the Federal Government, will they go to 
communities? We don't know the answer to that. We don't know the 
disposition. But they do need cleaning up, and there is no doubt about 
that.
  Here's my problem with this amendment. He takes the funds from the 
defense-wide readiness fund, the operations and maintenance fund, which 
provides for our readiness, which provides for training. It provides 
for our Special Forces; it provides for the support, safety and 
quality-of-life programs for our troops and their families, including 
programs to assist spouses of servicemembers with employment and job 
training, which is a key initiative of the First Lady.
  As much as I agree that this needs to be done, we do not want to take 
it out of the defense operations and maintenance, which is our defense-
wide operations and maintenance funding.
  I oppose the amendment. While I would like to help him in some other 
way to accomplish this, not from this fund that is so important. 
Readiness is readiness is readiness; and our troops have to be trained, 
they have to be equipped, they have to be ready, and I oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate your understanding of the importance and 
your concern about prioritization. If we don't prolong it in debate and 
recorded vote and all of this sort of thing, would it be possible to 
work with you and the ranking member as we move forward to see if there 
is an opportunity for us to plus-up this fund a little further in other 
areas?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for the question, and I 
say absolutely yes. I would very much like to do this, because I 
believe we need to do what it is you want to do.
  But I just can't support taking it from an account that provides for 
readiness of our troops.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DICKS. I would also support the gentleman in efforts to find 
another less objectionable source for the funding.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  The amendment was rejected.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 35, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 35, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chair, today I, along with my colleague Bob 
Filner,

[[Page 11613]]

am offering an amendment to restore an overall loss of $10 million in 
research funding dedicated to finding a cure for gulf war illness, an 
illness that directly affects over one-fourth of veterans from the 
first gulf war.
  This amendment has the support of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. It 
has the support of the Vietnam Veterans of America, and the support of 
the National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition.

                              {time}  1700

  According to the Congressional Budget Office, it will reduce total 
outlays by $7 million.
  Veterans of the first Gulf War suffer from persistent symptoms, 
including chronic headache, widespread pain, cognitive difficulties, 
debilitating fatigue, gastrointestinal problems, respiratory symptoms, 
and other abnormalities that are not explained by traditional medicines 
or psychiatric diagnosis. Research shows that as these brave veterans 
age, they're at double the risk for ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease, as 
their non-deployed peers. There may also be connections to multiple 
sclerosis and Parkinson's disease. Sadly, there are no known treatments 
for the lifelong pain these veterans endure.
  Gulf War Illness research was slated to receive a total of $25 
million in fiscal year '12: $15 million at the VA and $10 million at 
the DOD's Gulf War Illness Research Program. We've learned that the VA 
cut $10 million from its FY '13 program, which more or less supports 
allegations that VA officials, whose views on Gulf War illness have 
been discredited by the Institute of Medicine and the scientific 
community, are obstructing the research. The veterans of the first Gulf 
War who remain without a cure should not have to pay the price for this 
controversy. That's why this amendment would restore $10 million into a 
research program that has proven itself: The Defense Department's Gulf 
War Illness Research Program.
  Last year, researchers funded by this program completed the first 
successful pilot study of a medication to treat one of the major 
symptoms of Gulf War Illness. The critical increase in funding from 
this amendment was built on progress that's already been made, 
including a followup clinical trial, as well as other promising studies 
which have been waiting for funding. The offset for this amendment 
comes from the $32 billion Operations and Maintenance Defense-Wide 
Account in title II.
  Congress has a responsibility to ensure that these Gulf War veterans 
who put it all on the line and who are paying with a lifetime of pain 
and a potentially shortened life--it's our responsibility to make sure 
they're not left behind. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment 
to fully fund research into Gulf War Veterans Illness.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The gentleman is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I'm happy that I'm finally given an opportunity 
to be supportive of an amendment offered by my friend, Mr. Kucinich, 
because so often I have to oppose his amendments.
  This bill already includes $10 million for the program. He's 
concerned that the Veterans Affairs and Military Construction 
Subcommittee did not include an additional $5 million. And I understand 
that. And that's okay. But medical research on Gulf War Illness, or 
whatever it is, is important. What we learned from this program could 
help us in other programs on diseases coming from Iraq and Afghanistan. 
We're seeing, if you get a chance to visit at Walter Reed Bethesda 
Hospital, some very strange bacteria and viruses and mold and funguses 
that are coming from places that we never expected to see. But we're 
seeing them now.
  So this research program could help another research program to deal 
with these deadly diseases that are affecting our troops in large 
numbers. And so while we've already done $10 million in this bill, I'm 
going to agree with Mr. Kucinich and agree to his amendment to add the 
additional money.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the chairman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DICKS. I agree with the chairman. This Gulf War Illness has been 
something that bothered me a great deal. This was a very difficult 
diagnosis, what was causing this. But I think an additional investment 
here is worthy, and I think we should accept the amendment. I'm glad 
the chairman accepts it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for those comments, and I 
thank Mr. Kucinich for offering the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $7,800,000)''.
       Page 35, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $6,000,000)''.
       Page 35, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $6,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the chairman. I also want to let the 
chairman of the full committee and the ranking member know that I 
appreciate their support for the Gulf War veterans in the previous 
amendment. I also submit that this particular amendment addresses 
another area that is receiving attention in the media but needs some 
money behind it to make sure that it receives attention from the 
Department.
  This amendment to the Defense appropriations bill will increase 
funding for suicide prevention among our soldiers by $6 million. Now I 
happen to know there are members on this committee who are very 
concerned about the increased level of suicide among those who serve. 
And it's a bipartisan concern. We know the heartbreak that's out there 
when someone who serves this country finds that the conditions that 
they're in either during service or just afterwards are so horrendous 
that they take their own life.
  Far too many troops coming home from war have sustained numerous 
mental insults, including post-traumatic stress order and traumatic 
brain injury. The mental anguish for them is so unbearable that they're 
stripped of hope and they just feel that they have to take their own 
lives. And sometimes they take not only their lives but the lives of 
loved ones as well.
  There was a New York Times article in June of 2012, which said:

       The suicide rate among the Nation's active duty military 
     personnel has spiked this year, eclipsing the number of 
     troops dying in battle and on pace to set a record annual 
     high since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan more 
     than a decade ago.

  There's almost one troop suicide per day. Women face additional 
difficulties and have a higher rate of attempted suicide. Being a 
victim of sexual assault, for example, is a known risk factor for 
suicide. The disincentives to simply reporting such an assault are many 
and strong, which means getting help is even harder.
  The epidemic of veteran or active duty military suicides is not only 
a reason to increase funding for prevention of suicides, it's a reason 
to end the wars. It's one of the hundreds of reasons that are 
independently sufficient to end the wars. But until we end these wars, 
the very least we can do is to summon a good faith effort to do 
everything we can to prevent soldier suicides.
  The amendment's offsets come from the Pentagon Channel.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DICKS. With all due respect, we have accepted the gentleman's 
previous amendment. On this one we have already added $20 million to 
the budget for this purpose, and we will, if necessary, go higher in 
conference because of the gentleman's concern, the chairman's concern, 
and my concern. But to

[[Page 11614]]

totally eliminate funding for the Pentagon Channel, I think, is a 
mistake. There's very valuable information that is received by the 
military, by the Congress, by everybody who watches this thing.
  It's the source of the amendment. So I would ask the gentleman if he 
would withdraw the amendment and then work with us and we will do the 
best we can to get to a higher level in conference.
  Mr. KUCINICH. The short answer is yes.
  Mr. DICKS. This has become the issue of this war, when more people 
are dying of suicide than are in combat. We don't want to lose any 
lives. It means that there is a serious problem. And we want to work 
with you to address that.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Can I ask the chairman of the full committee if he 
would enter into a colloquy for this?
  First of all, I want to acknowledge my friend from Washington for his 
commitment. This isn't the first time you and I have talked about this 
long commitment to address this suicide prevention.
  I would ask the chairman of the full committee, would you be willing 
to support such an endeavor to plus-up the funds for suicide prevention 
in the conference?

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. This issue is extremely important to all of us. 
At every one--well, almost every one--of our hearings, we insisted on 
getting good answers from the military as to what they could do, what 
would they do, what did they plan to do to prevent the suicides. We 
have supported so many programs and added the additional money that Mr. 
Dicks has talked about.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Ohio has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. We have also funded money for the Yellow Ribbon 
Foundation, which is actually to help servicemen and -women return to 
society to avoid their desire to commit suicide.
  Just putting money here is not going to solve the problem. It's going 
to take a lot of work on the part the military, on the part of the 
social workers who deal with these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
marines coming out of the services. Just money is not going to solve 
this problem. It is a bigger issue than money. But we have provided a 
lot of money, and we continue to keep pressure on the military 
organizations to do everything they can.
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time just for the moment, the point is we 
have also added money for traumatic brain injury, for posttraumatic 
stress disorder. Our subcommittee has been at the forefront of 
providing additional resources beyond the administration's request for 
a number of years, since this has become a major issue. But I would 
just ask the gentleman to try to work with us on this one because of 
the source issue, and we'll work together and do the best we can.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I have confidence in the good faith of the chairman and 
the ranking member. I know that you're both concerned about this, 
you've said so now, but I also know that you've demonstrated this at 
other times. So what I would ask is that we could work together to look 
at the amount that is in there programatically right now, find a way to 
plus it up so that we can make sure that the people on Active Duty and 
those that just left Active Duty know about programs, have access to 
programs, and have access to the kind of treatment that would be 
necessary to cut down the number of suicides.
  In view of this colloquy, I will withdraw the amendment. Again, I 
thank both gentlemen.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Hanna

  Mr. HANNA. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Chair, I would first like to thank the chairman and 
the ranking member for their good work on this bill. I'm inclined to 
support the underlying bill but believe it can be, and should be, 
strengthened through this amendment.
  The Department of Defense faces more than 10 million cyberattacks 
every day. The damage and frequency of these attacks have been rapidly 
increasing over recent years. Attacks against our networks cost our 
businesses more than $1 trillion per year in lost intellectual property 
and other damages, resulting in theft of innovation and real damage to 
our economy and American jobs.
  For example, a cyberattack in March of 2011 against the military 
contractor resulted in the loss of 24,000 Department of Defense files. 
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has stated that 60,000 new software 
programs are identified every day which threaten our security, our 
economy, our citizens, and our military.
  High-tech threats require high-tech defenses to combat the attacks 
that face our armed services on the front lines and our businesses here 
at home. Proper funding for our cybersecurity defenses and advanced 
research projects is critical to our national security in today's high-
threat environment.
  The Air Force has always taken the lead in cyberspace defenses, yet 
over $1 billion is proposed to be cut from their research, development, 
test and evaluation programs under this bill. These cuts are not 
justified based on the frequency and magnitude of the threats.
  These cuts would further expose our networks and adversely affect our 
service departments and agencies such as Strategic Command, the Defense 
Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency.
  Secretary Panetta has stated:
  The next Pearl Harbor we confront could very well be a cyberattack 
that cripples our systems.
  We simply need to protect our networks by providing the funding 
levels necessary to do just that.
  My amendment would restore $30 million to the Air Force's Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation programs and reduce Operations and 
Maintenance by the same amount to support research and development of 
cyberdefense, advanced communication and information technology 
programs.
  Recognizing the need for fiscal restraint, if adopted, my amendment 
would still fund the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation account 
by $1.6 billion, or 6 percent, below this year's level; and overall, 
Operations and Maintenance would still receive $12.1 billion above the 
enacted levels.
  Now is simply not the time to cut back on high-tech research and 
development without justification. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment to restore funding for these programs which are vital to our 
21st century defenses.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I reluctantly have to oppose this amendment for 
much of the same arguments I used earlier by taking the money out of 
O&M defense-wide accounts, which is where we provide for our readiness. 
And we just cannot continue to take money out of this fund and use it 
as a slush fund. Readiness, we have got to maintain. We can't take a 
chance on not being ready in the event a situation develops.

[[Page 11615]]

  Now, on the issue of cyber, there's no doubt that this is a growing 
threat. It's even a larger threat than most people realize today. And 
members of this committee understand that threat because we have spent 
a lot of time dealing with cyber. But there are other places in this 
bill where the gentleman could offer his amendment that would, I think, 
apply better.
  If we're dealing with a nonmilitary cyber program, it should be done 
through the Homeland Security bill, and they do have money in that 
bill. If it has to do with the FBI's law enforcement work on cyber, it 
should be in the Commerce-State-Justice bill where there is money there 
for that.
  I'm afraid this gets a little close to being an earmark that is not 
an earmark. For example, there are those in the media suggesting that 
Members are increasing program amounts just so that that program would 
favor something in their own district. This gets very close because of 
a particular laboratory in Mr. Hanna's district. I'm not opposed to his 
supporting his laboratory, but I think it does get to the point that 
maybe this is a program increase that could be directed to a specific 
district or a specific project.
  We've already funded a lot in cyber, and we will continue to fund 
cyber. Every year it grows, we grow with it. But we can't do this at 
the expense of our defense-wide Operation and Maintenance accounts that 
provide for our readiness.

                              {time}  1720

  I'm not going to produce a bill or support a bill that cuts into the 
readiness of our Nation, the ability to defend our Nation. We're not 
going to do it. The cyber accounts have their own place in the 
legislation, and they are being taken care of properly.
  So I'm opposed to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).
  The amendment was rejected.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Langevin

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

       Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 35, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 35, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment proposes to add $15 million 
to the RDT&E in the Defense Health Program for the purpose of 
augmenting the Spinal Cord Injury Research Program within the 
Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program.
  Spinal cord injuries are a serious combat-related condition affecting 
many of our servicemen and -women. In response, Congress established 
the Spinal Cord Injury Research Program in 2009 to support research 
into regenerating and repairing damaged spinal cords and improving 
rehabilitative therapies.
  More than 30 years ago, when I was first injured with a spinal cord 
injury, I was told that I'd never walk again and that you just can't 
repair the spinal cord. Well, now, some 30 years later, we know that 
that is not accurate. In fact, it is no longer a question of if we can 
repair spinal cords, but when. This offers great hope to our men and 
women in uniform who have been the victims of a spinal cord injury in 
combat. In fact, recent research promises to make the repair of spinal 
cord injuries a reachable goal in the very near future.
  In one study released earlier this year, in fact, rats with severe 
spinal injuries were able, following a groundbreaking new treatment, to 
walk, run, and even climb stairs. Scientists in charge of the trial 
said a similar approach could be used on human patients with spinal 
injuries, with a clinical trial possible within 1 or 2 years.
  This and other research provides real hope to our military 
servicemembers and veterans who have suffered severe nervous system 
damage while defending our freedom, as well as the 1.275 million 
Americans estimated to be paralyzed as a result of a spinal cord 
injury. But without sufficient funding, these therapies will not be 
able to undergo further development or clinical trials.
  The research is real and shows incredible promise. There is a genuine 
and exciting possibility that we can soon repair these debilitating 
injuries that affect so many. I believe that we must make sure that 
momentum is not lost and that the benefit of decades of research into 
spinal cord injuries is realized.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank my good friends, 
Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks, and the committee staff for 
working very closely with me on crafting this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
I commend my friend from Rhode Island for his efforts in this regard, 
and I just hope that this research will be successful. I know with his 
leadership, it will be.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman, the sponsor of the amendment, 
has discussed this with us at length for quite some time. This is an 
immediate problem and a growing problem and one that we have to face up 
to.
  We do not oppose this amendment. We agree with the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Sessions

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 35, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 35, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, first, I'd like to recognize both of the 
gentlemen that are here on behalf of the committee today, the 
gentleman, Mr. Dicks, and the gentleman, Mr. Young, for their 
outstanding service not only to our country, but to this Congress, on 
behalf of making sure that we have freedom and that the men and women 
who protect this country are properly taken care of. I express my 
gratitude to both of them.
  Also, I want to thank Hal Rogers, and certainly the gentleman from 
New Jersey who is sitting in for the committee today. I want to thank 
him also.
  Mr. Chairman, today, I stand up in support of the dedication and hard 
work this Congress has done for work on something on known as TBI, 
traumatic brain injury, and posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD. This 
Congress, as you may know, Mr. Chairman, has continued increasing 
funding for TBI and PTSD overall, and by this bill by $125 million.
  On May 18, 2012, during the National Defense Authorization Act 
debate, the House unanimously adopted my amendment to create a pilot 
program administered by the Department of Defense that would strengthen 
treatment for our troops coming home with TBI and PTSD. Today, Congress 
has the opportunity to appropriate funds for this program.
  My amendment, offered with my dear friend from California, the 
gentleman, Mike Thompson, specifically moves $10 million from more than 
$31 billion in the Operation and Maintenance Defense-Wide budget to 
increase the Defense Health Program by $10 million.

[[Page 11616]]

This money will directly assist these soldiers who have TBI-related 
injuries by allowing them to be reimbursed for attending private sector 
facilities that perform cutting-edge treatments.
  One in four recent combat veterans treated by the Veterans Health 
Administration from 2004 to 2009 had a diagnosis of PTSD, and about 7 
percent have been diagnosed with TBI. According to the U.S. Army, the 
number of soldiers leaving Active Duty service has increased by 64 
percent from 2005 to 2009 due to brain health, whether it was TBI, 
PTSD, or a mental illness. These soldiers leave at a rapid rate.
  A 2009 RAND study estimates that costs related to depression, PTSD, 
and TBI in our soldiers ranges from $4 billion to $6.2 billion over a 
2-year period of time.
  Today, health care providers all over the country are working to 
provide treatment to brain injury patients with new and innovative 
treatments, with remarkable results. One such treatment utilizes 
hyperbaric oxygen to reduce or eliminate chronic symptoms of TBI, such 
as headaches, memory loss, and mood swings.
  While the Department of Defense has made many, many strides in 
research under the direction of Colonel Scott Miller, many innovative 
treatments, unfortunately, are not available within the military 
facilities. So, this amendment that I offer today would allow these men 
and women who seek treatment to be able to do so at our leading-edge 
facilities that are private around the United States of America. My 
amendment will provide for treatment and recovery that is desperately 
needed.
  I urge my amendment to be approved, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the chair 
and the ranking member for the good work they're doing on this bill.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  The Department of Defense estimates that more than 230,000 
servicemembers have sustained a traumatic brain injury between 2000 and 
2011. During that time, as the gentleman from Texas, my good friend, 
Mr. Sessions, pointed out, Congress has dedicated an unprecedented 
level of funding for TBI treatment and research, which has allowed DOD 
to make great strides in identifying and treating brain injuries. But 
despite the increased funding, servicemembers and veterans suffering 
from posttraumatic stress and TBI are still limited as to where and 
when they can be treated. Sometimes the very best treatment for their 
injuries can be found outside of the traditional DOD/VA networks. There 
are some outstanding programs providing first-class, effective 
treatment to our returning soldiers, yet those programs are not 
eligible for payment.

                              {time}  1730

  I had a chance to visit one of these facilities, the Pathway Home 
program, run out of the California Veterans Home. It's just an 
outstanding program providing great service to some very deserving 
heroes, and they should be reimbursed.
  Our troops and veterans have earned--they've earned the very best 
treatment and care that we can provide. But sometimes, as I said, the 
best treatments aren't available at military and veteran medical 
facilities.
  The Sessions-Thompson amendment will make sure that our heroes who 
return from combat with TBI or PTS have access to the highest quality 
care our Nation has to offer. We have a responsibility to help those 
who have sacrificed so much in defense of our great Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we're pleased to accept the 
gentlemen from Texas and California's amendment. We know what happens 
to those who suffer from traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic 
stress syndrome.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the ranking member.
  Mr. DICKS. I just want to concur. I think this is a deserving 
amendment. We cannot do enough on these issues because this is going to 
have a lifetime effect on these people; and the more we do, as they 
come home, and even before they go to find out who is susceptible, this 
is critically important and will save us a lot of money.
  We will accept the amendment on our side.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the ranking member of the 
Defense Subcommittee for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. Ranking Member, I recently wrote a letter to the Secretary of 
Defense to ask for his assistance in documenting the annual cost to the 
military of treating servicemembers and veterans who are living with 
hydrocephalus.
  Hydrocephalus is a medical condition characterized by the abnormal 
accumulation of fluid within the brain. Experts suspect that two-thirds 
of the 41,000 servicemembers diagnosed with moderate to severe 
traumatic brain injuries over the past decade also suffer from 
hydrocephalus.
  The primary treatment for hydrocephalus, a shunt implanted in the 
brain, was developed decades ago and has the highest failure rate of 
any implanted medical device. Veterans living with this condition will 
face a lifetime of medical uncertainties and incur costly brain 
surgeries, unless a better treatment is found.
  Would the ranking member, the gentleman, be willing to work with us 
to help gain a better understanding of the incidence and cost of 
hydrocephalus among our injured servicemembers and veterans so we can 
focus the appropriate amount of DOD research dollars on finding a 
better treatment?
  I yield to the ranking member.
  Mr. DICKS. The committee recognizes the serious trouble of traumatic 
brain injury, as you just noted, and related conditions; and I'm happy 
to work with the gentleman from New Jersey to improve understanding of 
this important issue as we confer with the other body and work with our 
majority Members here who are deeply concerned, as we are, about this 
amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield back the balance of my time.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Walz of Minnesota

  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 35, line 15, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,00,000)''.
       Page 35, line 23, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask to 
dispense with the reading of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I would like to thank the chairman and the 
ranking member for the great work they're doing on this. I'd also like 
to thank them for their commitment, not just to the defense of this 
Nation, but to the care of those warriors who so dearly pay for that 
defense.

[[Page 11617]]

  What this amendment does is it increases the appropriation in the 
Sensory Injury Defense Research programmatic request from $5 million to 
$10 million for core vision and eye research. This important research 
will be paid for by redirecting funds from Operations and Management 
Budget.
  You've heard it on the last several speakers talking about traumatic 
brain injury, the issues that come from that. One of the core 
indicators and one of the first indicators of traumatic brain injury or 
mild traumatic brain injury is eye injury.
  The brave warriors that sustain these, whether they're puncture 
injuries or whether they're from concussive blast injuries, start to 
manifest themselves in loss of vision and eye injuries. Of all of the 
TBIs that happen in the war zone, 70 percent suffer some type of vision 
loss. The research to deal with this has long-term benefits.
  It is, as I said, one of the first indicators of brain injury. We 
could start to get early treatment on that, and all the research seems 
to show that cognitive ability is affected positively the sooner we get 
on top of that.
  There is $600 million and I know tough decisions are made in this 
bill towards research and battlefield injuries; 15 percent of all those 
injuries are eye injuries. The $10 million number that we're requesting 
gives us basic adequate numbers, a floor number, if you will, to start 
getting that research done.
  So I am very appreciative of the tough decisions that get made in 
this. I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to beef 
up the eye injury research, and I would argue it's morally the right 
thing to do. We've been trying to work on this with a combination of VA 
and DOD to get that going.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We're pleased to accept the gentleman from 
Minnesota's amendment, and we salute him for his advocacy.
  I could tell you from a personal visit from a soldier who lost his 
sight, Tim Fallon from Long Valley, New Jersey, who came into my office 
to advocate, that these are dollars well spent. We need to spend more 
on these types of investments because too many soldiers are coming home 
with, I think, things that could be potentially benefited from this 
type of investment in terms of having the potential.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DICKS. I concur with the chairman and want to say to the 
gentleman from Minnesota, we appreciate his service to the country. You 
know a lot more about this than some of us who were not in the service, 
and we appreciate your leadership on this issue.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of the time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Higgins

  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 18, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense oversees 
important research into the varied threats that face our Nation. This 
research is essential to safeguarding our communities and empowering 
research institutions and universities to come up with the creative 
solutions to detect, confront, and neutralize weapons of mass 
destruction.
  My amendment is very straightforward. It would increase funding by 
$10 million for the defense-wide research, development, test and 
evaluation account. It is offset by reducing funding for the operation 
and maintenance defense-wide account.
  The intent of this amendment is to support the ongoing work that is 
being performed through basic research programs at the Defense Threat 
Reduction Agency, which is the Department of Defense's official Combat 
Support Agency for countering weapons of mass destruction.
  The grants provided by this funding support 160 research projects 
across the Nation. Twenty-one universities participate in competitive 
research projects that help to define, detect, and mitigate the 
proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction. This important 
work is providing us with a better understanding of the threats we face 
and creating new innovative solutions to the security risks posed by a 
chemical, biological, or nuclear attack on the United States homeland.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and the important 
lifesaving research being performed at important institutions across 
the country.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly object to the arbitrary 
reductions to the Operations and Maintenance, Defense-Wide 
appropriations account.
  The Operations and Maintenance appropriations account funding, as Mr. 
Young stated a few minutes ago, is critical to the readiness, safety, 
and quality of life for our brave men and women who volunteer to serve 
each and every day. Cutting this account would hurt our readiness, and 
that is something we cannot do at this point in time.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Army Reserve; repair of facilities 
     and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and 
     transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of 
     services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, 
     $3,199,423,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Navy Reserve; repair of facilities 
     and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and 
     transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of 
     services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, 
     $1,256,347,000.

            Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Marine Corps Reserve; repair of 
     facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; 
     procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and 
     communications, $277,377,000.

              Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Air Force Reserve; repair of 
     facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; 
     procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and 
     communications, $3,362,041,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the 
     Army National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment 
     and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, 
     operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; personnel services in the National 
     Guard Bureau; travel expenses (other than mileage), as 
     authorized by law for Army personnel on active duty, for Army 
     National Guard division, regimental, and

[[Page 11618]]

     battalion commanders while inspecting units in compliance 
     with National Guard Bureau regulations when specifically 
     authorized by the Chief, National Guard Bureau; supplying and 
     equipping the Army National Guard as authorized by law; and 
     expenses of repair, modification, maintenance, and issue of 
     supplies and equipment (including aircraft), $7,187,731,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

       For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the 
     Air National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment 
     and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, 
     operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; 
     transportation of things, hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     supplying and equipping the Air National Guard, as authorized 
     by law; expenses for repair, modification, maintenance, and 
     issue of supplies and equipment, including those furnished 
     from stocks under the control of agencies of the Department 
     of Defense; travel expenses (other than mileage) on the same 
     basis as authorized by law for Air National Guard personnel 
     on active Federal duty, for Air National Guard commanders 
     while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard 
     Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, 
     National Guard Bureau, $6,608,826,000.

          United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

       For salaries and expenses necessary for the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, $13,516,000, of which 
     not to exceed $5,000 may be used for official representation 
     purposes.

                    Environmental Restoration, Army

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Army, $335,921,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of the Army, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under 
     this heading is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     provided elsewhere in this Act.

                    Environmental Restoration, Navy

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Navy, $310,594,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Navy shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of the Navy, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Navy, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under 
     this heading is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     provided elsewhere in this Act.

                  Environmental Restoration, Air Force

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Air Force, $529,263,000, to 
     remain available until transferred: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of the Air Force shall, upon determining that such 
     funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction 
     and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings 
     and debris of the Department of the Air Force, or for similar 
     purposes, transfer the funds made available by this 
     appropriation to other appropriations made available to the 
     Department of the Air Force, to be merged with and to be 
     available for the same purposes and for the same time period 
     as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, 
     That upon a determination that all or part of the funds 
     transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the 
     purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred 
     back to this appropriation: Provided further, That the 
     transfer authority provided under this heading is in addition 
     to any other transfer authority provided elsewhere in this 
     Act.

                Environmental Restoration, Defense-wide

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of Defense, $11,133,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Defense shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of Defense, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of Defense, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under 
     this heading is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     provided elsewhere in this Act.

         Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Army, $237,543,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris at 
     sites formerly used by the Department of Defense, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under 
     this heading is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     provided elsewhere in this Act.

             Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid

       For expenses relating to the Overseas Humanitarian, 
     Disaster, and Civic Aid programs of the Department of Defense 
     (consisting of the programs provided under sections 401, 402, 
     404, 407, 2557, and 2561 of title 10, United States Code), 
     $108,759,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014.

                  Cooperative Threat Reduction Account

       For assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union 
     and, with appropriate authorization by the Department of 
     Defense and Department of State, to countries outside of the 
     former Soviet Union, including assistance provided by 
     contract or by grants, for facilitating the elimination and 
     the safe and secure transportation and storage of nuclear, 
     chemical and other weapons; for establishing programs to 
     prevent the proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and 
     weapon-related technology and expertise; for programs 
     relating to the training and support of defense and military 
     personnel for demilitarization and protection of weapons, 
     weapons components and weapons technology and expertise, and 
     for defense and military contacts, $519,111,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2015.

      Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund

       For the Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce 
     Development Fund, $50,198,000.

                               TITLE III

                              PROCUREMENT

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

        For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $6,115,226,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2015.

                       Missile Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $1,602,689,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2015.

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of weapons and tracked combat vehicles, equipment, including 
     ordnance, spare parts, and accessories

[[Page 11619]]

     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $1,884,706,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2015.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized 
     by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $1,576,768,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2015.

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of vehicles, including tactical, support, and non-tracked 
     combat vehicles; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only; communications and electronic equipment; 
     other support equipment; spare parts, ordnance, and 
     accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training 
     devices; expansion of public and private plants, including 
     the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and 
     such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $6,488,045,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2015.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Bonamici

  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 22, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1) (increased by $1)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
commonsense amendment I am offering for Ms. Buerkle and me to help 
State National Guard units across the country better perform their 
missions. This amendment requires the National Guard to complete a 
capability assessment of the medical equipment its domestic Humvee 
ambulances should be required to carry in Federal and State missions.
  Right now, these ambulances have no requirement to carry cardiac 
monitoring and resuscitation equipment, limiting their capability to 
adequately treat a wide range of injuries in emergency situations. MRAP 
ambulances, used by the Army and National Guard in overseas contingency 
operations, do, however, carry cardiac monitoring and resuscitation 
equipment. This capability assessment would determine whether or not 
Guard Humvee ambulances used domestically should carry cardiac 
monitoring and resuscitation equipment comparable to MRAP ambulances 
currently fielded in overseas contingency operations.
  The National Guard's missions include responding to terrorist 
attacks, homeland security emergencies, natural disasters, and 
providing defense support to civil authorities. How can the Guard carry 
out its required missions if it does not have the proper equipment 
necessary to deal with severe injuries?
  As these Humvee ambulances are currently equipped, medical personnel 
are extremely limited in the available treatment they can provide to an 
injured person. Essentially, an ambulance in this configuration can 
only provide very basic care and the simple transportation of a patient 
from one place to another. For example, I understand that medical 
personnel would be unable to treat a patient experiencing cardiac 
arrest. This is a serious problem.
  State National Guard units across the country want this equipment and 
have indicated that it could make the difference between life and death 
in emergency situations. The Adjutants General in eight different 
States, including Washington, Montana, North Dakota, Hawaii, New York, 
Arizona, and my home State of Oregon, have submitted resolutions for 
the emergency procurement of cardiac monitoring equipment to be used by 
their individual State Guard units, but because the National Guard 
Bureau does not view this equipment as ``required,'' it has backed out 
of a plan to purchase it despite the support of multiple States.
  This amendment will require the National Guard Bureau to reexamine 
whether or not cardiac monitoring and resuscitation equipment is 
required and necessary for the Guard to fulfill its homeland security, 
terrorist attack, national disaster response, and defense support to 
civil authorities responsibilities. Should the capability assessment 
find that the equipment is necessary, under this amendment, the Army 
may use funds from this section to retrofit and install the equipment 
in domestic Humvee ambulances currently in use by the National Guard.
  This is a commonsense issue. The Guardsmen and -women who operate 
ambulances should be provided the best capability available to save 
lives across this country in the event of an emergency.
  I urge my colleagues' support of this bipartisan amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I want to thank the gentlewoman for bringing this 
issue to our attention. I have no objection to it. I accept it. I think 
its assessment would be valuable to be made.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentlewoman for her amendment. I 
think it's well-thought-out, and I hope it has the desired effect. I 
congratulate her on offering it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may 
     be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway, $17,518,324,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2015.

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, torpedoes, other weapons, and 
     related support equipment including spare parts, and 
     accessories therefor; expansion of public and private plants, 
     including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and 
     procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and 
     Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway, 
     $3,072,112,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2015.

            Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized 
     by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private

[[Page 11620]]

     plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned 
     equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the 
     foregoing purposes, $677,243,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2015.

                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy

       For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition, 
     or conversion of vessels as authorized by law, including 
     armor and armament thereof, plant equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools and installation thereof in public and private 
     plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned 
     equipment layaway; procurement of critical, long lead time 
     components and designs for vessels to be constructed or 
     converted in the future; and expansion of public and private 
     plants, including land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title,
       Carrier Replacement Program, $578,295,000;
       Virginia Class Submarine, $3,217,601,000;
       Virginia Class Submarine (AP), $1,597,878,000;
       CVN Refuelings, $1,613,392,000;
       CVN Refuelings (AP), $70,010,000;
       DDG-1000 Program, $669,222,000;
       DDG-51 Destroyer, $4,036,628,000;
       DDG-51 Destroyer (AP), $466,283,000;
       Littoral Combat Ship, $1,784,959,000;
       Joint High Speed Vessel, $189,196,000;
       Moored Training Ship, $307,300,000;
       LCAC Service Life Extension Program, $47,930,000; and
       For outfitting, post delivery, conversions, and first 
     destination transportation, $284,859,000.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Quigley

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

       Page 24, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $988,000,000)''.
       Page 25, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $988,000,000)''.
       Page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $988,000,000)''.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                              {time}  1750

  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague from Illinois to offer 
a bipartisan commonsense amendment to the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill.
  Our amendment cuts $988 million from the bill, which the committee 
added but the Navy did not request, for a 10th DDG-51 destroyer. It 
also puts the savings toward deficit reduction.
  Let's back up for a minute and explain how we got here. As part of 
the Department of Defense's new strategy, they are realigning force 
structure by reducing ground forces and making new investments in more 
agile sea and air forces. Toward this end, the Navy has entered into a 
multiyear procurement--or MYP--arrangement to purchase nine DDG-51 
destroyers over the next 5 years. In order to fulfill one year of this 
MYP arrangement, the Navy requested just over $3 billion in the FY13 
budget, yet the committee took it upon itself to give the Navy an extra 
billion dollars it didn't request and likely doesn't need for a 10th 
destroyer.
  To be fair, there was talk of purchasing a 10th destroyer, but on 
March 29, 2012, Sean Stackley, the Navy's acquisition executive, 
testified before a House Armed Services Subcommittee that he thought 
through competition he could get 10 ships for the price of 9. He notes 
in his testimony that the Navy has ``competition on this program--two 
builders building the 51s, and the competition has been healthy.'' He 
goes on to explain how he hopes to get a 10th ship out of the multiyear 
arrangement, saying ``our top line allowed for nine ships to be 
budgeted, but when we go out with this procurement, we're going to go 
out with a procurement that enables the procurement of 10 ships if 
we're going to achieve the savings that we're targeting across this 
multiyear arrangement.''
  Mr. Stackley ends by explaining that the Navy can use leverage and 
competition to get 10 ships for the price of nine, and he thinks they 
have a pretty good shot. But rather than letting the Navy do its job, 
and letting the competition acquisition process work by putting the 
billion dollars on the table up front, the committee cut the legs out 
from underneath the competitive process. The addition of the extra 
billion dollars for another ship by the committee ends competition and 
negotiation, and puts a billion dollars on the table that we don't have 
to spend.
  Why not let the acquisition process take its course, and see what 
happens? I don't think we need the 10th ship, and I'm not completely 
convinced we need the other nine either. But even for those who do 
support a 10th destroyer, cutting this funding now does not preclude 
them from adding it later if it's needed.
  Unfortunately, this is one of the many examples of Congress 
supplanting its own parochial interests for that of the military and 
what's best for the country as a whole. This defense bill and all those 
before it are riddled with funding for weapons, bases, and projects we 
don't need to keep America safe. Rather, these bills include projects 
that support special Member interests back home. We can no longer 
afford to allow the desire to stimulate local economies to drive our 
defense and foreign policy. As we emerge from a deep recession and face 
a deficit topping $1 trillion for the fourth straight year, we must 
right-size our budget.
  Mr. Chairman, in terms of the ability to let Mr. Dold speak, I yield 
1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois may not yield blocks of 
time. He may yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DOLD. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. QUIGLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DOLD. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we're focused on finding savings in every area of 
government spending. Without a doubt, the Defense Department has made 
significant and painful contributions to our efforts to reduce the 
debt, and I want to make sure that we recognize that.
  The Defense budget actually accounts for roughly 17 percent of all 
Federal spending, yet it has contributed over 50 percent of the deficit 
reduction. I do want to recognize that we're already cutting a 
significant amount of money, Mr. Chairman, out of the Department of 
Defense. We need to be looking at commonsense ways for us to be able to 
save money.
  This amendment is about promoting efficiency in the Department of 
Defense and achieving valued savings wherever possible. The amount of 
funds provided in this bill for these ships is $1 billion above the 
Navy's own budget request. In the spirit of seeking to achieve cost 
savings throughout this government, I believe it's appropriate for us 
to act consistent with the Navy's view of allowing the competitive 
bidding process to play out, which, as the Navy acquisition executive 
has testified, may very well allow the Navy to acquire its 10th ship at 
lesser amounts included in the Navy's budget request. If these bids 
come back and a 10th ship cannot be realized this year, I'm certainly 
supportive of providing additional resources next year for the 10th 
ship. But I do believe we should allow the Navy to operate and try to 
maintain at lower costs while achieving our Nation's security.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, all throughout this last year, we 
have heard from the administration and we have heard from the Navy that 
it is important to be able to have a large presence in the Pacific 
area. This is something that we're going to do that is new. We're going 
to have an increased presence in the Pacific. That is the 
administration's statement.
  During our many hearings, all of those hearings that we did on the 
Central Command area in the Mideast, the Persian Gulf, the Strait of 
Hormuz, the threats from Iran, we were told by the military leadership 
who fight those wars there that they needed a larger naval presence in 
order to counter any threat from Iran and similar threats, and to keep 
open the Persian Gulf, and especially the Strait of Hormuz.
  Today, we don't really have as much naval capability as they suggest 
that we need. So the committee added this DDG-51 for this year. The 
Navy actually asked for advanced procurement

[[Page 11621]]

for the DDG-51 so they can build it next year. We were able to find the 
funds to actually build it this year so that we can begin to prepare 
for the presence that the Navy and the President have all said that we 
have to maintain. That's the DDG-51.
  In addition, in order to try to accomplish the coverage that the Navy 
said they need, we have taken three cruisers that would have been taken 
out of service, and we reconfigured those cruisers. We provided funding 
to reconfigure the cruisers to add to this effort, to add to the effort 
to have more naval presence in the Mideast, and to cover the Pacific. 
As everyone in the military and in the White House has said, we've got 
to have that presence.
  We have to oppose this amendment. We need this DDG-51 in order to 
meet our obligations.
  It is interesting that we understand that some of these programs are 
costing more than was anticipated. The CBO just issued a report saying 
that in order to do the President's budget request, it will cost $123 
billion more than they estimated that it would cost. We do have a 
problem with numbers, and with dollars.
  Covering the Pacific region, covering the Mideast region, the Persian 
Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, that is important to our national security 
interests, and that's important to our allies, and to our troops 
overseas in that region.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. It is not a good amendment. It 
is not good for our national defense.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Completion of Prior Year Shipbuilding Programs, 
     $372,573,000.
       In all: $15,236,126,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2017: Provided, That additional 
     obligations may be incurred after September 30, 2017, for 
     engineering services, tests, evaluations, and other such 
     budgeted work that must be performed in the final stage of 
     ship construction: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided under this heading for the construction or 
     conversion of any naval vessel to be constructed in shipyards 
     in the United States shall be expended in foreign facilities 
     for the construction of major components of such vessel: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this 
     heading shall be used for the construction of any naval 
     vessel in foreign shipyards.

                        Other Procurement, Navy

       For procurement, production, and modernization of support 
     equipment and materials not otherwise provided for, Navy 
     ordnance (except ordnance for new aircraft, new ships, and 
     ships authorized for conversion); the purchase of passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including the land necessary therefor, and 
     such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway, 
     $6,364,191,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2015.

                              {time}  1800


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

  Mr. COHEN. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 26, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $506,660,000)''.
       Page 35, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $235,000,000)''.
       Page 35, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $235,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment we should be able to 
come together on. The administration requested $101 million for the 
operation and upgrading cruiser ships used by the United States Navy. 
That's what the Pentagon and the administration requested, $101 
million.
  However, what's been recommended is $607 million. That $607 million 
is an increase of over $500 million from what the Pentagon asked for, 
five times what the Pentagon asked for. At a time when so many of my 
colleagues are calling for a decrease in the spending on the Federal 
Government side, it seems that they should heed the requests of their 
constituents, the budget, and the advice of Congress and will refrain 
from throwing $500 million at this program that the Department of 
Defense is trying to phase out.
  Now, my amendment would allocate $235 million of that 506 excess to 
defense health programs. The rest would be toward deficit reduction.
  Americans would be better served if that $235 million didn't go to a 
program of buying cruiser ships that the Department of Defense doesn't 
want, and rather have this money go to health care research, which the 
Department of Defense does in the area of cancer research, breast 
cancer research, prostate cancer research, and other cancer research.
  The Department of Defense has a strong cancer research program and 
can always use more money to save lives. I have been a strong supporter 
all my life of putting money into research in the National Institutes 
of Health and joining with Senator Specter in getting an additional $10 
billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the National 
Institutes of Health.
  One day, through research dollars, we will have a cure for cancer, a 
headline we want to see, a headline that cancer scientists find the 
cure for cancer. It may come because of an appropriation like this and 
not Congress passes five times the amount of money the Department of 
Defense wants for cruiser ships.
  My goal in offering this amendment is to see that the cancer research 
programs are benefited, that they are doubled; and this investment in 
health care research is an investment in our Nation's future and an 
investment in every human being here as a potential victim of cancer. 
There are other diseases which the National Institutes of Health look 
at. Whether it's Alzheimer's, diabetes, heart disease and others, cures 
need to be found and government should be investing monies in those 
places.
  This is one place where the Department of Defense emphasizes cancer 
research. Even with the doubling of investment of cancer research, this 
amendment does reduce the overall cost of the appropriations bill. At a 
time when we have seen cuts to other research programs like the 
National Institutes of Health, it's important to identify every single 
dollar that can be used to further research efforts.
  A vote for this amendment is a vote in favor of furthering our 
country's cancer research and protecting all citizens out there who are 
potential victims of this awful disease and reduce the overall cost of 
this legislation as well.
  I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that cancer research 
is already funded in this bill at a $246 million level.
  I also want to say that Mr. Young, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Dicks, and Mr. 
Lewis have had a long tradition of leadership on cancer research in the 
Defense Appropriations Committee. We have always been very supportive 
of it and will continue so. The bill is already at $246 million.
  Secondly, why did we put the money into the cruiser program? We did 
so because at a time when we are pivoting much of our Navy fleet into 
the Pacific area, we believe we needed to have as many of these ships 
capable of missile defense, or the Aegis system, as possible because 
the world is so unstable.
  Many of these ships will probably go to the Pacific. There are six of 
them that we are re-outfitting for this system, and then some of them 
may go to the Middle East.

[[Page 11622]]

  Now, I just got back from spending a night on a carrier that was part 
of the Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf, and our trip also included 
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Djibouti. I wish that some of the 
Members of Congress could get some of the briefings that we got in 
terms of the missile threat in the Middle East alone, because it is an 
unstable part of the globe right now, and we have to have our best 
technology out there and our best sailors and our best airmen ready at 
all times in case there is a missile attack, and that's what the 
Defense Committee on a bipartisan basis recognized with this $506 
million.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       Procurement, Marine Corps

       For expenses necessary for the procurement, manufacture, 
     and modification of missiles, armament, military equipment, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; plant equipment, 
     appliances, and machine tools, and installation thereof in 
     public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway; vehicles for the Marine 
     Corps, including the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only; and expansion of public and private plants, 
     including land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, 
     $1,482,081,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2015.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, and modification of aircraft 
     and equipment, including armor and armament, specialized 
     ground handling equipment, and training devices, spare parts, 
     and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; expansion of 
     public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing 
     purposes including rents and transportation of things, 
     $11,304,899,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2015.

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, and modification of 
     missiles, spacecraft, rockets, and related equipment, 
     including spare parts and accessories therefor, ground 
     handling equipment, and training devices; expansion of public 
     and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing 
     purposes including rents and transportation of things, 
     $5,449,146,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2015.

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force

        For construction, procurement, production, and 
     modification of ammunition, and accessories therefor; 
     specialized equipment and training devices; expansion of 
     public and private plants, including ammunition facilities, 
     authorized by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, 
     and the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, 
     and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $599,194,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2015.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For procurement and modification of equipment (including 
     ground guidance and electronic control equipment, and ground 
     electronic and communication equipment), and supplies, 
     materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise provided 
     for; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement 
     only; lease of passenger motor vehicles; and expansion of 
     public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon, prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway, $16,632,575,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2015.

                       Procurement, Defense-wide

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the military departments) necessary 
     for procurement, production, and modification of equipment, 
     supplies, materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise 
     provided for; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only; expansion of public and private plants, 
     equipment, and installation thereof in such plants, erection 
     of structures, and acquisition of land for the foregoing 
     purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be 
     acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway, $4,429,335,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2015.

                  National Guard and Reserve Equipment

       For procurement of aircraft, missiles, tracked combat 
     vehicles, ammunition, other weapons and other procurement for 
     the reserve components of the Armed Forces, $2,000,000,000, 
     to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2015: 
     Provided, That the Chiefs of National Guard and Reserve 
     components shall, not later than 30 days after the enactment 
     of this Act, individually submit to the congressional defense 
     committees the modernization priority assessment for their 
     respective National Guard or Reserve component: Provided 
     further, That during fiscal year 2013, the Chief of the 
     National Guard Bureau and each Reserve Component Chief, may 
     each use not more than 3 percent of the funds made available 
     to the National Guard or such reserve component, as the case 
     may be, under this heading to carry out research, 
     development, test, and evaluation activities related to 
     adding technological capability to platforms or to modernize 
     existing systems.

                    Defense Production Act Purchases

       For activities by the Department of Defense pursuant to 
     sections 108, 301, 302, and 303 of the Defense Production Act 
     of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2078, 2091, 2092, and 2093), 
     $63,531,000, to remain available until expended.

                                TITLE IV

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, $8,593,055,000 to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2014.

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, $16,987,768,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2014: Provided, 
     That funds appropriated in this paragraph which are available 
     for the V-22 may be used to meet unique operational 
     requirements of the Special Operations Forces: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be 
     available for the Cobra Judy program.

         Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, $25,117,692,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2014.

        Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the military departments), necessary 
     for basic and applied scientific research, development, test 
     and evaluation; advanced research projects as may be 
     designated and determined by the Secretary of Defense, 
     pursuant to law; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and 
     operation of facilities and equipment, $19,100,362,000, to 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 2014: 
     Provided, That of the funds made available in this paragraph, 
     $250,000,000 for the Defense Rapid Innovation Program shall 
     only be available for expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     to include program management and oversight, to conduct 
     research, development, test and evaluation to include proof 
     of concept demonstration; engineering, testing, and 
     validation; and transition to full-scale production: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer funds 
     provided herein for

[[Page 11623]]

     the Defense Rapid Innovation Program to appropriations for 
     research, development, test and evaluation to accomplish the 
     purpose provided herein: Provided further, That this transfer 
     authority is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     available to the Department of Defense: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary of Defense shall, not fewer than 30 days 
     prior to making transfers from this appropriation, notify the 
     congressional defense committees in writing of the details of 
     any such transfer.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Pompeo

  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 32, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $250,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $250,000,000)''.
       Page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $250,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the Rapid Innovation Fund 
and save the taxpayers over $250 million. As a veteran, I know how 
important it is that we use every single dollar that goes to our 
Department of Defense in an intelligent way.
  This fund, this Rapid Innovation Fund, has never been requested by 
the Pentagon. This is money that the Pentagon doesn't say that it 
wants. It was created in the FY 2011 Defense bill in response, frankly, 
to the loss of earmarks here in the House of Representatives. So far 
the Appropriations Committee has put over $700 million in 2 years into 
this fund, and yet to date the Department of Defense has spent only 
$32.5 million of the $700 million already appropriate and provided.
  But instead of waiting to see if the fund is working and if it could 
be successful and of any value to the warfighter, this year the 
committee is pushing for another $250 million of taxpayer money to go 
into the so-called Rapid Innovation Fund.

                              {time}  1810

  I urge my colleagues to reject this effort. First of all, the 
Pentagon, as I said, never asked for this money. Four DOD agencies 
declined an invitation to even participate in the fund. There is 
clearly no one in the military clamoring for what is essentially a 
slush fund. With sequestration looming, now is the time to make tough 
choices, not to add $250 million of wasteful spending. We must focus 
our very scarce resources on validated military requirements.
  Second, this Rapid Innovation Fund is neither rapid, nor innovative. 
The fund allows the Department of Federal Acquisition Regulations 
Procedures to move forward--just as they do for any other procurement 
process. The first contracts took over a year to be signed. I don't 
find anything rapid about that. In addition, this fund simply doles out 
money to projects that are similar to those previously supported by the 
now-discredited earmark system. There's nothing innovative about that 
either.
  Let me be clear: this fund was created by Congress because Congress 
ended earmarks, and some have wanted a way to have earmark-type 
projects continue to receive government money.
  This fund is, third, wasteful and unnecessary. The DOD base budget is 
well over $500 billion--built through a time-honored and trusted 
process to ensure the needs of our warfighters. This fund, however, is 
completely outside of this process and therefore advances projects that 
have not been validated and are not proven in this same manner.
  Finally, the fund itself is unproven. Only $30 million and change has 
been spent on this fund and there is no data demonstrating that this 
fund holds any value to our military or to our taxpayers. But even if 
it does, there's still $670 million sitting in the fund today. Why not 
just wait? At the current spending rate, there's over 10 years' worth 
of funds still available. Why put $250 million more of taxpayer money 
at risk?
  As a Congress, we have to be willing to make tough choices--certainly 
in our DOD budget. But this one isn't even tough. We can't just throw 
good money in the hole and hope it helps our Nation's defense.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The Rapid 
Innovation Fund was authorized and appropriated by Congress in 2011 to 
allow innovative small businesses to compete for funding within the 
Department of Defense. It is a competitive, merit-based program 
designed to accelerate the fielding of innovative technologies into 
military systems.
  Last fall, each service and the OSBP issued broad agency 
announcements to solicit proposals for the first round of funding worth 
$500 million. Of the 3,554 white papers received, 514 received high 
priority or strong evaluations, valued at about $700 million.
  This bill provides an additional $250 million for this successful 
program for small businesses that are interested in working with the 
Department of Defense. Also, this money can be used for joint urgent 
operational needs. This is when the commanders in the field say that 
they need something in an urgent way, and this money is available for 
that kind of requirement.
  So, again, the gentleman raises a lot of insinuations that this was 
done because of doing away with the earmarks. It was done because we 
feel that small businesses in this country have a lot to offer the 
Defense Department. Not all of the innovations come from Lockheed and 
Boeing and General Dynamics. A lot of the innovation comes from smaller 
businesses who are, in essence, going to be cut out. We already have an 
existing program, the SBIR program, which we wanted to enhance so that 
small businesses would have a place to go so they could compete, where 
we would be doing this on a merits basis, that we would be doing it on 
the services saying these are areas where we need additional work.
  So I'm somewhat surprised that the gentleman would oppose something 
like this, knowing, I'm certain, he's an advocate for small businesses 
in our country. I think this is a good program and one that should be 
supported on a bipartisan basis.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I want to say this. While we all acknowledge there was 
a numerical explosion and a substantive explosion or a questionable, in 
substance, on earmarks and that's why earmarks are banned, one of the 
advantages of earmarks is that it did let the small mom-and-pop 
innovative small businesses have a crack at the bat at the Pentagon 
budget. And most of us who are familiar with the Pentagon budget would 
say it's broken or at least it needs lots of improvement. What the 
earmarking did do is let small companies have a bite at the apple. So 
in the interest of banning earmarks, we set up this program to allow 
small businesses.
  I want to give you a graphic example. I had a man come to me one time 
and said, I used to work with a large defense contractor. He named the 
contractor and I don't want to name them. But he said, This is a 
circuit panel. In fact, it's a memory panel. It's about the size of 
this notebook in my hand. And he said, This is for a nuclear submarine, 
and it costs about $10 million. I know because I invented it when I was 
with the large defense contractor. And all nuclear submarines now buy 
this kind of memory board. But your cell phone--pulling out the 
BlackBerry--now has more memory in it than that big, awkward panel. But 
the only way I'm going to get a crack at the business with the U.S. 
Navy would be through the earmarking process.
  Now, I can replace this $10 million circuit memory board for probably 
hundreds of thousands of dollars, but I can't do that now. You've 
thrown away that tool for both of us.
  So we set up this board to try to let those small businesses have a 
crack at

[[Page 11624]]

the bat. And I agree with you there's money in the account that maybe 
it should be spent down. We need to be looking at it before plussing-
up. I think you have raised some good points, but I believe the reason 
why the program is out there is very important in order to keep the 
large defense contractors honest, if you will, and provide a path for 
the small innovators.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DICKS. I really appreciate what the gentleman just said. Another 
thing here, the gentleman is saying they should just rush out and spend 
this money. I don't mind a thorough, professional way of going about 
this, and to take some time to make sure they've got this right is what 
we want them to do.
  Mr. POMPEO. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. POMPEO. I just say to the chairman, I'm not urging anyone to rush 
out and spend this money. I'm urging this money to stay in the pockets 
of the taxpayers because the Department of Defense has not asked for 
it. All of the things that have been spoken to, these good ideas, I was 
a small business owner. I made airplane parts for 10 years. I don't 
want anybody to rush out and spend the money. I want to leave it in the 
taxpayers' pockets, where the Department of Defense believes it should 
be.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, as an airplane parts manufacturer, 
I can promise you that you know how difficult it was to sell your 
products to the United States Air Force. And this program would allow a 
small innovator to do that and therefore reduce the cost to the 
taxpayers of parts for airplanes.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will remind Members to refrain from 
traffickng the well while another Member is under recognition.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Pompeo).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas will 
be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 32, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $75,000,000)''.
       Page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $75,000,000)''.

                              {time}  1820

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, in this bill, not only do the Republicans 
claim there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to cut in the defense 
budget, they are actually increasing spending beyond what the Pentagon 
is asking for. The Republicans have put an additional $75 million for 
missile defense in this bill--75 million additional dollars that the 
generals have not asked for.
  So my amendment today is simple: It would reduce funding for the 
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense program by $75 million to bring the 2013 
funding level back to the administration's request.
  Ground-Based Midcourse Defense is Star Wars, and it's a system that 
hopes to one day shoot down an incoming nuclear warhead by launching 
our own missiles from Alaska and California.
  But here we have a situation where basically the Republicans are 
saying that they want to give the Pentagon $75 million more than what 
the military says it needs right now. And if we can't decide just to 
take what the Pentagon is asking and rubber stamp it and give it to 
them, and even that is not enough in a period of fiscal austerity, then 
how in the world are we going to be successful next year when $55 
billion has to be cut?
  So, let's start here. St. Augustine's prayer, I think, is applicable 
here, where he said, O Lord, make me chaste, but not just yet. The 
Republicans are saying, O Lord, let us reduce the deficit, but not just 
yet. When it comes to defense spending, we want to give the Pentagon 
even more than they are asking for. Let's get all of our sinning done 
before next January. Let's really clear the deck on all the gold-plated 
planning that--I don't know if it's defense firms because it's not the 
Pentagon. The Pentagon is saying that the money that's in the bill as 
the President proposed it is sufficient in order to provide for the 
development of this missile defense technology.
  The bill already funds this program to the tune of $900 million, and 
the Pentagon is saying ``enough.'' So I know you're talking about 
canceling sequestration when it comes to defense spending, but this 
isn't a good sign. This isn't a good sign that we're ever going to be 
able to reconcile the tension that exists between the need not to cut 
NIH funding, the need not to cut National Cancer Institute funding, the 
need not to cut programs that deal with Grandma on Medicaid and nursing 
homes and all the way down the line. This just goes beyond anything 
that's even remotely reasonable.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Markey amendment, and I hope that it is 
adopted by the full House.
  I yield back the balance of his time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I want to say, most importantly, this was authorized in 
the National Defense Authorization this year which was passed on an 
overwhelming basis, on a bipartisan vote, and their authorization 
actually was a lot more than our $75 billion. And the reason why this 
money is in there and it affects Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg 
Air Force Base in California is that there are some changes that are 
going on in the missile silos, so rather than close down the shop and 
hope that the bad guys give us a pass until we're ready to defend 
ourselves, we're having to move these missiles and keep them current, 
keep them active, and keep them capable while this construction is 
going on, and then we finish the construction and put them back, and 
that's why the authorizing committee, on a bipartisan basis, authorized 
it, and that's why our subcommittee has also supported it, although at 
a lower number.
  With that, I recommend a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.
  Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the earlier amendment of 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley). The gentleman from Illinois 
had an amendment to cut $988 million from the Navy's DDG-51 program. 
The members of the House Armed Services Committee have carefully 
considered this shipbuilding program. We have met for months in the 
Seapower Subcommittee and discussed it thoroughly with Navy leadership.
  The DDG-51 is the Navy's preeminent surface combatant. It can conduct 
multiple missions, including ballistic missile defense, and it has 
proven itself in almost every theater in which it has operated.

[[Page 11625]]

  This ship has been authorized with a multiyear procurement strategy 
for DDG-51s, which is an important, cost-saving measure that the Navy 
has used in multiple situations to save money for the taxpayer.
  This is one of the most successful shipbuilding programs ever in the 
United States Navy because it is one of the best built and best values 
for the taxpayer and requires a fair and open competition for 
contracting.
  Right now, our Navy has the lowest shipbuilding totals in 
generations, and many predictions are that the number is only going to 
shrink further. As we pivot to the Pacific, we cannot afford to be 
cutting additional ships from our budget.
  It is extremely important not only to our economic security, but also 
our national security. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     independent activities of the Director, Operational Test and 
     Evaluation, in the direction and supervision of operational 
     test and evaluation, including initial operational test and 
     evaluation which is conducted prior to, and in support of, 
     production decisions; joint operational testing and 
     evaluation; and administrative expenses in connection 
     therewith, $185,268,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2014.

                                TITLE V

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                     Defense Working Capital Funds

       For the Defense Working Capital Funds, $1,516,184,000.

                     National Defense Sealift Fund

       For National Defense Sealift Fund programs, projects, and 
     activities, and for expenses of the National Defense Reserve 
     Fleet, as established by section 11 of the Merchant Ship 
     Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. App. 1744), and for the 
     necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a U.S.-flag 
     merchant fleet to serve the national security needs of the 
     United States, $564,636,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That none of the funds provided in this 
     paragraph shall be used to award a new contract that provides 
     for the acquisition of any of the following major components 
     unless such components are manufactured in the United States: 
     auxiliary equipment, including pumps, for all shipboard 
     services; propulsion system components (engines, reduction 
     gears, and propellers); shipboard cranes; and spreaders for 
     shipboard cranes: Provided further, That the exercise of an 
     option in a contract awarded through the obligation of 
     previously appropriated funds shall not be considered to be 
     the award of a new contract: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of the military department responsible for such 
     procurement may waive the restrictions in the first proviso 
     on a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate that adequate domestic supplies are not 
     available to meet Department of Defense requirements on a 
     timely basis and that such an acquisition must be made in 
     order to acquire capability for national security purposes.

                                TITLE VI

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         Defense Health Program

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, for medical and 
     health care programs of the Department of Defense as 
     authorized by law, $32,862,234,000; of which $31,122,095,000 
     shall be for operation and maintenance, of which not to 
     exceed one percent shall remain available until September 30, 
     2014, and of which up to $16,105,245,000 may be available for 
     contracts entered into under the TRICARE program; of which 
     $521,762,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2015, shall be for procurement; and of which 
     $1,218,377,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2014 , shall be for research, development, test 
     and evaluation: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, of the amount made available under this 
     heading for research, development, test and evaluation, not 
     less than $8,000,000 shall be available for HIV prevention 
     educational activities undertaken in connection with United 
     States military training, exercises, and humanitarian 
     assistance activities conducted primarily in African nations: 
     Provided further, That of the funds provided to develop an 
     integrated Department of Defense -Department of Veterans 
     Affairs (DOD-VA) integrated health record, not more than 
     twenty-five percent shall be available for obligation until 
     the DOD-VA Interagency Program Office submits to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a 
     completed fiscal year 2013 execution and spending plan and a 
     long-term roadmap for the life of the project that includes, 
     but is not limited to, the following: a) annual and total 
     spending for each Department; b) a quarterly schedule of 
     milestones for each Department over the life of the project; 
     c) detailed cost-sharing business rules; and d) data 
     standardization schedules between the Departments.

           Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     destruction of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical 
     agents and munitions in accordance with the provisions of 
     section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 
     1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the destruction of other 
     chemical warfare materials that are not in the chemical 
     weapon stockpile, $1,301,786,000, of which $635,843,000 shall 
     be for operation and maintenance, of which no less than 
     $53,948,000 shall be for the Chemical Stockpile Emergency 
     Preparedness Program, consisting of $22,214,000 for 
     activities on military installations and $31,734,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2014, to assist State 
     and local governments; $18,592,000 shall be for procurement, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2015, of which 
     $1,823,000 shall be for the Chemical Stockpile Emergency 
     Preparedness Program to assist State and local governments; 
     and $647,351,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2014, shall be for research, development, test and 
     evaluation, of which $627,705,000 shall only be for the 
     Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) program.

         Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, Defense

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the 
     Department of Defense, for transfer to appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense for military personnel 
     of the reserve components serving under the provisions of 
     title 10 and title 32, United States Code; for operation and 
     maintenance; for procurement; and for research, development, 
     test and evaluation, $1,133,363,000: Provided, That the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be available for 
     obligation for the same time period and for the same purpose 
     as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, 
     That upon a determination that all or part of the funds 
     transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the 
     purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred 
     back to this appropriation: Provided further, That the 
     transfer authority provided under this heading is in addition 
     to any other transfer authority contained elsewhere in this 
     Act.

             Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the ``Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund,'' 
     $217,414,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015, 
     for Staff and Infrastructure: Provided, That such funds shall 
     be available to the Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, for the purpose of allowing the 
     Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
     Organization to investigate, develop and provide equipment, 
     supplies, services, training, facilities, personnel and funds 
     to assist United States forces in the defeat of improvised 
     explosive devices: Provided further, That, within 60 days of 
     the enactment of this Act, a plan for the intended management 
     and use of the amounts provided under this heading shall be 
     submitted to the congressional defense committees: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report 
     not later than 60 days after the end of each fiscal quarter 
     to the congressional defense committees providing assessments 
     of the evolving threats, individual service requirements to 
     counter the threats, the current strategy for predeployment 
     training of members of the Armed Forces on improvised 
     explosive devices, and details on the execution of the Fund: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer 
     funds provided herein to appropriations for operation and 
     maintenance; procurement; research, development, test and 
     evaluation; and defense working capital funds to accomplish 
     the purpose provided herein: Provided further, That amounts 
     transferred shall be merged with and available for the same 
     purposes and time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That this transfer authority 
     is in addition to any other transfer authority available to 
     the Department of Defense: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Defense shall, not fewer than 15 days prior to 
     making transfers from this appropriation, notify the 
     congressional defense committees in writing of the details of 
     any such transfer.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For expenses and activities of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $350,321,000, of which 
     $347,621,000 shall be for operation and maintenance, of which 
     not to exceed $700,000 is available for emergencies and 
     extraordinary expenses to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Inspector General, and payments may be made 
     on the Inspector General's certificate of necessity for 
     confidential military purposes; and of which $2,700,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2015, shall be for 
     procurement.

[[Page 11626]]



                               TITLE VII

                            RELATED AGENCIES

   Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund

       For payment to the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement 
     and Disability System Fund, to maintain the proper funding 
     level for continuing the operation of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, 
     $514,000,000.

               Intelligence Community Management Account

       For necessary expenses of the Intelligence Community 
     Management Account, $511,476,000.

                               TITLE VIII

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 8001.  No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not 
     authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 8002.  During the current fiscal year, provisions of 
     law prohibiting the payment of compensation to, or employment 
     of, any person not a citizen of the United States shall not 
     apply to personnel of the Department of Defense: Provided, 
     That salary increases granted to direct and indirect hire 
     foreign national employees of the Department of Defense 
     funded by this Act shall not be at a rate in excess of the 
     percentage increase authorized by law for civilian employees 
     of the Department of Defense whose pay is computed under the 
     provisions of section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, or 
     at a rate in excess of the percentage increase provided by 
     the appropriate host nation to its own employees, whichever 
     is higher: Provided further, That this section shall not 
     apply to Department of Defense foreign service national 
     employees serving at United States diplomatic missions whose 
     pay is set by the Department of State under the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980: Provided further, That the limitations 
     of this provision shall not apply to foreign national 
     employees of the Department of Defense in the Republic of 
     Turkey.
       Sec. 8003.  No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year, unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 8004.  No more than 20 percent of the appropriations 
     in this Act which are limited for obligation during the 
     current fiscal year shall be obligated during the last 2 
     months of the fiscal year: Provided, That this section shall 
     not apply to obligations for support of active duty training 
     of reserve components or summer camp training of the Reserve 
     Officers' Training Corps.

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8005.  Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense 
     that such action is necessary in the national interest, he 
     may, with the approval of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, transfer not to exceed $3,000,000,000 of working 
     capital funds of the Department of Defense or funds made 
     available in this Act to the Department of Defense for 
     military functions (except military construction) between 
     such appropriations or funds or any subdivision thereof, to 
     be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, and 
     for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to 
     which transferred: Provided, That such authority to transfer 
     may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on 
     unforeseen military requirements, than those for which 
     originally appropriated and in no case where the item for 
     which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify 
     the Congress promptly of all transfers made pursuant to this 
     authority or any other authority in this Act: Provided 
     further, That no part of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available to prepare or present a request to the Committees 
     on Appropriations for reprogramming of funds, unless for 
     higher priority items, based on unforeseen military 
     requirements, than those for which originally appropriated 
     and in no case where the item for which reprogramming is 
     requested has been denied by the Congress: Provided further, 
     That a request for multiple reprogrammings of funds using 
     authority provided in this section shall be made prior to 
     June 30, 2013: Provided further, That transfers among 
     military personnel appropriations shall not be taken into 
     account for purposes of the limitation on the amount of funds 
     that may be transferred under this section.
       Sec. 8006. (a) With regard to the list of specific 
     programs, projects, and activities (and the dollar amounts 
     and adjustments to budget activities corresponding to such 
     programs, projects, and activities) contained in the tables 
     titled ``Explanation of Project Level Adjustments'' in the 
     explanatory statement regarding this Act, the obligation and 
     expenditure of amounts appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act for those programs, projects, and 
     activities for which the amounts appropriated exceed the 
     amounts requested are hereby required by law to be carried 
     out in the manner provided by such tables to the same extent 
     as if the tables were included in the text of this Act.
       (b) Amounts specified in the referenced tables described in 
     subsection (a) shall not be treated as subdivisions of 
     appropriations for purposes of section 8005 of this Act: 
     Provided, That section 8005 shall apply when transfers of the 
     amounts described in subsection (a) occur between 
     appropriation accounts.
       Sec. 8007. (a) Not later than 60 days after enactment of 
     this Act, the Department of Defense shall submit a report to 
     the congressional defense committees to establish the 
     baseline for application of reprogramming and transfer 
     authorities for fiscal year 2013: Provided, That the report 
     shall include--
       (1) a table for each appropriation with a separate column 
     to display the President's budget request, adjustments made 
     by Congress, adjustments due to enacted rescissions, if 
     appropriate, and the fiscal year enacted level;
       (2) a delineation in the table for each appropriation both 
     by budget activity and program, project, and activity as 
     detailed in the Budget Appendix; and
       (3) an identification of items of special congressional 
     interest.
       (b) Notwithstanding section 8005 of this Act, none of the 
     funds provided in this Act shall be available for 
     reprogramming or transfer until the report identified in 
     subsection (a) is submitted to the congressional defense 
     committees, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies in 
     writing to the congressional defense committees that such 
     reprogramming or transfer is necessary as an emergency 
     requirement.

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8008.  During the current fiscal year, cash balances 
     in working capital funds of the Department of Defense 
     established pursuant to section 2208 of title 10, United 
     States Code, may be maintained in only such amounts as are 
     necessary at any time for cash disbursements to be made from 
     such funds: Provided, That transfers may be made between such 
     funds: Provided further, That transfers may be made between 
     working capital funds and the ``Foreign Currency 
     Fluctuations, Defense'' appropriation and the ``Operation and 
     Maintenance'' appropriation accounts in such amounts as may 
     be determined by the Secretary of Defense, with the approval 
     of the Office of Management and Budget, except that such 
     transfers may not be made unless the Secretary of Defense has 
     notified the Congress of the proposed transfer. Except in 
     amounts equal to the amounts appropriated to working capital 
     funds in this Act, no obligations may be made against a 
     working capital fund to procure or increase the value of war 
     reserve material inventory, unless the Secretary of Defense 
     has notified the Congress prior to any such obligation.
       Sec. 8009.  Funds appropriated by this Act may not be used 
     to initiate a special access program without prior 
     notification 30 calendar days in advance to the congressional 
     defense committees.
       Sec. 8010.  None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available to initiate: (1) a multiyear contract that employs 
     economic order quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000 
     in any one year of the contract or that includes an unfunded 
     contingent liability in excess of $20,000,000; or (2) a 
     contract for advance procurement leading to a multiyear 
     contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in 
     excess of $20,000,000 in any one year, unless the 
     congressional defense committees have been notified at least 
     30 days in advance of the proposed contract award: Provided, 
     That no part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall 
     be available to initiate a multiyear contract for which the 
     economic order quantity advance procurement is not funded at 
     least to the limits of the Government's liability: Provided 
     further, That no part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available to initiate multiyear procurement 
     contracts for any systems or component thereof if the value 
     of the multiyear contract would exceed $500,000,000 unless 
     specifically provided in this Act: Provided further, That no 
     multiyear procurement contract can be terminated without 10-
     day prior notification to the congressional defense 
     committees: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act shall be available for a contract 
     that incrementally funds an end item purchased under multi-
     year procurement authority: Provided further, That the 
     preceding limitation shall not apply to advance procurement 
     funding and economic order quantity funding associated with a 
     multi-year procurement: Provided further, That the execution 
     of multiyear authority shall require the use of a present 
     value analysis to determine lowest cost compared to an annual 
     procurement: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided in this Act may be used for a multiyear contract 
     executed after the date of the enactment of this Act unless 
     in the case of any such contract--
       (1) the Secretary of Defense has submitted to Congress a 
     budget request for full funding of units to be procured 
     through the contract and, in the case of a contract for 
     procurement of aircraft, that includes, for any aircraft unit 
     to be procured through the contract for which procurement 
     funds are requested in that budget request for production 
     beyond advance procurement activities in the fiscal year 
     covered by the budget, full funding of procurement of such 
     unit in that fiscal year;
       (2) cancellation provisions in the contract do not include 
     consideration of recurring manufacturing costs of the 
     contractor associated with the production of unfunded units 
     to be delivered under the contract;

[[Page 11627]]

       (3) the contract provides that payments to the contractor 
     under the contract shall not be made in advance of incurred 
     costs on funded units; and
       (4) the contract does not provide for a price adjustment 
     based on a failure to award a follow-on contract.
        Funds appropriated in title III of this Act may be used 
     for a multiyear procurement contract as follows:
        F/A-18E, F/A-18F, and EA-18G aircraft; DDG-51 Arleigh 
     Burke class destroyer and associated systems; SSN-774 
     Virginia class submarine and government-furnished equipment; 
     CH-47 Chinook helicopter; and V-22 Osprey aircraft variants.
       Sec. 8011.  Within the funds appropriated for the operation 
     and maintenance of the Armed Forces, funds are hereby 
     appropriated pursuant to section 401 of title 10, United 
     States Code, for humanitarian and civic assistance costs 
     under chapter 20 of title 10, United States Code. Such funds 
     may also be obligated for humanitarian and civic assistance 
     costs incidental to authorized operations and pursuant to 
     authority granted in section 401 of chapter 20 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and these obligations shall be reported 
     as required by section 401(d) of title 10, United States 
     Code: Provided, That funds available for operation and 
     maintenance shall be available for providing humanitarian and 
     similar assistance by using Civic Action Teams in the Trust 
     Territories of the Pacific Islands and freely associated 
     states of Micronesia, pursuant to the Compact of Free 
     Association as authorized by Public Law 99-239: Provided 
     further, That upon a determination by the Secretary of the 
     Army that such action is beneficial for graduate medical 
     education programs conducted at Army medical facilities 
     located in Hawaii, the Secretary of the Army may authorize 
     the provision of medical services at such facilities and 
     transportation to such facilities, on a nonreimbursable 
     basis, for civilian patients from American Samoa, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Marshall 
     Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and Guam.
       Sec. 8012. (a) During fiscal year 2013, the civilian 
     personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on 
     the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such 
     personnel during that fiscal year shall not be subject to any 
     constraint or limitation (known as an end-strength) on the 
     number of such personnel who may be employed on the last day 
     of such fiscal year.
       (b) The fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Department 
     of Defense as well as all justification material and other 
     documentation supporting the fiscal year 2014 Department of 
     Defense budget request shall be prepared and submitted to the 
     Congress as if subsections (a) and (b) of this provision were 
     effective with regard to fiscal year 2014.
       (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to 
     military (civilian) technicians.
       Sec. 8013.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to 
     influence congressional action on any legislation or 
     appropriation matters pending before the Congress.
       Sec. 8014.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     shall be available for the basic pay and allowances of any 
     member of the Army participating as a full-time student and 
     receiving benefits paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     from the Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund when 
     time spent as a full-time student is credited toward 
     completion of a service commitment: Provided, That this 
     section shall not apply to those members who have reenlisted 
     with this option prior to October 1, 1987: Provided further, 
     That this section applies only to active components of the 
     Army.

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8015.  Funds appropriated in title III of this Act for 
     the Department of Defense Pilot Mentor-Protege Program may be 
     transferred to any other appropriation contained in this Act 
     solely for the purpose of implementing a Mentor-Protege 
     Program developmental assistance agreement pursuant to 
     section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2302 note), 
     as amended, under the authority of this provision or any 
     other transfer authority contained in this Act.
       Sec. 8016.  None of the funds in this Act may be available 
     for the purchase by the Department of Defense (and its 
     departments and agencies) of welded shipboard anchor and 
     mooring chain 4 inches in diameter and under unless the 
     anchor and mooring chain are manufactured in the United 
     States from components which are substantially manufactured 
     in the United States: Provided, That for the purpose of this 
     section, the term ``manufactured'' shall include cutting, 
     heat treating, quality control, testing of chain and welding 
     (including the forging and shot blasting process): Provided 
     further, That for the purpose of this section substantially 
     all of the components of anchor and mooring chain shall be 
     considered to be produced or manufactured in the United 
     States if the aggregate cost of the components produced or 
     manufactured in the United States exceeds the aggregate cost 
     of the components produced or manufactured outside the United 
     States: Provided further, That when adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis, the Secretary of the service 
     responsible for the procurement may waive this restriction on 
     a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that such an acquisition must be 
     made in order to acquire capability for national security 
     purposes.
       Sec. 8017.  None of the funds available to the Department 
     of Defense, herein and hereafter, may be used to demilitarize 
     or dispose of M-1 Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, 
     .22 caliber rifles, .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols, or 
     to demilitarize or destroy small arms ammunition or 
     ammunition components that are not otherwise prohibited from 
     commercial sale under Federal law, unless the small arms 
     ammunition or ammunition components are certified by the 
     Secretary of the Army or designee as unserviceable or unsafe 
     for further use.
       Sec. 8018.  No more than $500,000 of the funds appropriated 
     or made available in this Act shall be used during a single 
     fiscal year for any single relocation of an organization, 
     unit, activity or function of the Department of Defense into 
     or within the National Capital Region: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
     case basis by certifying in writing to the congressional 
     defense committees that such a relocation is required in the 
     best interest of the Government.
       Sec. 8019.  In addition to the funds provided elsewhere in 
     this Act, $15,000,000 is appropriated only for incentive 
     payments authorized by section 504 of the Indian Financing 
     Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544): Provided, That a prime 
     contractor or a subcontractor at any tier that makes a 
     subcontract award to any subcontractor or supplier as defined 
     in section 1544 of title 25, United States Code, or a small 
     business owned and controlled by an individual or individuals 
     defined under section 4221(9) of title 25, United States 
     Code, shall be considered a contractor for the purposes of 
     being allowed additional compensation under section 504 of 
     the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544) whenever 
     the prime contract or subcontract amount is over $500,000 and 
     involves the expenditure of funds appropriated by an Act 
     making Appropriations for the Department of Defense with 
     respect to any fiscal year: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 1906 of title 41, United States Code, 
     this section shall be applicable to any Department of Defense 
     acquisition of supplies or services, including any contract 
     and any subcontract at any tier for acquisition of commercial 
     items produced or manufactured, in whole or in part, by any 
     subcontractor or supplier defined in section 1544 of title 
     25, United States Code, or a small business owned and 
     controlled by an individual or individuals defined under 
     section 4221(9) of title 25, United States Code.
       Sec. 8020.  Funds appropriated by this Act for the Defense 
     Media Activity shall not be used for any national or 
     international political or psychological activities.
       Sec. 8021.  During the current fiscal year, the Department 
     of Defense is authorized to incur obligations of not to 
     exceed $350,000,000 for purposes specified in section 
     2350j(c) of title 10, United States Code, in anticipation of 
     receipt of contributions, only from the Government of Kuwait, 
     under that section: Provided, That upon receipt, such 
     contributions from the Government of Kuwait shall be credited 
     to the appropriations or fund which incurred such 
     obligations.
       Sec. 8022. (a) Of the funds made available in this Act, not 
     less than $38,619,000 shall be available for the Civil Air 
     Patrol Corporation, of which--
       (1) $28,404,000 shall be available from ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Air Force'' to support Civil Air Patrol 
     Corporation operation and maintenance, readiness, counterdrug 
     activities, and drug demand reduction activities involving 
     youth programs;
       (2) $9,298,000 shall be available from ``Aircraft 
     Procurement, Air Force''; and
       (3) $917,000 shall be available from ``Other Procurement, 
     Air Force'' for vehicle procurement.
       (b) The Secretary of the Air Force should waive 
     reimbursement for any funds used by the Civil Air Patrol for 
     counter-drug activities in support of Federal, State, and 
     local government agencies.
       Sec. 8023. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     are available to establish a new Department of Defense 
     (department) federally funded research and development center 
     (FFRDC), either as a new entity, or as a separate entity 
     administrated by an organization managing another FFRDC, or 
     as a nonprofit membership corporation consisting of a 
     consortium of other FFRDCs and other nonprofit entities.
       (b) No member of a Board of Directors, Trustees, Overseers, 
     Advisory Group, Special Issues Panel, Visiting Committee, or 
     any similar entity of a defense FFRDC, and no paid consultant 
     to any defense FFRDC, except when acting in a technical 
     advisory capacity, may be compensated for his or her services 
     as a member of such entity, or as a paid consultant by more 
     than one FFRDC in a fiscal year: Provided, That a member of 
     any such entity referred to previously in this subsection 
     shall be allowed travel expenses and per diem as authorized 
     under the Federal Joint Travel Regulations, when engaged in 
     the performance of membership duties.

[[Page 11628]]

       (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     funds available to the department from any source during 
     fiscal year 2013 may be used by a defense FFRDC, through a 
     fee or other payment mechanism, for construction of new 
     buildings, for payment of cost sharing for projects funded by 
     Government grants, for absorption of contract overruns, or 
     for certain charitable contributions, not to include employee 
     participation in community service and/or development.
       (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the 
     funds available to the department during fiscal year 2013, 
     not more than 5,750 staff years of technical effort (staff 
     years) may be funded for defense FFRDCs: Provided, That of 
     the specific amount referred to previously in this 
     subsection, not more than 1,125 staff years may be funded for 
     the defense studies and analysis FFRDCs: Provided further, 
     That this subsection shall not apply to staff years funded in 
     the National Intelligence Program (NIP) and the Military 
     Intelligence Program (MIP).
       (e) The Secretary of Defense shall, with the submission of 
     the department's fiscal year 2014 budget request, submit a 
     report presenting the specific amounts of staff years of 
     technical effort to be allocated for each defense FFRDC 
     during that fiscal year and the associated budget estimates.
       Sec. 8024.  None of the funds appropriated or made 
     available in this Act shall be used to procure carbon, alloy 
     or armor steel plate for use in any Government-owned facility 
     or property under the control of the Department of Defense 
     which were not melted and rolled in the United States or 
     Canada: Provided, That these procurement restrictions shall 
     apply to any and all Federal Supply Class 9515, American 
     Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Iron and 
     Steel Institute (AISI) specifications of carbon, alloy or 
     armor steel plate: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     the military department responsible for the procurement may 
     waive this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying 
     in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes: Provided further, That these restrictions 
     shall not apply to contracts which are in being as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 8025.  For the purposes of this Act, the term 
     ``congressional defense committees'' means the Armed Services 
     Committee of the House of Representatives, the Armed Services 
     Committee of the Senate, the Subcommittee on Defense of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and the 
     Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives.
       Sec. 8026.  During the current fiscal year, the Department 
     of Defense may acquire the modification, depot maintenance 
     and repair of aircraft, vehicles and vessels as well as the 
     production of components and other Defense-related articles, 
     through competition between Department of Defense depot 
     maintenance activities and private firms: Provided, That the 
     Senior Acquisition Executive of the military department or 
     Defense Agency concerned, with power of delegation, shall 
     certify that successful bids include comparable estimates of 
     all direct and indirect costs for both public and private 
     bids: Provided further, That Office of Management and Budget 
     Circular A-76 shall not apply to competitions conducted under 
     this section.
       Sec. 8027. (a)(1) If the Secretary of Defense, after 
     consultation with the United States Trade Representative, 
     determines that a foreign country which is party to an 
     agreement described in paragraph (2) has violated the terms 
     of the agreement by discriminating against certain types of 
     products produced in the United States that are covered by 
     the agreement, the Secretary of Defense shall rescind the 
     Secretary's blanket waiver of the Buy American Act with 
     respect to such types of products produced in that foreign 
     country.
       (2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is any 
     reciprocal defense procurement memorandum of understanding, 
     between the United States and a foreign country pursuant to 
     which the Secretary of Defense has prospectively waived the 
     Buy American Act for certain products in that country.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress a 
     report on the amount of Department of Defense purchases from 
     foreign entities in fiscal year 2013. Such report shall 
     separately indicate the dollar value of items for which the 
     Buy American Act was waived pursuant to any agreement 
     described in subsection (a)(2), the Trade Agreement Act of 
     1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), or any international agreement 
     to which the United States is a party.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Buy American 
     Act'' means chapter 83 of title 41, United States Code.
       Sec. 8028.  During the current fiscal year, amounts 
     contained in the Department of Defense Overseas Military 
     Facility Investment Recovery Account established by section 
     2921(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991 
     (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) shall be available 
     until expended for the payments specified by section 
     2921(c)(2) of that Act.
       Sec. 8029. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Secretary of the Air Force may convey at no cost to the 
     Air Force, without consideration, to Indian tribes located in 
     the States of Nevada, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, 
     Montana, Oregon, Minnesota, and Washington relocatable 
     military housing units located at Grand Forks Air Force Base, 
     Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mountain Home Air Force Base, 
     Ellsworth Air Force Base, and Minot Air Force Base that are 
     excess to the needs of the Air Force.
       (b) The Secretary of the Air Force shall convey, at no cost 
     to the Air Force, military housing units under subsection (a) 
     in accordance with the request for such units that are 
     submitted to the Secretary by the Operation Walking Shield 
     Program on behalf of Indian tribes located in the States of 
     Nevada, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Oregon, 
     Minnesota, and Washington. Any such conveyance shall be 
     subject to the condition that the housing units shall be 
     removed within a reasonable period of time, as determined by 
     the Secretary.
       (c) The Operation Walking Shield Program shall resolve any 
     conflicts among requests of Indian tribes for housing units 
     under subsection (a) before submitting requests to the 
     Secretary of the Air Force under subsection (b).
       (d) In this section, the term ``Indian tribe'' means any 
     recognized Indian tribe included on the current list 
     published by the Secretary of the Interior under section 104 
     of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe Act of 1994 (Public 
     Law 103-454; 108 Stat. 4792; 25 U.S.C. 479a-1).
       Sec. 8030.  During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     which are available to the Department of Defense for 
     operation and maintenance may be used to purchase items 
     having an investment item unit cost of not more than 
     $250,000.
       Sec. 8031. (a) During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     appropriations or funds available to the Department of 
     Defense Working Capital Funds shall be used for the purchase 
     of an investment item for the purpose of acquiring a new 
     inventory item for sale or anticipated sale during the 
     current fiscal year or a subsequent fiscal year to customers 
     of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds if such an 
     item would not have been chargeable to the Department of 
     Defense Business Operations Fund during fiscal year 1994 and 
     if the purchase of such an investment item would be 
     chargeable during the current fiscal year to appropriations 
     made to the Department of Defense for procurement.
       (b) The fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Department 
     of Defense as well as all justification material and other 
     documentation supporting the fiscal year 2014 Department of 
     Defense budget shall be prepared and submitted to the 
     Congress on the basis that any equipment which was classified 
     as an end item and funded in a procurement appropriation 
     contained in this Act shall be budgeted for in a proposed 
     fiscal year 2014 procurement appropriation and not in the 
     supply management business area or any other area or category 
     of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds.
       Sec. 8032.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act for 
     programs of the Central Intelligence Agency shall remain 
     available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year, 
     except for funds appropriated for the Reserve for 
     Contingencies, which shall remain available until September 
     30, 2014: Provided, That funds appropriated, transferred, or 
     otherwise credited to the Central Intelligence Agency Central 
     Services Working Capital Fund during this or any prior or 
     subsequent fiscal year shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That any funds appropriated or transferred 
     to the Central Intelligence Agency for advanced research and 
     development acquisition, for agent operations, and for covert 
     action programs authorized by the President under section 503 
     of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2014.
       Sec. 8033.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds made available in this Act for the Defense Intelligence 
     Agency may be used for the design, development, and 
     deployment of General Defense Intelligence Program 
     intelligence communications and intelligence information 
     systems for the Services, the Unified and Specified Commands, 
     and the component commands.
       Sec. 8034.  Of the funds appropriated to the Department of 
     Defense under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', not less than $12,000,000 shall be made 
     available only for the mitigation of environmental impacts, 
     including training and technical assistance to tribes, 
     related administrative support, the gathering of information, 
     documenting of environmental damage, and developing a system 
     for prioritization of mitigation and cost to complete 
     estimates for mitigation, on Indian lands resulting from 
     Department of Defense activities.
       Sec. 8035. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     may be expended by an entity of the Department of Defense 
     unless the entity, in expending the funds, complies with the 
     Buy American Act. For purposes of

[[Page 11629]]

     this subsection, the term ``Buy American Act'' means chapter 
     83 of title 41, United States Code.
       (b) If the Secretary of Defense determines that a person 
     has been convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing 
     a ``Made in America'' inscription to any product sold in or 
     shipped to the United States that is not made in America, the 
     Secretary shall determine, in accordance with section 2410f 
     of title 10, United States Code, whether the person should be 
     debarred from contracting with the Department of Defense.
       (c) In the case of any equipment or products purchased with 
     appropriations provided under this Act, it is the sense of 
     the Congress that any entity of the Department of Defense, in 
     expending the appropriation, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products, provided that American-made equipment 
     and products are cost-competitive, quality competitive, and 
     available in a timely fashion.
       Sec. 8036.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     shall be available for a contract for studies, analysis, or 
     consulting services entered into without competition on the 
     basis of an unsolicited proposal unless the head of the 
     activity responsible for the procurement determines--
       (1) as a result of thorough technical evaluation, only one 
     source is found fully qualified to perform the proposed work;
       (2) the purpose of the contract is to explore an 
     unsolicited proposal which offers significant scientific or 
     technological promise, represents the product of original 
     thinking, and was submitted in confidence by one source; or
       (3) the purpose of the contract is to take advantage of 
     unique and significant industrial accomplishment by a 
     specific concern, or to insure that a new product or idea of 
     a specific concern is given financial support: Provided, That 
     this limitation shall not apply to contracts in an amount of 
     less than $25,000, contracts related to improvements of 
     equipment that is in development or production, or contracts 
     as to which a civilian official of the Department of Defense, 
     who has been confirmed by the Senate, determines that the 
     award of such contract is in the interest of the national 
     defense.

  Mr. KINGSTON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 66, line 17, be 
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 8037. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and 
     (c), none of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used--
       (1) to establish a field operating agency; or
       (2) to pay the basic pay of a member of the Armed Forces or 
     civilian employee of the department who is transferred or 
     reassigned from a headquarters activity if the member or 
     employee's place of duty remains at the location of that 
     headquarters.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense or Secretary of a military 
     department may waive the limitations in subsection (a), on a 
     case-by-case basis, if the Secretary determines, and 
     certifies to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate that the granting of the waiver 
     will reduce the personnel requirements or the financial 
     requirements of the department.
       (c) This section does not apply to--
       (1) field operating agencies funded within the National 
     Intelligence Program;
       (2) an Army field operating agency established to 
     eliminate, mitigate, or counter the effects of improvised 
     explosive devices, and, as determined by the Secretary of the 
     Army, other similar threats; or
       (3) an Army field operating agency established to improve 
     the effectiveness and efficiencies of biometric activities 
     and to integrate common biometric technologies throughout the 
     Department of Defense.
       Sec. 8038.  The Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, acting through the Office of Economic 
     Adjustment of the Department of Defense, may use funds made 
     available in this Act under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' to make grants and supplement 
     other Federal funds in accordance with the guidance provided 
     in the explanatory statement regarding this Act.
       Sec. 8039. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     shall be available to convert to contractor performance an 
     activity or function of the Department of Defense that, on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, is performed by 
     Department of Defense civilian employees unless--
       (1) the conversion is based on the result of a public-
     private competition that includes a most efficient and cost 
     effective organization plan developed by such activity or 
     function;
       (2) the Competitive Sourcing Official determines that, over 
     all performance periods stated in the solicitation of offers 
     for performance of the activity or function, the cost of 
     performance of the activity or function by a contractor would 
     be less costly to the Department of Defense by an amount that 
     equals or exceeds the lesser of--
       (A) 10 percent of the most efficient organization's 
     personnel-related costs for performance of that activity or 
     function by Federal employees; or
       (B) $10,000,000; and
       (3) the contractor does not receive an advantage for a 
     proposal that would reduce costs for the Department of 
     Defense by--
       (A) not making an employer-sponsored health insurance plan 
     available to the workers who are to be employed in the 
     performance of that activity or function under the contract; 
     or
       (B) offering to such workers an employer-sponsored health 
     benefits plan that requires the employer to contribute less 
     towards the premium or subscription share than the amount 
     that is paid by the Department of Defense for health benefits 
     for civilian employees under chapter 89 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (b)(1) The Department of Defense, without regard to 
     subsection (a) of this section or subsection (a), (b), or (c) 
     of section 2461 of title 10, United States Code, and 
     notwithstanding any administrative regulation, requirement, 
     or policy to the contrary shall have full authority to enter 
     into a contract for the performance of any commercial or 
     industrial type function of the Department of Defense that--
       (A) is included on the procurement list established 
     pursuant to section 2 of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (section 
     8503 of title 41, United States Code);
       (B) is planned to be converted to performance by a 
     qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or by a qualified 
     nonprofit agency for other severely handicapped individuals 
     in accordance with that Act; or
       (C) is planned to be converted to performance by a 
     qualified firm under at least 51 percent ownership by an 
     Indian tribe, as defined in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(e)), or a Native Hawaiian Organization, as defined in 
     section 8(a)(15) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     637(a)(15)).
       (2) This section shall not apply to depot contracts or 
     contracts for depot maintenance as provided in sections 2469 
     and 2474 of title 10, United States Code.
       (c) The conversion of any activity or function of the 
     Department of Defense under the authority provided by this 
     section shall be credited toward any competitive or 
     outsourcing goal, target, or measurement that may be 
     established by statute, regulation, or policy and is deemed 
     to be awarded under the authority of, and in compliance with, 
     subsection (h) of section 2304 of title 10, United States 
     Code, for the competition or outsourcing of commercial 
     activities.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Amash

  Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Strike section 8039.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, the House has voted repeatedly to strike 
problematic and anticompetitive A-76 language from the bill we have 
considered. The same change and reversal of bad policy should be 
adopted in this legislation by striking section 8039.
  My amendment does just that. As drafted, section 8039 prohibits the 
Department of Defense from contracting out any function unless it will 
save a minimum of $10 million or 10 percent of the Department's 
performance costs--even if the contractor is less costly overall and 
can perform the work more efficiently.
  Independent studies have found that public-private competitions lower 
costs by between 10 and 40 percent, regardless of whether the 
competition is won by a private contractor or the government. Rather 
than stand in the way of public-private competitions, Congress should 
cut the red tape and make the use of this cost-saving process easier, 
not harder.
  The requirements in section 8039 are largely codified in existing 
statute. Retaining section 8039 will obstruct, and potentially nullify, 
any current efforts to reform the system in ways that improve public-
private competitions and bring much-needed transparency, consistency, 
and reliability to the process.
  Instead of complicating the use of competitions that improve service 
and lower costs, we should be encouraging agencies to find the most 
efficient way to deliver services. This amendment will send that 
message by reducing restrictions on the Department of Defense and 
making it easier to achieve

[[Page 11630]]

reforms that will increase the availability of cost-saving competitions 
throughout the Department.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, taxpayer-first 
amendment to H.R. 5856.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The amendment tends to remove language from the 
appropriations bill, which we're going to agree with, by the way. It 
has been carried in appropriations bills for a number of years. 
However, when the laws were codified, it became part of the permanent 
law. It doesn't even need to be in the appropriations bills any longer.
  So we have no objection to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1830

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Baca

  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

       Page 32, line 18, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to considering the amendment at 
this point in the reading?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object--
and I won't object--I will say this is a little unusual for us to agree 
to do this. But in this one case, we will agree to it and let the 
gentleman present his amendment.
  I believe in as much openness as we possibly can provide for all of 
our Members, but we just can't make a habit of going back once the bill 
has been read, once the regular order has been followed. But in this 
case, we will yield.
  I withdraw my reservation, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BACA. I'd like to thank the chairman and Member Dicks for 
allowing me this effort on this legislation. I also want to thank my 
colleague, Gary Miller, for supporting this amendment.
  This is a Baca-Miller amendment. It is bipartisan. It directs $10 
million to be moved from the Operations and Management portion of the 
Department of Defense budget to the Research and Development portion of 
the budget. Moving these funds will allow the DOD to develop cost-
effective solutions to environmental problems.
  These funds will allow the Strategic Environmental Research and 
Development Program and the Environmental Security Technology 
Certification Program to support, and I state, grants. This is a grant, 
it's not an earmark, that provides clear water.
  My communities in California, including Gary Miller's district, in 
the Inland Empire must deal with perchlorate contaminated water. 
Perchlorate is a rocket fuel additive that can be harmful to women, 
children, and the elderly, that affects both Gary Miller's and my 
district. This contamination has resulted in millions of dollars in 
cost to the region for cleanup litigation.
  Congress should actively support the DOD effort to develop solutions 
to problems like perchlorate contamination. I ask my colleagues to 
support the Baca-Miller amendment, a bipartisan amendment.
  Again, I thank the chair and the ranking member, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, while I did not object to taking 
up this amendment, I am going to object to the amendment. This one 
actually was an earmark in the FY10, funded as an earmark at $1.6 
million. It also takes the money from that source that I have objected 
to before, the Defense-Wide Operation and Maintenance accounts. I just 
really cannot support anything that is going to affect our readiness to 
defend our country.
  So I strongly object to this amendment, although I did agree to 
allowing us to go back to consider the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 8040.  Of the funds appropriated in Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Acts, the following funds are hereby 
     rescinded from the following accounts and programs in the 
     specified amounts:
       ``Procurement of Ammunition, Army, 2011/2013'', 
     $14,862,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy, 2011/2013'', $30,100,000;
       ``Weapons Procurement, Navy, 2011/2013'', $22,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Navy, 2011/2013'', $12,432,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 2011/2013'', 
     $65,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Air Force, 2011/2013'', $9,500,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Army, 2012/2014'', $80,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy, 2012/2014'', $14,400,000;
       ``Weapons Procurement, Navy, 2012/2014'', $31,572,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 2012/2014'', 
     $277,050,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Air Force, 2012/2014'', $44,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Air Force, 2012/2014'', $55,800,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 2012/
     2013'', $63,000,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, 2012/
     2013'', $120,000,000; and
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, 
     2012/2013'', $179,600,000.
       Sec. 8041.  None of the funds available in this Act may be 
     used to reduce the authorized positions for military 
     technicians (dual status) of the Army National Guard, Air 
     National Guard, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve for the 
     purpose of applying any administratively imposed civilian 
     personnel ceiling, freeze, or reduction on military 
     technicians (dual status), unless such reductions are a 
     direct result of a reduction in military force structure.
       Sec. 8042.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in this Act may be obligated or expended for 
     assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea 
     unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
       Sec. 8043.  Funds appropriated in this Act for operation 
     and maintenance of the Military Departments, Combatant 
     Commands and Defense Agencies shall be available for 
     reimbursement of pay, allowances and other expenses which 
     would otherwise be incurred against appropriations for the 
     National Guard and Reserve when members of the National Guard 
     and Reserve provide intelligence or counterintelligence 
     support to Combatant Commands, Defense Agencies and Joint 
     Intelligence Activities, including the activities and 
     programs included within the National Intelligence Program 
     and the Military Intelligence Program: Provided, That nothing 
     in this section authorizes deviation from established Reserve 
     and National Guard personnel and training procedures.
       Sec. 8044.  During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     funds appropriated in this Act may be used to reduce the 
     civilian medical and medical support personnel assigned to 
     military treatment facilities below the September 30, 2003, 
     level: Provided, That the Service Surgeons General may waive 
     this section by certifying to the congressional defense 
     committees that the beneficiary population is declining in 
     some catchment areas and civilian strength reductions may be 
     consistent with responsible resource stewardship and 
     capitation-based budgeting.
       Sec. 8045. (a) None of the funds available to the 
     Department of Defense for any fiscal year for drug 
     interdiction or counter-drug activities may be transferred to 
     any other department or agency of the United States except as 
     specifically provided in an appropriations law.
       (b) None of the funds available to the Central Intelligence 
     Agency for any fiscal year for drug interdiction and counter-
     drug activities may be transferred to any other department or 
     agency of the United States except as specifically provided 
     in an appropriations law.
       Sec. 8046.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used for the procurement of ball and roller bearings other 
     than those produced by a domestic source and of domestic 
     origin: Provided, That the Secretary of

[[Page 11631]]

     the military department responsible for such procurement may 
     waive this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying 
     in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate, that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes: Provided further, That this restriction 
     shall not apply to the purchase of ``commercial items'', as 
     defined by section 4(12) of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act, except that the restriction shall apply to ball 
     or roller bearings purchased as end items.
       Sec. 8047.  None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     purchase any supercomputer which is not manufactured in the 
     United States, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to 
     the congressional defense committees that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes that is not available from United States 
     manufacturers.
       Sec. 8048.  None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act may be used to pay the salary of any officer or 
     employee of the Department of Defense who approves or 
     implements the transfer of administrative responsibilities or 
     budgetary resources of any program, project, or activity 
     financed by this Act to the jurisdiction of another Federal 
     agency not financed by this Act without the express 
     authorization of Congress: Provided, That this limitation 
     shall not apply to transfers of funds expressly provided for 
     in Defense Appropriations Acts, or provisions of Acts 
     providing supplemental appropriations for the Department of 
     Defense.
       Sec. 8049. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     none of the funds available to the Department of Defense for 
     the current fiscal year may be obligated or expended to 
     transfer to another nation or an international organization 
     any defense articles or services (other than intelligence 
     services) for use in the activities described in subsection 
     (b) unless the congressional defense committees, the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, 
     and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate are 
     notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
       (b) This section applies to--
       (1) any international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement 
     operation under the authority of chapter VI or chapter VII of 
     the United Nations Charter under the authority of a United 
     Nations Security Council resolution; and
       (2) any other international peacekeeping, peace-
     enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operation.
       (c) A notice under subsection (a) shall include the 
     following:
       (1) A description of the equipment, supplies, or services 
     to be transferred.
       (2) A statement of the value of the equipment, supplies, or 
     services to be transferred.
       (3) In the case of a proposed transfer of equipment or 
     supplies--
       (A) a statement of whether the inventory requirements of 
     all elements of the Armed Forces (including the reserve 
     components) for the type of equipment or supplies to be 
     transferred have been met; and
       (B) a statement of whether the items proposed to be 
     transferred will have to be replaced and, if so, how the 
     President proposes to provide funds for such replacement.
       Sec. 8050.  None of the funds available to the Department 
     of Defense under this Act shall be obligated or expended to 
     pay a contractor under a contract with the Department of 
     Defense for costs of any amount paid by the contractor to an 
     employee when--
       (1) such costs are for a bonus or otherwise in excess of 
     the normal salary paid by the contractor to the employee; and
       (2) such bonus is part of restructuring costs associated 
     with a business combination.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8051.  During the current fiscal year, no more than 
     $30,000,000 of appropriations made in this Act under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' may be 
     transferred to appropriations available for the pay of 
     military personnel, to be merged with, and to be available 
     for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred, to be used in support of such personnel in 
     connection with support and services for eligible 
     organizations and activities outside the Department of 
     Defense pursuant to section 2012 of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       Sec. 8052.  During the current fiscal year, in the case of 
     an appropriation account of the Department of Defense for 
     which the period of availability for obligation has expired 
     or which has closed under the provisions of section 1552 of 
     title 31, United States Code, and which has a negative 
     unliquidated or unexpended balance, an obligation or an 
     adjustment of an obligation may be charged to any current 
     appropriation account for the same purpose as the expired or 
     closed account if--
       (1) the obligation would have been properly chargeable 
     (except as to amount) to the expired or closed account before 
     the end of the period of availability or closing of that 
     account;
       (2) the obligation is not otherwise properly chargeable to 
     any current appropriation account of the Department of 
     Defense; and
       (3) in the case of an expired account, the obligation is 
     not chargeable to a current appropriation of the Department 
     of Defense under the provisions of section 1405(b)(8) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, 
     Public Law 101-510, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1551 note): 
     Provided, That in the case of an expired account, if 
     subsequent review or investigation discloses that there was 
     not in fact a negative unliquidated or unexpended balance in 
     the account, any charge to a current account under the 
     authority of this section shall be reversed and recorded 
     against the expired account: Provided further, That the total 
     amount charged to a current appropriation under this section 
     may not exceed an amount equal to 1 percent of the total 
     appropriation for that account.
       Sec. 8053. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Chief of the National Guard Bureau may permit the use of 
     equipment of the National Guard Distance Learning Project by 
     any person or entity on a space-available, reimbursable 
     basis. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall establish 
     the amount of reimbursement for such use on a case-by-case 
     basis.
       (b) Amounts collected under subsection (a) shall be 
     credited to funds available for the National Guard Distance 
     Learning Project and be available to defray the costs 
     associated with the use of equipment of the project under 
     that subsection. Such funds shall be available for such 
     purposes without fiscal year limitation.
       Sec. 8054.  Using funds made available by this Act or any 
     other Act, the Secretary of the Air Force, pursuant to a 
     determination under section 2690 of title 10, United States 
     Code, may implement cost-effective agreements for required 
     heating facility modernization in the Kaiserslautern Military 
     Community in the Federal Republic of Germany: Provided, That 
     in the City of Kaiserslautern and at the Rhine Ordnance 
     Barracks area, such agreements will include the use of United 
     States anthracite as the base load energy for municipal 
     district heat to the United States Defense installations: 
     Provided further, That at Landstuhl Army Regional Medical 
     Center and Ramstein Air Base, furnished heat may be obtained 
     from private, regional or municipal services, if provisions 
     are included for the consideration of United States coal as 
     an energy source.
       Sec. 8055.  None of the funds appropriated in title IV of 
     this Act may be used to procure end-items for delivery to 
     military forces for operational training, operational use or 
     inventory requirements: Provided, That this restriction does 
     not apply to end-items used in development, prototyping, and 
     test activities preceding and leading to acceptance for 
     operational use: Provided further, That this restriction does 
     not apply to programs funded within the National Intelligence 
     Program: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense may 
     waive this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying 
     in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate that it is in the national 
     security interest to do so.
       Sec. 8056. (a) The Secretary of Defense may, on a case-by-
     case basis, waive with respect to a foreign country each 
     limitation on the procurement of defense items from foreign 
     sources provided in law if the Secretary determines that the 
     application of the limitation with respect to that country 
     would invalidate cooperative programs entered into between 
     the Department of Defense and the foreign country, or would 
     invalidate reciprocal trade agreements for the procurement of 
     defense items entered into under section 2531 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and the country does not discriminate 
     against the same or similar defense items produced in the 
     United States for that country.
       (b) Subsection (a) applies with respect to--
       (1) contracts and subcontracts entered into on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) options for the procurement of items that are exercised 
     after such date under contracts that are entered into before 
     such date if the option prices are adjusted for any reason 
     other than the application of a waiver granted under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Subsection (a) does not apply to a limitation regarding 
     construction of public vessels, ball and roller bearings, 
     food, and clothing or textile materials as defined by section 
     11 (chapters 50-65) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and 
     products classified under headings 4010, 4202, 4203, 6401 
     through 6406, 6505, 7019, 7218 through 7229, 7304.41 through 
     7304.49, 7306.40, 7502 through 7508, 8105, 8108, 8109, 8211, 
     8215, and 9404.
       Sec. 8057. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used to support any training program involving a unit 
     of the security forces or police of a foreign country if the 
     Secretary of Defense has received credible information from 
     the Department of State that the unit has committed a gross 
     violation of human rights, unless all necessary corrective 
     steps have been taken.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of State, shall ensure that prior to a decision to 
     conduct any training program referred to in subsection (a), 
     full consideration is given to all credible information 
     available to the Department of State relating to human rights 
     violations by foreign security forces.

[[Page 11632]]

       (c) The Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the 
     Secretary of State, may waive the prohibition in subsection 
     (a) if he determines that such waiver is required by 
     extraordinary circumstances.
       (d) Not more than 15 days after the exercise of any waiver 
     under subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense shall submit a 
     report to the congressional defense committees describing the 
     extraordinary circumstances, the purpose and duration of the 
     training program, the United States forces and the foreign 
     security forces involved in the training program, and the 
     information relating to human rights violations that 
     necessitates the waiver.
       Sec. 8058.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this or other Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Acts may be obligated or expended for the 
     purpose of performing repairs or maintenance to military 
     family housing units of the Department of Defense, including 
     areas in such military family housing units that may be used 
     for the purpose of conducting official Department of Defense 
     business.
       Sec. 8059.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' for any new 
     start advanced concept technology demonstration project or 
     joint capability demonstration project may only be obligated 
     45 days after a report, including a description of the 
     project, the planned acquisition and transition strategy and 
     its estimated annual and total cost, has been provided in 
     writing to the congressional defense committees: Provided, 
     That the Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a 
     case-by-case basis by certifying to the congressional defense 
     committees that it is in the national interest to do so.
       Sec. 8060.  The Secretary of Defense shall provide a 
     classified quarterly report beginning 30 days after enactment 
     of this Act, to the House and Senate Appropriations 
     Committees, Subcommittees on Defense on certain matters as 
     directed in the classified annex accompanying this Act.
       Sec. 8061.  During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to 
     provide support to another department or agency of the United 
     States if such department or agency is more than 90 days in 
     arrears in making payment to the Department of Defense for 
     goods or services previously provided to such department or 
     agency on a reimbursable basis: Provided, That this 
     restriction shall not apply if the department is authorized 
     by law to provide support to such department or agency on a 
     nonreimbursable basis, and is providing the requested support 
     pursuant to such authority: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
     case basis by certifying in writing to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     that it is in the national security interest to do so.
       Sec. 8062.  Notwithstanding section 12310(b) of title 10, 
     United States Code, a Reserve who is a member of the National 
     Guard serving on full-time National Guard duty under section 
     502(f) of title 32, United States Code, may perform duties in 
     support of the ground-based elements of the National 
     Ballistic Missile Defense System.
       Sec. 8063.  None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to transfer to any nongovernmental entity ammunition 
     held by the Department of Defense that has a center-fire 
     cartridge and a United States military nomenclature 
     designation of ``armor penetrator'', ``armor piercing (AP)'', 
     ``armor piercing incendiary (API)'', or ``armor-piercing 
     incendiary tracer (API-T)'', except to an entity performing 
     demilitarization services for the Department of Defense under 
     a contract that requires the entity to demonstrate to the 
     satisfaction of the Department of Defense that armor piercing 
     projectiles are either: (1) rendered incapable of reuse by 
     the demilitarization process; or (2) used to manufacture 
     ammunition pursuant to a contract with the Department of 
     Defense or the manufacture of ammunition for export pursuant 
     to a License for Permanent Export of Unclassified Military 
     Articles issued by the Department of State.
       Sec. 8064.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Chief of the National Guard Bureau, or his designee, may 
     waive payment of all or part of the consideration that 
     otherwise would be required under section 2667 of title 10, 
     United States Code, in the case of a lease of personal 
     property for a period not in excess of 1 year to any 
     organization specified in section 508(d) of title 32, United 
     States Code, or any other youth, social, or fraternal 
     nonprofit organization as may be approved by the Chief of the 
     National Guard Bureau, or his designee, on a case-by-case 
     basis.
       Sec. 8065.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     shall be used for the support of any nonappropriated funds 
     activity of the Department of Defense that procures malt 
     beverages and wine with nonappropriated funds for resale 
     (including such alcoholic beverages sold by the drink) on a 
     military installation located in the United States unless 
     such malt beverages and wine are procured within that State, 
     or in the case of the District of Columbia, within the 
     District of Columbia, in which the military installation is 
     located: Provided, That in a case in which the military 
     installation is located in more than one State, purchases may 
     be made in any State in which the installation is located: 
     Provided further, That such local procurement requirements 
     for malt beverages and wine shall apply to all alcoholic 
     beverages only for military installations in States which are 
     not contiguous with another State: Provided further, That 
     alcoholic beverages other than wine and malt beverages, in 
     contiguous States and the District of Columbia shall be 
     procured from the most competitive source, price and other 
     factors considered.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8066.  Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $133,381,000 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     Defense is authorized to transfer such funds to other 
     activities of the Federal Government: Provided further, That 
     the Secretary of Defense is authorized to enter into and 
     carry out contracts for the acquisition of real property, 
     construction, personal services, and operations related to 
     projects carrying out the purposes of this section: Provided 
     further, That contracts entered into under the authority of 
     this section may provide for such indemnification as the 
     Secretary determines to be necessary: Provided further, That 
     projects authorized by this section shall comply with 
     applicable Federal, State, and local law to the maximum 
     extent consistent with the national security, as determined 
     by the Secretary of Defense.
       Sec. 8067.  Section 8106 of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1997 (titles I through VIII of the matter 
     under subsection 101(b) of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 
     3009-111; 10 U.S.C. 113 note) shall continue in effect to 
     apply to disbursements that are made by the Department of 
     Defense in fiscal year 2013.
       Sec. 8068.  In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in 
     this Act, $4,000,000 is hereby appropriated to the Department 
     of Defense, to remain available for obligation until 
     expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, that upon the determination of the Secretary of 
     Defense that it shall serve the national interest, these 
     funds shall be available only for a grant to the Fisher House 
     Foundation, Inc., only for the construction and furnishing of 
     additional Fisher Houses to meet the needs of military family 
     members when confronted with the illness or hospitalization 
     of an eligible military beneficiary.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8069.  Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'', $948,736,000 shall be for the Israeli 
     Cooperative Programs: Provided, That of this amount, 
     $149,679,000 shall be for the Short Range Ballistic Missile 
     Defense (SRBMD) program, including cruise missile defense 
     research and development under the SRBMD program, of which 
     $15,000,000 shall be for production activities of SRBMD 
     missiles in the United States and in Israel to meet Israel's 
     defense requirements consistent with each nation's laws, 
     regulations, and procedures, $74,692,000 shall be available 
     for an upper-tier component to the Israeli Missile Defense 
     Architecture, and $44,365,000 shall be for the Arrow System 
     Improvement Program including development of a long range, 
     ground and airborne, detection suite, and $680,000,000 shall 
     be for the Iron Dome program: Provided further, That funds 
     made available under this provision for production of 
     missiles and missile components may be transferred to 
     appropriations available for the procurement of weapons and 
     equipment, to be merged with and to be available for the same 
     time period and the same purposes as the appropriation to 
     which transferred: Provided further, That the transfer 
     authority provided under this provision is in addition to any 
     other transfer authority contained in this Act.
       Sec. 8070.  None of the funds available to the Department 
     of Defense may be obligated to modify command and control 
     relationships to give Fleet Forces Command operational and 
     administrative control of U.S. Navy forces assigned to the 
     Pacific fleet: Provided, That the command and control 
     relationships which existed on October 1, 1994, shall remain 
     in force unless changes are specifically authorized in a 
     subsequent Act.
       Sec. 8071.  Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'', 
     $372,573,000 shall be available until September 30, 2013, to 
     fund prior year shipbuilding cost increases: Provided, That 
     upon enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall 
     transfer funds to the following appropriations in the amounts 
     specified: Provided further, That the amounts transferred 
     shall be merged with and be available for the same purposes 
     as the appropriations to which transferred to:
       (1) Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     2007/2013'': LHA Replacement Program $156,685,000;
       (2) Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     2008/2013'': LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock Program 
     $80,888,000; and

[[Page 11633]]

       (3) Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     2009/2013'': CVN Refueling Overhauls $135,000,000.
       Sec. 8072.  Funds appropriated by this Act, or made 
     available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for 
     intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
     authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal 
     year 2013 until the enactment of the Intelligence 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
       Sec. 8073.  None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that creates or initiates a new 
     program, project, or activity unless such program, project, 
     or activity must be undertaken immediately in the interest of 
     national security and only after written prior notification 
     to the congressional defense committee.
       Sec. 8074.  The budget of the President for fiscal year 
     2014 submitted to the Congress pursuant to section 1105 of 
     title 31, United States Code, shall include separate budget 
     justification documents for costs of United States Armed 
     Forces' participation in contingency operations for the 
     Military Personnel accounts, the Operation and Maintenance 
     accounts, and the Procurement accounts: Provided, That these 
     documents shall include a description of the funding 
     requested for each contingency operation, for each military 
     service, to include all Active and Reserve components, and 
     for each appropriations account: Provided further, That these 
     documents shall include estimated costs for each element of 
     expense or object class, a reconciliation of increases and 
     decreases for each contingency operation, and programmatic 
     data including, but not limited to, troop strength for each 
     Active and Reserve component, and estimates of the major 
     weapons systems deployed in support of each contingency: 
     Provided further, That these documents shall include budget 
     exhibits OP-5 and OP-32 (as defined in the Department of 
     Defense Financial Management Regulation) for all contingency 
     operations for the budget year and the two preceding fiscal 
     years.
       Sec. 8075.  None of the funds in this Act may be used for 
     research, development, test, evaluation, procurement or 
     deployment of nuclear armed interceptors of a missile defense 
     system.
       Sec. 8076.  In addition to the amounts appropriated or 
     otherwise made available elsewhere in this Act, $44,000,000 
     is hereby appropriated to the Department of Defense: 
     Provided, That upon the determination of the Secretary of 
     Defense that it shall serve the national interest, he shall 
     make grants in the amounts specified as follows: $20,000,000 
     to the United Service Organizations and $24,000,000 to the 
     Red Cross.
       Sec. 8077.  None of the funds appropriated or made 
     available in this Act shall be used to reduce or disestablish 
     the operation of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of 
     the Air Force Reserve, if such action would reduce the WC-130 
     Weather Reconnaissance mission below the levels funded in 
     this Act: Provided, That the Air Force shall allow the 53rd 
     Weather Reconnaissance Squadron to perform other missions in 
     support of national defense requirements during the non-
     hurricane season.
       Sec. 8078.  None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available for integration of foreign intelligence information 
     unless the information has been lawfully collected and 
     processed during the conduct of authorized foreign 
     intelligence activities: Provided, That information 
     pertaining to United States persons shall only be handled in 
     accordance with protections provided in the Fourth Amendment 
     of the United States Constitution as implemented through 
     Executive Order No. 12333.
       Sec. 8079. (a) At the time members of reserve components of 
     the Armed Forces are called or ordered to active duty under 
     section 12302(a) of title 10, United States Code, each member 
     shall be notified in writing of the expected period during 
     which the member will be mobilized.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirements of 
     subsection (a) in any case in which the Secretary determines 
     that it is necessary to do so to respond to a national 
     security emergency or to meet dire operational requirements 
     of the Armed Forces.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8080.  The Secretary of Defense may transfer funds 
     from any available Department of the Navy appropriation to 
     any available Navy ship construction appropriation for the 
     purpose of liquidating necessary changes resulting from 
     inflation, market fluctuations, or rate adjustments for any 
     ship construction program appropriated in law: Provided, That 
     the Secretary may transfer not to exceed $100,000,000 under 
     the authority provided by this section: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary may not transfer any funds until 30 days 
     after the proposed transfer has been reported to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate, unless a response from the Committees is 
     received sooner: Provided further, That any funds transferred 
     pursuant to this section shall retain the same period of 
     availability as when originally appropriated: Provided 
     further, That the transfer authority provided by this section 
     is in addition to any other transfer authority contained 
     elsewhere in this Act.
       Sec. 8081.  For purposes of section 7108 of title 41, 
     United States Code, any subdivision of appropriations made 
     under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'' that 
     is not closed at the time reimbursement is made shall be 
     available to reimburse the Judgment Fund and shall be 
     considered for the same purposes as any subdivision under the 
     heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'' appropriations 
     in the current fiscal year or any prior fiscal year.
       Sec. 8082. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be used to transfer research and development, 
     acquisition, or other program authority relating to current 
     tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (TUAVs) from the Army.
       (b) The Army shall retain responsibility for and 
     operational control of the MQ-1C Sky Warrior Unmanned Aerial 
     Vehicle (UAV) in order to support the Secretary of Defense in 
     matters relating to the employment of unmanned aerial 
     vehicles.
       Sec. 8083.  Up to $15,000,000 of the funds appropriated 
     under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'' may be 
     made available for the Asia Pacific Regional Initiative 
     Program for the purpose of enabling the Pacific Command to 
     execute Theater Security Cooperation activities such as 
     humanitarian assistance, and payment of incremental and 
     personnel costs of training and exercising with foreign 
     security forces: Provided, That funds made available for this 
     purpose may be used, notwithstanding any other funding 
     authorities for humanitarian assistance, security assistance 
     or combined exercise expenses: Provided further, That funds 
     may not be obligated to provide assistance to any foreign 
     country that is otherwise prohibited from receiving such type 
     of assistance under any other provision of law.
       Sec. 8084.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act for 
     programs of the Office of the Director of National 
     Intelligence shall remain available for obligation beyond the 
     current fiscal year, except for funds appropriated for 
     research and technology, which shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2014.
       Sec. 8085.  For purposes of section 1553(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, any subdivision of appropriations made in 
     this Act under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
     Navy'' shall be considered to be for the same purpose as any 
     subdivision under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
     Navy'' appropriations in any prior fiscal year, and the 1 
     percent limitation shall apply to the total amount of the 
     appropriation.
       Sec. 8086.  The Director of National Intelligence shall 
     include the budget exhibits identified in paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) as described in the Department of Defense Financial 
     Management Regulation with the congressional budget 
     justification books:
       (1) For procurement programs requesting more than 
     $10,000,000 in any fiscal year, the P-1, Procurement Program; 
     P-5, Cost Analysis; P-5a, Procurement History and Planning; 
     P-21, Production Schedule; and P-40, Budget Item 
     Justification.
       (2) For research, development, test and evaluation projects 
     requesting more than $5,000,000 in any fiscal year, the R-1, 
     Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Program; R-2, 
     Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Budget Item 
     Justification; R-3, Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation Project Cost Analysis; and R-4, Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation Program Schedule Profile.
       Sec. 8087.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, due to an excessive level of funded carryover at Army 
     depots, the total amount appropriated to ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Army'', in title II of this Act is hereby 
     reduced by $1,207,400,000, and the total amount appropriated 
     to ``Other Procurement, Army'', in title III of this Act is 
     hereby reduced by $1,253,500,000.
       Sec. 8088. (a) Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence 
     shall submit a report to the congressional intelligence 
     committees to establish the baseline for application of 
     reprogramming and transfer authorities for fiscal year 2013: 
     Provided, That the report shall include--
       (1) a table for each appropriation with a separate column 
     to display the President's budget request, adjustments made 
     by Congress, adjustments due to enacted rescissions, if 
     appropriate, and the fiscal year enacted level;
       (2) a delineation in the table for each appropriation by 
     Expenditure Center and project; and
       (3) an identification of items of special congressional 
     interest.
       (b) None of the funds provided for the National 
     Intelligence Program in this Act shall be available for 
     reprogramming or transfer until the report identified in 
     subsection (a) is submitted to the congressional intelligence 
     committees, unless the Director of National Intelligence 
     certifies in writing to the congressional intelligence 
     committees that such reprogramming or transfer is necessary 
     as an emergency requirement.
       Sec. 8089. (a) None of the funds provided for the National 
     Intelligence Program in this or

[[Page 11634]]

     any prior appropriations Act shall be available for 
     obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming or transfer 
     of funds in accordance with section 102A(d) of the National 
     Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-1(d)) that--
       (1) creates a new start effort;
       (2) terminates a program with appropriated funding of 
     $10,000,000 or more;
       (3) transfers funding into or out of the National 
     Intelligence Program; or
       (4) transfers funding between appropriations,

     unless the congressional intelligence committees are notified 
     30 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds; this 
     notification period may be reduced for urgent national 
     security requirements.
       (b) None of the funds provided for the National 
     Intelligence Program in this or any prior appropriations Act 
     shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming or transfer of funds in accordance with section 
     102A(d) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-
     1(d)) that results in a cumulative increase or decrease of 
     the levels specified in the classified annex accompanying the 
     Act unless the congressional intelligence committees are 
     notified 30 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds; 
     this notification period may be reduced for urgent national 
     security requirements.
       Sec. 8090.  The Director of National Intelligence shall 
     submit to Congress each year, at or about the time that the 
     President's budget is submitted to Congress that year under 
     section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, a future-
     years intelligence program (including associated annexes) 
     reflecting the estimated expenditures and proposed 
     appropriations included in that budget. Any such future-years 
     intelligence program shall cover the fiscal year with respect 
     to which the budget is submitted and at least the four 
     succeeding fiscal years.
       Sec. 8091.  For the purposes of this Act, the term 
     ``congressional intelligence committees'' means the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives, the Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
     Senate, the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the Senate.
       Sec. 8092.  The Department of Defense shall continue to 
     report incremental contingency operations costs for Operation 
     New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom, or any other named 
     operations in the U.S. Central Command area of operation on a 
     monthly basis in the Cost of War Execution Report as 
     prescribed in the Department of Defense Financial Management 
     Regulation Department of Defense Instruction 7000.14, Volume 
     12, Chapter 23 ``Contingency Operations'', Annex 1, dated 
     September 2005.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8093.  During the current fiscal year, not to exceed 
     $11,000,000 from each of the appropriations made in title II 
     of this Act for ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', and ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Air Force'' may be transferred by the military 
     department concerned to its central fund established for 
     Fisher Houses and Suites pursuant to section 2493(d) of title 
     10, United States Code.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8094.  Funds appropriated by this Act for operation 
     and maintenance may be available for the purpose of making 
     remittances to the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development 
     Fund in accordance with the requirements of section 1705 of 
     title 10, United States Code.
       Sec. 8095. (a) Any agency receiving funds made available in 
     this Act, shall, subject to subsections (b) and (c), post on 
     the public website of that agency any report required to be 
     submitted by the Congress in this or any other Act, upon the 
     determination by the head of the agency that it shall serve 
     the national interest.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a report if--
       (1) the public posting of the report compromises national 
     security; or
       (2) the report contains proprietary information.
       (c) The head of the agency posting such report shall do so 
     only after such report has been made available to the 
     requesting Committee or Committees of Congress for no less 
     than 45 days.
       Sec. 8096. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be expended for any Federal 
     contract for an amount in excess of $1,000,000, unless the 
     contractor agrees not to--
       (1) enter into any agreement with any of its employees or 
     independent contractors that requires, as a condition of 
     employment, that the employee or independent contractor agree 
     to resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of 
     the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or 
     arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including 
     assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional 
     distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, 
     supervision, or retention; or
       (2) take any action to enforce any provision of an existing 
     agreement with an employee or independent contractor that 
     mandates that the employee or independent contractor resolve 
     through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of 
     sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, 
     intentional infliction of emotional distress, false 
     imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be expended for any Federal 
     contract unless the contractor certifies that it requires 
     each covered subcontractor to agree not to enter into, and 
     not to take any action to enforce any provision of, any 
     agreement as described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
     subsection (a), with respect to any employee or independent 
     contractor performing work related to such subcontract. For 
     purposes of this subsection, a ``covered subcontractor'' is 
     an entity that has a subcontract in excess of $1,000,000 on a 
     contract subject to subsection (a).
       (c) The prohibitions in this section do not apply with 
     respect to a contractor's or subcontractor's agreements with 
     employees or independent contractors that may not be enforced 
     in a court of the United States.
       (d) The Secretary of Defense may waive the application of 
     subsection (a) or (b) to a particular contractor or 
     subcontractor for the purposes of a particular contract or 
     subcontract if the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary 
     personally determines that the waiver is necessary to avoid 
     harm to national security interests of the United States, and 
     that the term of the contract or subcontract is not longer 
     than necessary to avoid such harm. The determination shall 
     set forth with specificity the grounds for the waiver and for 
     the contract or subcontract term selected, and shall state 
     any alternatives considered in lieu of a waiver and the 
     reasons each such alternative would not avoid harm to 
     national security interests of the United States. The 
     Secretary of Defense shall transmit to Congress, and 
     simultaneously make public, any determination under this 
     subsection not less than 15 business days before the contract 
     or subcontract addressed in the determination may be awarded.
       Sec. 8097.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be distributed to the Association of Community 
     Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) or its subsidiaries.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8098.  From within the funds appropriated for 
     operation and maintenance for the Defense Health Program in 
     this Act, up to $139,204,000, shall be available for transfer 
     to the Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans 
     Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund in accordance 
     with the provisions of section 1704 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Public Law 111-84: 
     Provided, That for purposes of section 1704(b), the facility 
     operations funded are operations of the integrated Captain 
     James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center, consisting of the 
     North Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical Center, the Navy 
     Ambulatory Care Center, and supporting facilities designated 
     as a combined Federal medical facility as described by 
     section 706 of Public Law 110-417: Provided further, That 
     additional funds may be transferred from funds appropriated 
     for operation and maintenance for the Defense Health Program 
     to the Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans 
     Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund upon written 
     notification by the Secretary of Defense to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate.
       Sec. 8099.  The Office of the Director of National 
     Intelligence shall not employ more Senior Executive employees 
     than are specified in the classified annex.
       Sec. 8100.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be obligated or expended to 
     pay a retired general or flag officer to serve as a senior 
     mentor advising the Department of Defense unless such retired 
     officer files a Standard Form 278 (or successor form 
     concerning public financial disclosure under part 2634 of 
     title 5, Code of Federal Regulations) to the Office of 
     Government Ethics.
       Sec. 8101.  Appropriations available to the Department of 
     Defense may be used for the purchase of heavy and light 
     armored vehicles for the physical security of personnel or 
     for force protection purposes up to a limit of $250,000 per 
     vehicle, notwithstanding price or other limitations 
     applicable to the purchase of passenger carrying vehicles.
       Sec. 8102.  Of the amounts appropriated for ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', the following amounts shall be 
     available to the Secretary of Defense, for the following 
     authorized purposes, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, acting through the Office of Economic Adjustment of the 
     Department of Defense, to make grants, conclude cooperative 
     agreements, and supplement other Federal funds, to remain 
     available until expended, to assist the civilian population 
     of Guam in response to the military buildup of Guam: (1) 
     $33,000,000 for addressing the need for construction of a 
     mental health and substance abuse facility and construction 
     of a regional public health laboratory; and (2) $106,400,000 
     for addressing the need for civilian water and wastewater 
     improvements: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense shall, 
     not fewer than 15 days prior to

[[Page 11635]]

     obligating funds for either of the foregoing purposes, notify 
     the congressional defense committees in writing of the 
     details of any such obligation.
       Sec. 8103.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used by the Secretary of Defense to take beneficial 
     occupancy of more than 2,000 parking spaces (other than 
     handicap-reserved spaces) to be provided by the BRAC 133 
     project: Provided, That this limitation may be waived in part 
     if: (1) the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that 
     levels of service at existing intersections in the vicinity 
     of the project have not experienced failing levels of service 
     as defined by the Transportation Research Board Highway 
     Capacity Manual over a consecutive 90-day period; (2) the 
     Department of Defense and the Virginia Department of 
     Transportation agree on the number of additional parking 
     spaces that may be made available to employees of the 
     facility subject to continued 90-day traffic monitoring; and 
     (3) the Secretary of Defense notifies the congressional 
     defense committees in writing at least 14 days prior to 
     exercising this waiver of the number of additional parking 
     spaces to be made available: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Defense shall implement the Department of 
     Defense Inspector General recommendations outlined in report 
     number DODIG-2012-024, and certify to Congress not later than 
     180 days after enactment of this Act that the recommendations 
     have been implemented.
       Sec. 8104.  Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall resume 
     monthly reporting of the numbers of civilian personnel end 
     strength by appropriation account for each and every 
     appropriation account used to finance Federal civilian 
     personnel salaries to the congressional defense committees 
     within 15 days after the end of each fiscal quarter.
       Sec. 8105.  None of the funds appropriated in this or any 
     other Act may be used to plan, prepare for, or otherwise take 
     any action to undertake or implement the separation of the 
     National Intelligence Program budget from the Department of 
     Defense budget.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8106.  Upon a determination by the Director of 
     National Intelligence that such action is necessary and in 
     the national interest, the Director may, with the approval of 
     the Office of Management and Budget, transfer not to exceed 
     $2,000,000,000 of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the National Intelligence Program: Provided, That such 
     authority to transfer may not be used unless for higher 
     priority items, based on unforeseen intelligence 
     requirements, than those for which originally appropriated 
     and in no case where the item for which funds are requested 
     has been denied by the Congress: Provided further, That a 
     request for multiple reprogrammings of funds using authority 
     provided in this section shall be made prior to June 30, 
     2013.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8107.  In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in 
     the Act, there is appropriated $270,000,000 for an additional 
     amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', to be 
     available until expended: Provided, That such funds shall 
     only be available to the Secretary of Defense, acting through 
     the Office of Economic Adjustment of the Department of 
     Defense, or for transfer to the Secretary of Education, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, to make grants, 
     conclude cooperative agreements, or supplement other Federal 
     funds to construct, renovate, repair, or expand elementary 
     and secondary public schools on military installations in 
     order to address capacity or facility condition deficiencies 
     at such schools: Provided further, That in making such funds 
     available, the Office of Economic Adjustment or the Secretary 
     of Education shall give priority consideration to those 
     military installations with schools having the most serious 
     capacity or facility condition deficiencies as determined by 
     the Secretary of Defense: Provided further, That funds may 
     not be made available for a school unless its enrollment of 
     Department of Defense-connected children is greater than 50 
     percent.
       Sec. 8108.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in this or any other Act may be used to 
     transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to or 
     within the United States, its territories, or possessions 
     Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who--
       (1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States; and
       (2) is or was held on or after June 24, 2009, at the United 
     States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department 
     of Defense.
       Sec. 8109. (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) and 
     subsection (d), none of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in this or any other Act may be used to 
     transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody 
     or control of the individual's country of origin, any other 
     foreign country, or any other foreign entity unless the 
     Secretary of Defense submits to Congress the certification 
     described in subsection (b) not later than 30 days before the 
     transfer of the individual.
       (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action taken by 
     the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at 
     Guantanamo to effectuate--
       (A) an order affecting the disposition of the individual 
     that is issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United 
     States having lawful jurisdiction (which the Secretary shall 
     notify Congress of promptly after issuance); or
       (B) a pre-trial agreement entered in a military commission 
     case prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) A certification described in this subsection is a 
     written certification made by the Secretary of Defense, with 
     the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation 
     with the Director of National Intelligence, that--
       (1) the government of the foreign country or the recognized 
     leadership of the foreign entity to which the individual 
     detained at Guantanamo is to be transferred--
       (A) is not a designated state sponsor of terrorism or a 
     designated foreign terrorist organization;
       (B) maintains control over each detention facility in which 
     the individual is to be detained if the individual is to be 
     housed in a detention facility;
       (C) is not, as of the date of the certification, facing a 
     threat that is likely to substantially affect its ability to 
     exercise control over the individual;
       (D) has taken or agreed to take effective actions to ensure 
     that the individual cannot take action to threaten the United 
     States, its citizens, or its allies in the future;
       (E) has taken or agreed to take such actions as the 
     Secretary of Defense determines are necessary to ensure that 
     the individual cannot engage or reengage in any terrorist 
     activity; and
       (F) has agreed to share with the United States any 
     information that--
       (i) is related to the individual or any associates of the 
     individual; and
       (ii) could affect the security of the United States, its 
     citizens, or its allies; and
       (2) includes an assessment, in classified or unclassified 
     form, of the capacity, willingness, and past practices (if 
     applicable) of the foreign country or entity in relation to 
     the Secretary's certifications.
       (c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection 
     (d), none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this or any other Act may be used to transfer 
     any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or 
     control of the individual's country of origin, any other 
     foreign country, or any other foreign entity if there is a 
     confirmed case of any individual who was detained at United 
     States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, at any time after 
     September 11, 2001, who was transferred to such foreign 
     country or entity and subsequently engaged in any terrorist 
     activity.
       (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action taken by 
     the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at 
     Guantanamo to effectuate--
       (A) an order affecting the disposition of the individual 
     that is issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United 
     States having lawful jurisdiction (which the Secretary shall 
     notify Congress of promptly after issuance); or
       (B) a pre-trial agreement entered in a military commission 
     case prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d)(1) The Secretary of Defense may waive the applicability 
     to a detainee transfer of a certification requirement 
     specified in subparagraph (D) or (E) of subsection (b)(1) or 
     the prohibition in subsection (c), if the Secretary certifies 
     the rest of the criteria required by subsection (b) for 
     transfers prohibited by (c) and, with the concurrence of the 
     Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of 
     National Intelligence, determines that--
       (A) alternative actions will be taken to address the 
     underlying purpose of the requirement or requirements to be 
     waived;
       (B) in the case of a waiver of subparagraph (D) or (E) of 
     subsection (b)(1), it is not possible to certify that the 
     risks addressed in the paragraph to be waived have been 
     completely eliminated, but the actions to be taken under 
     subparagraph (A) will substantially mitigate such risks with 
     regard to the individual to be transferred;
       (C) in the case of a waiver of subsection (c), the 
     Secretary has considered any confirmed case in which an 
     individual who was transferred to the country subsequently 
     engaged in terrorist activity, and the actions to be taken 
     under subparagraph (A) will substantially mitigate the risk 
     of recidivism with regard to the individual to be 
     transferred; and
       (D) the transfer is in the national security interests of 
     the United States.
       (2) Whenever the Secretary makes a determination under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress, not later than 30 days before the 
     transfer of the individual concerned, the following:
       (A) A copy of the determination and the waiver concerned.
       (B) A statement of the basis for the determination, 
     including--
       (i) an explanation why the transfer is in the national 
     security interests of the United States; and

[[Page 11636]]

       (ii) in the case of a waiver of subparagraph (D) or (E) of 
     subsection (b)(1), an explanation why it is not possible to 
     certify that the risks addressed in the subparagraph to be 
     waived have been completely eliminated.
       (C) A summary of the alternative actions to be taken to 
     address the underlying purpose of, and to mitigate the risks 
     addressed in, the subparagraph or subsection to be waived.
       (D) The assessment required by subsection (b)(2).
       (e) In this section:
       (1) The term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Appropriations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Appropriations, and the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
       (2) The term ``individual detained at Guantanamo'' means 
     any individual located at United States Naval Station, 
     Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of October 1, 2009, who--
       (A) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of 
     the Armed Forces of the United States; and
       (B) is--
       (i) in the custody or under the control of the Department 
     of Defense; or
       (ii) otherwise under detention at United States Naval 
     Station, Guantanamo Bay,
       (3) The term ``foreign terrorist organization'' means any 
     organization so designated by the Secretary of State under 
     section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1189).
       Sec. 8110. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in this or any other Act may be used to 
     construct, acquire, or modify any facility in the United 
     States, its territories, or possessions to house any 
     individual described in subsection (c) for the purposes of 
     detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the 
     effective control of the Department of Defense.
       (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     any modification of facilities at United States Naval 
     Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
       (c) An individual described in this subsection is any 
     individual who, as of June 24, 2009, is located at United 
     States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and who--
       (1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of 
     the Armed Forces of the United States; and
       (2) is--
       (A) in the custody or under the effective control of the 
     Department of Defense; or
       (B) otherwise under detention at United States Naval 
     Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
       Sec. 8111.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation 
     that any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, 
     for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been 
     exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a 
     timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority 
     responsible for collecting the tax liability, where the 
     awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, unless 
     the agency has considered suspension or debarment of the 
     corporation and made a determination that this further action 
     is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
       Sec. 8112.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation 
     that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any 
     Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the 
     awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless the agency 
     has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and 
     made a determination that this further action is not 
     necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
       Sec. 8113.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used in contravention of section 1590 or 1591 of title 
     18, United States Code, or in contravention of the 
     requirements of section 106(g) or (h) of the Trafficking 
     Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7104(g) or (h)).
       Sec. 8114.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     for International Military education and training, foreign 
     military financing, excess defense article, assistance under 
     section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal year 2006 (Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3456) 
     issuance for direct commercial sales of military equipment, 
     or peacekeeping operations for the countries of Chad, Yemen, 
     Somalia, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and 
     Burma may be used to support any military training or 
     operation that include child soldiers, as defined by the 
     Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008, and except if such 
     assistance is otherwise permitted under section 404 of the 
     Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-457; 22 
     U.S.C. 2370c-1).
       Sec. 8115.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used in contravention of the War Powers Resolution (50 
     U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).
       Sec. 8116.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used to retire, divest, realign, or transfer Air Force 
     aircraft, to disestablish or convert units associated with 
     such aircraft, or to disestablish or convert any other unit 
     of the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve.
       Sec. 8117.  The Secretary of the Air Force shall obligate 
     and expend funds previously appropriated for the procurement 
     of RQ-4B Global Hawk and C-27J Spartan aircraft for the 
     purposes for which such funds were originally appropriated.
       Sec. 8118.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used to retire C-23 Sherpa aircraft.
       Sec. 8119.  The total amount available in the Act for pay 
     for civilian personnel of the Department of Defense for 
     fiscal year 2013 shall be the amount otherwise appropriated 
     or made available by this Act for such pay reduced by 
     $258,524,000.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 120, line 
12, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment 
at any point.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 8120.  None of the funds appropriated, or otherwise 
     made available in this Act may be used to transfer a veterans 
     memorial object to a foreign country or an entity controlled 
     by a foreign government, or otherwise transfer or convey such 
     an object to any person or entity for purposes of the 
     ultimate transfer or conveyance of the object to a foreign 
     country or entity controlled by a foreign government, unless 
     such transfer is specifically authorized by law.
       Sec. 8121. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none 
     of the funds made available in this Act may be used to 
     sponsor professional or semi-professional motorsports, 
     fishing, mixed martial arts, wrestling, or other sporting 
     events or competitors.
       (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply in 
     the case of sponsorship of amateur or high school sporting 
     events or competitors.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chair, I raise a point of order against section 8121 
of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. PALAZZO. Section 8121 constitutes legislation because it requires 
that the Secretary determine what qualifies as ``semiprofessional,'' 
``a sporting event,'' and ``mixed martial arts.''
  These are not terms that current law requires that the Secretary 
know, thus, imposing these determinations upon the Secretary violates 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Seeing none, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Mississippi makes a point of order that section 
8121 proposes to change existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of 
rule XXI. Section 8121 is in the form of a limitation on funds in the 
bill.
  As recorded in Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section 
52, even though a limitation might refrain from explicitly assigning 
new duties to officers of the government, if it implicitly requires 
them to make investigations, judgments, or determinations not otherwise 
required of them by law, then it assumes the character of legislation 
and is subject to a point of order under clause 2(b) of rule XXI.
  The fact that a limitation may impose certain incidental burdens on 
executive officials does not destroy the character of the limitation as 
long as it is descriptive of functions and findings already required to 
be undertaken by existing law. The proponent of a limitation assumes 
the burden of establishing that any duties or determinations imposed by 
the provision are merely ministerial or are already required by law. As 
noted in Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section 61.12, 
the question is not whether an official routinely makes such 
determinations but, rather, whether such determinations are required by 
law.
  The Chair finds that the limitation in section 8121 does more than 
merely

[[Page 11637]]

impose a negative restriction on the funds of the bill. Instead, it 
would require the Secretary to make various determinations, such as 
what qualifies as ``semi-professional,'' as ``mixed martial arts,'' or 
as ``sporting events.'' The proponent of this language has not proven 
that these are matters with which the Secretary is charged under 
existing law.
  The Chair finds the proceedings of August 20, 1980, pertinent. On 
that day, a limitation on funds in an appropriation bill to dispose of 
``agricultural'' land was held to impose new duties in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI because the determination whether lands were 
``agricultural'' was not required by law.
  On these premises, the Chair concludes that the section proposes to 
change existing law. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained, and 
the section is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to 
request a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Amash).
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Washington?
  Seeing none, pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE IX

               OVERSEAS DEPLOYMENTS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'', 
     $9,165,082,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     the Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War 
     on Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Jones

  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 121, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $98,697,000)''.
       Page 121, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $9,373,000)''.
       Page 122, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $17,482,000)''.
       Page 122, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $13,857,000)''.
       Page 122, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,690,000)''.
       Page 122, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $424,000)''.
       Page 123, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $266,000)''.
       Page 123, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $273,000)''.
       Page 123, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $6,287,000)''.
       Page 124, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $113,000)''.
       Page 132, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $412,287,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, under title IX of this bill there is $412 
million labeled ``incentive pay'' for Afghan soldiers. Also under title 
IX, there is $13 million labeled ``incentive pay'' for American 
soldiers. This is a problem for our military.
  My amendment, which is supported by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, is 
very simple. At all does it move some incentive pay from Afghan 
soldiers to American soldiers.
  Last month the Department of Defense published their review of 
military compensation, a report required by law every 4 years. The 
report concluded that our system of combat pay is broken. I quote: 
``There is little correlation between exposure to danger and 
compensation pay.''
  A recent article on the report by the Marine Corps Times outlined how 
a Navy captain assigned to Bahrain received more than $1,000 a month 
while a Marine lance corporal patrolling the streets of Helmand 
province received much less in combat pay. That's not right.

                              {time}  1850

  If you look in this bill and compare the $412 million for the Afghans 
against the $13 million for our troops, the inequity is clear. My 
amendment simply moves the incentive pay for the Afghan soldiers to the 
American soldiers. This money should go to the junior enlisted 
servicemembers facing the most risk in Afghanistan.
  My amendment does not touch Afghan base pay. That $450 million is 
still in the bill. It does not touch their pay for food and 
subsistence. That $71 million is still there. It doesn't touch their 
recruiting money either. The $4 million is still there. It doesn't even 
touch the money we spent to host ``welcome home'' concerts for the 
Afghan army when they returned from deployment. That money comes out of 
the Information Operations fund.
  If anyone says that this amendment will hurt America's effort to fund 
the Afghan army, which we hope will take over its responsibility in 
just a few years, I invite you to look at the numbers in this fund. The 
Afghan security forces are well funded.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that this amendment will be accepted, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.

                                          Veterans of Foreign Wars


                                         of the United States,

                                                    July 18, 2012.
     Hon. Walter B. Jones,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Jones: On behalf of the 2 million members 
     of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) 
     and our Auxiliaries, I am pleased to offer our support for 
     your amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to 
     eliminate $412 million dollars in incentive pay for the 
     Afghan Security Forces and redirect them in full to American 
     service members for incentive pay.
       This reprogramming of funds would not affect Afghan base 
     pay or the payments these individuals receive for food and 
     other subsistence needs. Additionally, the ability of the 
     Afghan Security Forces to recruit and train would not be 
     hindered. Your amendment is limited to incentive pay funds--a 
     fund that DoD has not fully obligated funds from in at least 
     two fiscal years.
       This is a prudent measure that wisely balances our fiscal 
     challenges, objectives on the ground, and the absolute 
     responsibly we all share to honor the sacrifices of those who 
     choose to wear the uniform. Thank you for taking the lead on 
     this effort, and for your continued support of our armed 
     forces and veterans.
           Sincerely,

                                            Raymond C. Kelley,

                                                         Director,
                                 VFW National Legislative Service.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I do not object to what the gentleman is trying 
to do. Although, I have to be very honest in that his amendment does 
not accomplish what he thinks it will accomplish. We are okay to 
transfer the money, so we are not going to object to the amendment.
  The fact is that this is controlled by law, not by appropriations. 
This is controlled by the National Defense Authorization Act, not by 
the appropriations bill. So, while I understand what the gentleman 
wants to do and while I agree with what he wants to do, this won't do 
it, but I am not going to object to it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Jones 
amendment.
  I appreciate the efforts of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to provide the Administration with 
funds for the Afghan military and police who are being trained to take 
over security from our troops, but $412 million for additional 
incentive pay is simply crazy.
  For the past two fiscal years, funds for this same account remain 
unobligated. Not unexpended, Mr. Chair--unobligated.
  We need to move that unobligated funding stream along, and then 
determine how much more is needed in incentives for these Afghan 
forces. But right now we need to stop putting the money out there 
before anyone knows what they're doing with it. This is nearly half a 
billion dollars. And it's going to waste.
  The bottom line here is this amendment would not touch the base pay 
for Afghan military and police. It would not touch funds to provide 
food and other basic needs for these Afghan troops. It would not touch 
the funds for recruitment and training.
  Instead, under the Jones amendment, funds targeted for Afghan 
incentive pay would be transferred within the OCO account to augment 
the combat pay of our junior enlisted servicemen and women who carry 
out daily patrols.

[[Page 11638]]

  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Jones amendment.
  It's good policy. It's a good use of funds. And it's only fair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'', 
     $870,425,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by the 
     Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine 
     Corps'', $1,623,356,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $1,286,783,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', 
     $156,893,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by the 
     Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'', 
     $39,335,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by the 
     Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

                    Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Marine 
     Corps'', $24,722,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

                      Reserve Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $25,348,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Army'', $583,804,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

                  National Guard Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Air Force'', $10,473,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'', $26,682,437,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy'', $5,880,395,000, of which up to $254,461,000 may be 
     transferred to the Coast Guard ``Operating Expenses'' 
     account: Provided, That such amount is designated by the 
     Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps'', $4,566,340,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force'', $9,136,236,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', $7,790,579,000: Provided, That of the funds 
     provided under this heading, not to exceed $1,750,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2014, shall be for 
     payments to reimburse key cooperating nations for logistical, 
     military, and other support, including access, provided to 
     United States military operations in support of Operation 
     Enduring Freedom, notwithstanding any other provision of law: 
     Provided further, That such reimbursement payments may be 
     made in such amounts as the Secretary of Defense, with the 
     concurrence of the Secretary of State, and in consultation 
     with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, may 
     determine, in his discretion, based on documentation 
     determined by the Secretary of Defense to adequately account 
     for the support provided, and such determination is final and 
     conclusive upon the accounting officers of the United States, 
     and 15 days following notification to the appropriate 
     congressional committees: Provided further, That the 
     requirement under this heading to provide notification shall 
     not apply with respect to a reimbursement for access based on 
     an international agreement: Provided further, That these 
     funds may be used for the purpose of providing specialized 
     training and procuring supplies and specialized equipment and 
     providing such supplies and loaning such equipment on a non-
     reimbursable basis to coalition forces supporting United 
     States military operations in Afghanistan, and 15 days 
     following notification to the appropriate congressional 
     committees: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense 
     shall provide quarterly reports to the congressional defense 
     committees on the use of funds provided in this paragraph: 
     Provided further, That such amount is designated by the 
     Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.


              Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

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

       Page 125, lines 17 and 19, after each dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,300,000,000)''.
       Page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,300,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POE of Texas. As stated in the report language of the bill, my 
amendment cuts $1.3 billion that is going specifically to Pakistan.
  Pakistan seems to be the Benedict Arnold nation in the list of 
countries that we call allies. They have proven to be deceptive and 
deceitful and a danger to the United States. Here is some of the 
evidence:
  For the last 7 months, Pakistan closed down the southern supply 
route. The route transported about 40 percent of all NATO supplies into 
the country and to Afghanistan;
  Pakistan still refuses to go after the terrorist sanctuaries in the 
tribal areas of Pakistan. Terrorist groups like the LET, the Pakistani 
Taliban, and al Qaeda frequently cross over into Afghanistan, kill our 
troops and then run back into Pakistan and hide where our troops cannot 
follow them;
  On May 23, 2012, Pakistan sentenced the doctor who helped us get 
Osama bin Laden to 33 years in prison. I thought getting the world's 
No. 1 terrorist--the terrorist who killed thousands of Americans--was a 
good thing, but apparently, Pakistan prosecuted him;
  In February 2012, a NATO report confirmed our suspicions: the ISI is 
aiding the Taliban and other extremist groups in Afghanistan and 
Pakistan by providing resources, sanctuary, and training;
  In June 2011, Pakistan tipped off terrorists making IEDs--not once, 
but twice--after we told them where the bomb-making factories were and 
asked Pakistan to go after them;
  In 2011, Pakistan tried to cheat the United States by filling out 
bogus reimbursement claims for allegedly going after militants when 
they weren't doing that at all.

[[Page 11639]]

  There is more.
  On September 22, 2011, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee: 
``With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted that truck 
bomb attack as well as the assault on our Embassy.'' The truck bombing 
he mentions here wounded more than 70 U.S. and NATO allies and troops. 
Admiral Mullen went on to say: ``The Haqqani Network acts as a 
veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency.''
  What more do we need to hear? Pakistan doesn't deserve American 
money. By the end of fiscal year 2011, Pakistan had had a total of 
$21.5 billion of American money since FY 2002. Mr. Chairman, I ask: Has 
America received its money's worth? The answer is no.
  I want to address a couple of arguments I've heard from the other 
side:
  First, some say that the money in this bill for Pakistan is only to 
reimburse them for going after terrorists. They say we shouldn't take 
away that carrot. But, since 2002, Congress has already appropriated 
over $8 billion to the Coalition Support Fund specifically for 
Pakistan. Where I come from, if you try something and it doesn't work, 
you don't continue to do it. We've been doing the same thing for over 
10 years. It's time for a new strategy with Pakistan. More money is not 
going to solve the problem.
  Second, they say Pakistan just reopened the southern supply route. 
Pakistan closed the southern supply route from November 2011 to this 
month. Pakistan was a bad ally before it closed the supply route. The 
fact that they messed us around and closed it for 7 months only adds to 
the long list of evidence that shows they are no friend of ours. It 
also shows that we don't need them to win the war in Afghanistan. We 
were able to pursue our mission in Afghanistan without them. What 
really endangers our troops is not access to the southern supply route, 
but the failure to get access to Pakistan's tribal areas where Pakistan 
gives terrorists a safe haven.
  Pakistan is playing America. The only thing Pakistan's military 
rulers understand is dollars, and as long as we keep the money flowing, 
they have no incentive to change their evil ways.
  Our message should be this: Pakistan has a raging insurgency in their 
country with al Qaeda, the Pakistan Taliban, and the Haqqani Network. 
Pakistan can either receive assistance and go after these terrorists 
with us or don't take any of our money, and we will find our own way to 
take these terrorists out.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in telling Pakistan they will 
no longer get American money. We don't need to pay Pakistan to betray 
us. They will do it for free.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. (Mr. Woodall) The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I agree with everything that Mr. 
Poe said. You cannot have an ally who is an ally today but not an ally 
tomorrow, and that has been our experience with Pakistan. The Defense 
Department will tell you that it is very complicated because they do 
enjoy a nuclear capability that could be dangerous if it got into the 
wrong hands.
  I would ask Mr. Poe a question and would yield to him for an answer:
  Your amendment is not limited to Pakistan. Your amendment would cut 
across the board and reduce money for the Kurdish Republic, Jordan, 
which is one of our most important partners and coalitions in the 
region; funding for the northern distribution networks; and numerous 
other coalition partners who are helping in the fight against 
terrorism.

                              {time}  1900

  I wonder if we could talk you into amending your amendment or 
rewriting your amendment to make it specifically to Pakistan. And let 
me say this to you before you answer, and then I will yield to you.
  In this bill, the money for Pakistan cannot be spent. We have fenced 
this money--all of it--until the Secretary of Defense, with the 
concurrence of the Secretary of State, certifies to Congress that the 
government of Pakistan is doing this: cooperating with the United 
States in counterterrorism efforts, including taking steps to end 
support for terrorist groups and preventing them from basing and 
operating in Pakistan and carrying out cross-border attacks; Pakistan 
is not supporting terrorist activities against the United States or 
coalition forces in Afghanistan; Pakistan is not dismantling IED 
networks and is interdicting precursor chemicals used in making IEDs; 
preventing the proliferation of nuclear-related materials.
  There are four or five more, and I won't take the time. I want to do 
what you want to do, but I don't want to have an adverse effect on our 
coalition partners that we rely on so much.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  My understanding is, in the report language, to specify a certain 
country would not be ruled in order; therefore, I used the $1.3 billion 
with the floor statement that applies only to Pakistan and none of our 
coalition countries that you have mentioned.
  I am open to an amendment that would be ruled in order, and I would 
be glad to work with the chairman on that amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. We would probably have to take a few minutes to 
do that, which I would be very happy to do because what you want to do 
is what I want to do.
  Mr. Chairman, let me inquire as to where we are in this bill so we 
can have an opportunity to amend this amendment and still not get 
beyond the point of reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. The reading has progressed to page 127, line 2.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Would the gentleman be willing to do just that, 
withdraw your amendment now, and let us take a few minutes and 
guarantee that these coalition partners are not included?
  Mr. POE of Texas. Yes, I would certainly be willing to do that.
  I will withdraw my amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman very much. This is an 
important issue.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army Reserve'', $152,387,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control act of 1985.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Altmire

  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 127, line 5, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,500,000)''.
       Page 128, line 11, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 129, line 4, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $18,500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will 
restore $15.5 million that was cut from the Yellow Ribbon program under 
this bill.
  While I understand the tough budget constraints we face, I think we 
can all agree that programs that provide essential services to the 
brave men and women who risk their lives to serve our country should 
not be on the chopping block. Simply put, no one should stand ahead of 
our Nation's veterans and our men and women in uniform when it comes 
time to making Federal funding decisions.
  Congress established the Yellow Ribbon program in 2008 to provide 
tailored support to meet the unique needs of the National Guard and 
Reserve combat veterans and their families before,

[[Page 11640]]

during, and after their deployments. The services it provides includes 
suicide prevention, career counseling, access to health care, veteran, 
and education benefits. Last year alone, the Yellow Ribbon program held 
over 2,100 events across the country, reaching over 300,000 servicemen 
and -women and their families.
  As the number of returning National Guard and Reserve combat veterans 
increases, the need for these services increases along with it. My 
amendment will help to ensure the Yellow Ribbon program is there to 
meet the increasing need. My amendment simply restores funding for the 
Yellow Ribbon program to its level from the previous year, fiscal year 
2012, paid for by transferring funds from the overseas contingency 
operations transfer account. The $15.5 million returned to the Yellow 
Ribbon program represents only one half of 1 percent of this account. 
While I recognize its importance, I think a small part of the funding 
can and should be used to help our National Guard and Reserve veterans 
and their families navigate through the challenges associated with 
their deployment.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The Yellow Ribbon program is a very great 
program, and the gentleman has made the case very powerfully. I am in 
support of what he is trying to do. I support the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman for his amendment, and we 
gladly support it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy Reserve'', $55,924,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

            Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps Reserve'', $25,477,000: Provided, That such 
     amount is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

              Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force Reserve'', $120,618,000: Provided, That such amount 
     is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army National Guard'', $382,448,000: Provided, That such 
     amount is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

             Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air National Guard'', $34,500,000: Provided, That such amount 
     is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

             Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

        In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in this Act, 
     there is appropriated $3,250,000,000 for the ``Overseas 
     Contingency Operations Transfer Fund'' for expenses directly 
     relating to overseas contingency operations by United States 
     military forces, to be available until expended: Provided, 
     That of the funds made available in this section, the 
     Secretary of Defense may transfer these funds only to 
     military personnel accounts, operation and maintenance 
     accounts, procurement accounts, and working capital fund 
     accounts: Provided further, That the funds made available in 
     this paragraph may only be used for programs, projects, or 
     activities categorized as Overseas Contingency Operations in 
     the fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Department of 
     Defense and the justification material and other 
     documentation supporting such request: Provided further, That 
     the funds transferred shall be merged with and shall be 
     available for the same purposes and for the same time period, 
     as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, 
     that the Secretary shall notify the congressional defense 
     committees 15 days prior to such transfer: Provided further, 
     That the transfer authority provided under this heading is in 
     addition to any other transfer authority available to the 
     Department of Defense: Provided further, That upon a 
     determination that all or part of the funds transferred from 
     this appropriation are not necessary for the purposes 
     provided herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this 
     appropriation and shall be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as originally appropriated: 
     Provided further, That such amount is designated by the 
     Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

                    Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the ``Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund'', $375,000,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2014: Provided, That 
     such funds shall be available to the Secretary of Defense for 
     infrastructure projects in Afghanistan, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, which shall be undertaken by the 
     Secretary of State, unless the Secretary of State and the 
     Secretary of Defense jointly decide that a specific project 
     will be undertaken by the Department of Defense: Provided 
     further, That the infrastructure referred to in the preceding 
     proviso is in support of the counterinsurgency strategy, 
     which may require funding for facility and infrastructure 
     projects, including, but not limited to, water, power, and 
     transportation projects and related maintenance and 
     sustainment costs: Provided further, That the authority to 
     undertake such infrastructure projects is in addition to any 
     other authority to provide assistance to foreign nations: 
     Provided further, That any projects funded under this heading 
     shall be jointly formulated and concurred in by the Secretary 
     of State and Secretary of Defense: Provided further, That 
     funds may be transferred to the Department of State for 
     purposes of undertaking projects, which funds shall be 
     considered to be economic assistance under the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 for purposes of making available the 
     administrative authorities contained in that Act: Provided 
     further, That the transfer authority in the preceding proviso 
     is in addition to any other authority available to the 
     Department of Defense to transfer funds: Provided further, 
     That any unexpended funds transferred to the Secretary of 
     State under this authority shall be returned to the 
     Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund if the Secretary of State, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of Defense, determines that 
     the project cannot be implemented for any reason, or that the 
     project no longer supports the counterinsurgency strategy in 
     Afghanistan: Provided further, That any funds returned to the 
     Secretary of Defense under the previous proviso shall be 
     available for use under this appropriation and shall be 
     treated in the same manner as funds not transferred to the 
     Secretary of State: Provided further, That contributions of 
     funds for the purposes provided herein to the Secretary of 
     State in accordance with section 635(d) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act from any person, foreign government, or 
     international organization may be credited to this Fund, to 
     remain available until expended, and used for such purposes: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not 
     fewer than 15 days prior to making transfers to or from, or 
     obligations from the Fund, notify the appropriate committees 
     of Congress in writing of the details of any such transfer: 
     Provided further, That the ``appropriate committees of 
     Congress'' are the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign 
     Relations and Appropriations of the Senate and the Committees 
     on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives: Provided further, That such amount 
     is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Cicilline

  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.

[[Page 11641]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 130, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $375,000,000)''.
       Page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $375,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
continued appropriation of hundreds of millions of dollars to the 
Afghanistan infrastructure fund while our national infrastructure is 
crumbling here in America.
  President Obama has laid out a broad vision for completing our work 
in Afghanistan, turning security responsibilities over to the Afghan 
people, and bringing our troops home. Now is the time to focus our 
resources here in the United States, on our own roads, bridges, 
schools, and infrastructure.
  We have already spent billions of dollars toward rebuilding the 
infrastructure of Afghanistan. As we begin drawing down combat 
operations in Afghanistan, it's the responsibility of the Afghan people 
to build, operate, and maintain their own civilian and military 
institutions, and their own infrastructure.
  My amendment, which I offer along with the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Honda), the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), and 
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), would strike the funding of the 
Afghanistan infrastructure fund and apply the savings to the spending 
reduction account.
  Established by Congress in the fiscal year 2011 National Defense 
Authorization, in its first year, the Afghanistan infrastructure fund 
received an appropriation of $400 million. These funds have been 
dedicated to projects that are jointly approved by the Department of 
State and the Department of Defense, and the projects include power 
generation and transmission, roads, and construction of other large 
infrastructure projects.

                              {time}  1910

  According to the April 2012 report by the Special Inspector General 
for Afghanistan Reconstruction, from fiscal year 2002 to the end of 
March, fiscal year 2012, the United States appropriated approximately 
$89.4 billion for relief and reconstruction in Afghanistan. 
Approximately $800 million has been provided thus far for the 
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund.
  As the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service indicates from 2012 
to 2010, the U.S. Agency for International Development allocated more 
than $2 billion towards road construction and more than $1.2 billion 
towards electric power in Afghanistan. While we've spent billions of 
dollars on infrastructure in Afghanistan, we have also seen reports 
from the Government Accountability Office and others that have 
highlighted the challenges in accounting for how reconstruction funds 
are spent and the overall impact that these are having on the society 
there.
  Yet according to a 2011 report by the American Society of Civil 
Engineers, the cost of our crumbling infrastructure right here in 
America is real. By the year 2020, our Nation's crumbling surface 
transportation infrastructure is slated to cost the United States 
economy more than 876,000 jobs and suppress the country's growth of 
gross domestic product by $897 billion.
  These costs are only going to increase more and more if we don't take 
the action to make the much-needed and long-deferred investments in our 
own transportation systems and our own infrastructure. When we look at 
the bigger picture, including water and wastewater, energy, schools, 
ports and more, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that 
over the next 5 years we would need an investment of $2.2 trillion just 
to bring our Nation's infrastructure to a condition they describe as 
``good.''
  Every year that we wait to take meaningful steps to do this, the cost 
to taxpayers and to our economy keeps growing and growing and growing. 
Over the past 18 months, constituents have expressed to me tremendous 
frustration that we're devoting so many of our resources and so much of 
our energy to rebuilding the infrastructure in Afghanistan.
  They ask why we are dedicating so much to nation-building halfway 
around the world when there are so many families right here in our own 
country who are struggling to find work and make ends meet.
  We need to do nation-building right here at home in America. This 
amendment is a strong step in support of reinvesting in our own economy 
and our own infrastructure right here at home.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this gets to be a very serious 
issue if we want to get our troops out of Afghanistan. At numerous 
hearings, General Allen, who commands in Afghanistan, General Mattis, 
commander of Central Command, this was their recommendation. This is 
what they said they needed in order to get us and get our troops out of 
Afghanistan, which I think we all want to see happen as quickly as 
possible. Certainly I can tell you that I do.
  We did not fund it totally because some of the plans were not 
sufficiently considered; but, generally, this is what our commanders in 
the field, those responsible for fighting the fight, those responsible 
for leading our troops, this is what they tell us they need to get our 
troops out of Afghanistan. I do object and oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 130, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $175,000,000)''.
       Page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $175,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. I'm not going to repeat some of the arguments that were 
made by my colleague from Rhode Island, but I understand them.
  There is, indeed, a large need for infrastructure in our country. 
We're falling far behind, and we've invested a lot of money in 
Afghanistan that has been wasted; a tremendous amount of money has been 
wasted. The most recent report I saw said that we cannot even begin to 
approximate how much money has been stolen and wasted in Afghanistan.
  We're not providing infrastructure for the people. We're providing a 
ruling class, a limited--we talk about the 2 percent here--we're 
talking about the one-tenth of 1 percent in Afghanistan, if that, and 
giving them the opportunity to put money in their pocket that should be 
going to the people.
  I ask the gentleman on the other side of the aisle who opposed the 
last amendment to consider this one, which almost passed last year, 
same basic amendment. This takes 175 million out, leaves 200 million in 
the fund, but it says they have got to prioritize, pick their projects 
and pick what they do.
  It doesn't decimate the fund; it just prioritizes and takes 175 
million out of the Afghan infrastructure fund. We rebuilt Iraq. They're 
partners with Iran now. Didn't do us a lot of good.
  Most of us have been to Afghanistan or, at least, better yet, many of 
us have. We could do all the infrastructure in the world. It will go to 
waste. They can't even maintain it.
  They don't have vehicles to use the roads. It's crazy to build them 
roads to

[[Page 11642]]

go from point A to point B when they don't have cars. They have got 
oxen and carts.
  So I would say that we reduce it by 175 million, we leave 200 
million. Certainly I want our troops out. I went and visited with 124 
soldiers, Guardsmen in Memphis, who were going down to Camp Shelby 
before they go to Afghanistan. I went down to visit with them yesterday 
when they went off, all police people.
  I suspect that one of those people may not come back. I hated the 
idea that those people were leaving Memphis to go to Afghanistan. It 
will be the last troops going over.
  I want them out. If Mr. Young understands, I guess, there is some 
magic to this money, there would be $200 million left. If it's roads to 
get them out and airports to get them out, fine. But I can't believe 
they need all 375; and I have to submit that I think that a lot of that 
money is for roads, infrastructure, hospitals, grids, whatever that has 
nothing to do with our troops getting out. It has something to do with 
some people who continue a policy that has failed to really build up 
goodwill toward America or to see that the monies go where they belong.
  I ask that we think of America first, we get our troops out, we leave 
$200 million in the fund. I ask you to approve this amendment and 
reduce the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund by $175 million. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would say to the sponsor of the amendment 
that this is a more reasonable approach--yes, it is--but this actually 
cuts the fund in half. Now, that is a major cut on something that our 
military commanders in the field say that they really need to have.
  Now, the committee took a $25 million cut, but that was in agreement 
with the commanders. They felt that they could absorb that cut and 
still do the program, but I don't think I can support cutting this 
program in half.
  Mr. COHEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. COHEN. I didn't know, in your statement to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island, why are these funds needed to get our troops out? Do we 
not have airplanes, roads, boats and whatever to get our folks out?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. We are having a little trouble hearing at the 
table here.
  Mr. COHEN. I said, in response to the gentleman from Rhode Island, 
you have said these funds, all $375 million, were needed to get our 
troops out of Afghanistan. Are we building, like, runways to get all 
our troops out, roads to get them out?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I want the troops out of 
Afghanistan as soon as our military commanders advise us and the 
President that we can do so and we can do it safely.
  I have seen on my weekly visits to the Walter Reed/Bethesda Hospital, 
I have seen the terrible, terrible tragic cost of this war, and that 
doesn't even talk about those who have lost their lives.
  I don't want to walk through that hospital and see any more quadruple 
or triple amputees. I don't want to see that, and our military 
commanders must make that decision. We are not in a position to make 
that decision of how, when, where do we accomplish this departure from 
Afghanistan with victory.

                              {time}  1920

  And so I still have to express my objection to this amendment because 
it cuts the fund that our military commanders tell us that they need--
cuts it in half. And so I just have to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
that was offered by Congressman Poe, which I understand may well be 
reintroduced once the wording is worked on a little bit by the end of 
this discussion. Let me just then move forward with my support for 
Judge Poe's amendment and the basic concept that he's presented, which 
is to eliminate funding for Pakistan.
  Basically, we need to end the charade once and for all that we are 
buying Pakistani cooperation against terrorist forces in South Asia. 
Pakistan isn't with us in the war against terrorism. They are at war 
with us by supporting and funding the very terrorists that we are up 
against. Pakistan, at best, is a war profiteer, collecting a ransom by 
taxing our military supply lines that pass through their country. They 
are laughing all the way to the bank. They are also laughing as their 
military intelligence, the ISI, takes huge sums of money that they are 
getting from us and then passing it on to terrorists and radical 
Islamist elements who are killing their neighbors and killing American 
military personnel.
  After our SEALs went to get Osama bin Laden, the Pakistan military 
took the wreckage of our downed stealth helicopter and gave it for 
study to the Communist Chinese. Then they arrested and imprisoned the 
Pakistani doctor who risked his life to help us find bin Laden. Dr. 
Afridi still languishes in a Pakistani dungeon even as we speak here 
today. Some of us understand that this Pakistani doctor--and I hope we 
should all understand this--is an American hero. He risked his life to 
bring justice to the murderers of 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11. It 
is a shame that we even consider giving Pakistan billions of dollars of 
aid while they keep Dr. Afridi in a dungeon. Who else will ever 
cooperate with us in the future? Who's going to work with our military 
overseas, knowing that that's the way we treat people who commit heroic 
acts? We shouldn't give the Pakistanis one penny until Dr. Afridi is 
free.
  Just recently, I was contacted by a distraught individual in Pakistan 
asking for help in locating a missing Baloch leader. Sadly, this Baloch 
leader is probably already dead--another victim of the Pakistani 
government's ``kill and dump'' policy by which they repress their own 
people.
  We have to understand we have lost over 2,000 American military 
personnel in Afghanistan. But who has been supporting the side that has 
been killing our people? The Pakistanis have inspired and supported 
these very insurgents. They were the creators of the Taliban. And after 
9/11, they played us for fools ever since.
  Yesterday, this House passed a bill that Pakistani's Haqqani Network 
should be listed as a terrorist organization. That terrorist 
organization has been helped and supplied by some members of the 
Pakistani military. We should have quit bankrolling this rotten regime 
a long time ago. We should end the charade.
  There are people in South Asia that are our friends. Due to the Cold 
War, we allied ourselves with Pakistan a long time ago, and we were 
told they were the bulwark against radical Islam. That was a lie. But 
during the Cold War, we needed them in the fight against the Soviet 
Union. The Cold War is over. We should ally ourselves with people who 
share our values and cherish, as we cherish them, a friendship between 
free people. As I say, we should go towards India, now that the Cold 
War is over, to help establish a new type of relationship in South Asia 
that will preserve the peace and preserve the equilibrium in that part 
of the world.

[[Page 11643]]

  It is ridiculous for us to continue to support that country, that 
government that is the basis of support for the most radical elements 
of radical Islam and the terrorist units that are killing our people 
and killing their people throughout the world. If we're having trouble 
getting out of Pakistan, it's because the Pakistanis are on the wrong 
side. And we all know it. We shouldn't give one more penny thinking 
we're going to buy their friendship. They disdain us for it. They think 
we're weaklings for it.
  Let's stand up for Dr. Afridi. Let's stand up and make sure that we 
are courageous in what we're doing in our policy and not trying to 
curry favor with gangsters that run a country like Pakistan.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Afghanistan Security Forces Fund

       For the ``Afghanistan Security Forces Fund'', 
     $5,026,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014: 
     Provided, That such funds shall be available to the Secretary 
     of Defense, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     the purpose of allowing the Commander, Combined Security 
     Transition Command-Afghanistan, or the Secretary's designee, 
     to provide assistance, with the concurrence of the Secretary 
     of State, to the security forces of Afghanistan, including 
     the provision of equipment, supplies, services, training, 
     facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, and 
     construction, and funding: Provided further, That the 
     authority to provide assistance under this heading is in 
     addition to any other authority to provide assistance to 
     foreign nations: Provided further, That contributions of 
     funds for the purposes provided herein from any person, 
     foreign government, or international organization may be 
     credited to this Fund, to remain available until expended, 
     and used for such purposes: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional defense 
     committees in writing upon the receipt and upon the 
     obligation of any contribution, delineating the sources and 
     amounts of the funds received and the specific use of such 
     contributions: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Defense shall, not fewer than 15 days prior to obligating 
     from this appropriation account, notify the congressional 
     defense committees in writing of the details of any such 
     obligation: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense 
     shall notify the congressional defense committees of any 
     proposed new projects or transfer of funds between budget 
     sub-activity groups in excess of $20,000,000: Provided 
     further, That such amount is designated by the Congress for 
     Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Boswell

  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 132, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $22,000,000)''.
       Page 141, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BOSWELL. I rise to offer an amendment with my good friend from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott) to provide greater funding for suicide 
prevention outreach for our troops on Active Duty. This amendment would 
add $10 million for suicide prevention outreach in the Defense Health 
Program of the Operations and Maintenance Account in title IX of the 
bill. It would pay for this by transferring $22 million from the 
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund. This amendment is fully paid for, 
fiscally responsible, and incredibly timely.
  This is the most recent issue of Time magazine, reporting that 
military and veteran suicide is a tragic epidemic that has only gotten 
worse. We are currently losing one U.S. soldier every day to suicide. I 
know my colleague, Dr. McDermott, comes to this issue as an expert in 
the field. I come as a Vietnam veteran and someone very passionate 
about providing our heroes with the care and the support they deserve.
  In 2007, I wrote the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act to 
honor the memory of a young veteran from Iowa who, tragically, took his 
life in front of his mother. To make sure veterans have 24/7 access to 
a crisis hotline and other mental health resources, we passed that 
bill. Since then, the Veterans Crisis hotline has answered more than 
600,000 calls and reportedly made more than 21,000 lifesaving rescues. 
Tragically, we still lose a veteran to suicide every 80 minutes. So we 
have much more to do.
  I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work on 
this issue. You worked tirelessly to combat suicide rates amongst our 
servicemembers and our veterans. I hope you will join me in supporting 
this amendment. We are losing too many of our heroes. It's up to us to 
act.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from Washington, Dr. McDermott.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Boswell.
  Mr. Boswell and I saw the Vietnam war in different ways--he, by 
flying a helicopter and me, by being a psychiatrist dealing with people 
who came home. And I feel strongly that suicide prevention and the 
intervention must become, in military speak, a core mission of the 
military.
  This week's Time magazine, as you see from that front page, describes 
military suicides as an epidemic. I would like to take $10 million out 
of a $5 billion fund in this amendment to go beyond the funding for 
existing suicide prevention services and toward modifying the culture 
that keeps some from seeking help. We must also note that any progress 
in suicide prevention will be fleeting if we don't focus on reducing 
the stigma associated with seeking psychological health services among 
our Active Duty people.

                              {time}  1930

  I believe the Pentagon can do more to eradicate barriers to mental 
health care. This means ensuring that mental health and substance abuse 
issues are treated as medical issues and are taken out of the realm of 
personnel matters. This means ensuring that seeking and receiving 
psychological health care does nothing to jeopardize a soldier's 
security clearance or prospects in his future career.
  I would also urge the Pentagon to ensure that a portion of this money 
goes toward hiring, development and retention of top-tier psychological 
health talent for our military at this time. It is the tale of cost of 
this war that nobody calculates when we go to war. What do we do when 
the people come home? We forget them. We think they should pull 
themselves together and go back to their regular life. And many of them 
can't do it without some help. We need to provide it. They become 
desperate, figure there's no hope and take their own life. That 
shouldn't happen to a 24-year-old kid, man or woman, who has been in 
Afghanistan or Iraq giving to our country what we ask from them. Their 
willingness to risk the whole business of going to war has to be dealt 
with when they come home.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. BOSWELL. I yield back the balance of my time and ask for 
everyone's support.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I had opposed similar amendments in the past 
because of the source of the funding, the defense-wide O&M accounts 
which we just really cannot afford to cut into our readiness accounts. 
This does not take funding from that account. And so I appreciate the 
gentleman's changing the source of his amendment, and I'm agreeing to 
the amendment.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. BOSWELL. I just want to thank you again for your attention and 
your dedication to this cause, Mr. Chairman. I've noticed that for 
years you and the ranking member have worked together, and you're doing 
the right thing. Thank you very much.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the chairman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to my friend from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman for his efforts here and 
my colleague from Washington State who I know has an abiding concern 
about this, as I do.
  This is a tragedy when more people are dying from suicide than are in 
combat. I know the Army has tried. General Corelli made an enormous 
effort to

[[Page 11644]]

try to find the answers, and it's a serious, difficult problem. And a 
lot of it relies on trying to deal with these people before they go 
over so that you can find the ones that are going to be susceptible or 
have problems going in. It's just a very difficult problem.
  I commend the gentleman for his leadership on this.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              PROCUREMENT

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, 
     Army'', $541,600,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2015: Provided, That such amount is designated by the 
     Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

                       Missile Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Missile Procurement, Army'', 
     $49,653,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015: 
     Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress for 
     Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Weapons and 
     Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'', $15,422,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2015: Provided, That such 
     amount is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
     Army'', $338,493,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2015: Provided, That such amount is designated by the 
     Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army'', 
     $2,005,907,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015: 
     Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress for 
     Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, 
     Navy'', $146,277,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2015: Provided, That such amount is designated by the 
     Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Weapons Procurement, Navy'', 
     $22,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015: 
     Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress for 
     Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

            Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
     Navy and Marine Corps'', $284,450,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2015: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

                        Other Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Navy'', 
     $98,882,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015: 
     Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress for 
     Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Marine Corps'', 
     $943,683,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015: 
     Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress for 
     Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $305,600,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2015: Provided, That such amount is designated by the 
     Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Missile Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $34,350,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2015: Provided, That such amount is designated by the 
     Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
     Air Force'', $116,203,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2015: Provided, That such amount is designated 
     by the Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global 
     War on Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $2,785,170,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2015: Provided, That such amount is designated by the 
     Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. 

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', 
     $217,849,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015: 
     Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress for 
     Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

              RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Army'', $14,860,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2014: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Navy'', $60,119,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2014: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

         Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Air Force'', $53,150,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2014: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

        Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $107,387,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2014: Provided, That such 
     amount is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                     Defense Working Capital Funds

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Working Capital 
     Funds'', $293,600,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         Defense Health Program

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program'', 
     $993,898,000, which shall be for operation and maintenance, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2014: Provided, That 
     such amount is designated by the Congress for Overseas 
     Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.

         Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense

       For an additional amount for ``Drug Interdiction and 
     Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'', $469,025,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2014: Provided, That such 
     amount is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section

[[Page 11645]]

     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

             Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for the ``Joint Improvised 
     Explosive Device Defeat Fund'', $1,614,900,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2015: Provided, That such funds 
     shall be available to the Secretary of Defense, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purpose 
     of allowing the Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive 
     Device Defeat Organization to investigate, develop and 
     provide equipment, supplies, services, training, facilities, 
     personnel and funds to assist United States forces in the 
     defeat of improvised explosive devices: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary of Defense may transfer funds provided 
     herein to appropriations for military personnel; operation 
     and maintenance; procurement; research, development, test and 
     evaluation; and defense working capital funds to accomplish 
     the purpose provided herein: Provided further, That this 
     transfer authority is in addition to any other transfer 
     authority available to the Department of Defense: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not fewer than 
     15 days prior to making transfers from this appropriation, 
     notify the congressional defense committees in writing of the 
     details of any such transfer: Provided further, That such 
     amount is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Speier

  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

         Page 142, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $120,500,000)''.
         Page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $120,500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I'm here to offer an amendment to strike 
$120.5 million in undistributed funds from the Joint Improvised 
Explosive Device Defeat Fund, matching the Senate authorizers and 
keeping intact over $1.7 billion for this program.
  The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund--more commonly 
known as JIEDDO--is responsible for leading, advocating and 
coordinating the Defense Department's efforts to defeat IEDs. After 
more than $20 billion, Congress has received numerous reports that 
JIEDDO has had decidedly mixed outcomes, and after three attempts still 
has not developed a mechanism for tracking the Pentagon's counter-IED 
efforts. So we've spent $20 billion.
  In the Senate, the Armed Services Committee cut $200 million from 
JIEDDO. In their report, they said JIEDDO suffered from:

       Duplication of effort with the military services, excessive 
     contractor support costs, and organizational inefficiencies.

  As The Washington Post recently reported, these excessive contractor 
support costs included noncompetitive contracts given to former 
government employees profiting from Washington's perpetual revolving 
door and hundreds of millions of dollars of contracts being 
subcontracted out to other former military personnel.
  Isn't this what our constituents dislike the most about what's going 
on here, that there are cronyism activities, that there are revolving 
doors and that military personnel, after they're retired, become 
mentors?

                              {time}  1940

  This bill also recognizes there's a problem here. The bill itself has 
actually reduced their budget by $60 million.
  The IED threat remains significant, but continuing to robustly invest 
in counter-IED technology makes less sense, both tactically and 
strategically.
  From a tactical level, Pentagon statistics show that IEDs were 25 
percent less effective this year than the year before. Strategically, 
we are shifting away from ground wars and counterinsurgency missions 
and must begin reallocating some of these funds to more pressing 
national security needs.
  In February, the GAO told Congress that JIEDDO's poor planning and 
management resulted in many funds going to duplicative projects, 
creating waste and likely slowing down the ability of the Department of 
Defense to meet its mission objectives. For example, in 2008, U.S. 
Central Command began development for a directed energy solution to 
defeating IEDs. Without coordination, JIEDDO undertook six different 
efforts to tackle the problem, which cost taxpayers at least $104 
million.
  When the commander of U.S. Central Command still didn't have a 
solution by August 2011, he had to write JIEDDO to urge them to 
coordinate their efforts in hopes of getting something he could field 
to fulfill what was then a 3-year-old unmet requirement for the 
warfighter. JIEDDO coordinated the effort of the six projects but 
deferred making a decision on shifting resources or canceling the 
project yet again. The organization also admitted that they likely 
would not have been able to execute their mission to manage the 
Pentagon's IED efforts in this case without the commander's written 
protest.
  Some soldiers in the field have also expressed disappointment at 
JIEDDO's results. A marine that served in Afghanistan in 2009 compared 
the IED-detecting devices issued by JIEDDO to a beachcomber's faulty 
metal detector and said his IED jammers were frequently broken. Others 
report that dogs remain more reliable detectors downrange.
  It's time to stop signing a blank check for an organization that 
cannot track its projects or expenditures, that often gives contracts 
to its cronies, and that the GAO has said is duplicative.
  As we draw down in Afghanistan and look to cut funds from much more 
productive and efficient parts of the Federal budget, I urge you to 
support these cuts of an inefficient organization that lacks the 
management controls to prevent taxpayer dollars from being wasted.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the Joint IED Defeat fund recognizes 
the fact that we're still a nation at war. The young men and women who 
come back from war--and God forbid, some come back having paid the 
ultimate sacrifice, but many come back with unbelievable wounds, double 
amputees, loss of different limbs. This joint IED task force has done a 
lot to minimize that possibility.
  The committee did recognize, and as the gentlewoman mentions, we did 
reduce spending in this fund by $70 million. But we're a nation at war. 
They still have a critical mission. It's important that the work that 
they continue to do to defeat sometimes the simplest IEDs and sometimes 
the most complex IEDs continue. It's an investment that we need to make 
to make sure that, as we finish our job in Afghanistan, that we do our 
level best to protect our troops, those that are volunteering there, 
and to bring them back home in one piece.
  So we oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For an additional amount for the ``Office of the Inspector 
     General'', $10,766,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

                     GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS TITLE

       Sec. 9001.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds made available in this title are in addition to amounts 
     appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department 
     of Defense for fiscal year 2013.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 9002.  Upon the determination of the Secretary of 
     Defense that such action is necessary in the national 
     interest, the Secretary may, with the approval of the Office 
     of Management and Budget, transfer up to $3,000,000,000 
     between the appropriations or funds made available to the 
     Department of Defense in this title: Provided, That the 
     Secretary shall notify the Congress promptly of

[[Page 11646]]

     each transfer made pursuant to the authority in this section: 
     Provided further, That the authority provided in this section 
     is in addition to any other transfer authority available to 
     the Department of Defense and is subject to the same terms 
     and conditions as the authority provided in the Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Act, 2013.
       Sec. 9003.  Supervision and administration costs associated 
     with a construction project funded with appropriations 
     available for operation and maintenance, ``Afghanistan 
     Infrastructure Fund'', or the ``Afghanistan Security Forces 
     Fund'' provided in this Act and executed in direct support of 
     overseas contingency operations in Afghanistan, may be 
     obligated at the time a construction contract is awarded: 
     Provided, That for the purpose of this section, supervision 
     and administration costs include all in-house Government 
     costs.
       Sec. 9004.  From funds made available in this title, the 
     Secretary of Defense may purchase for use by military and 
     civilian employees of the Department of Defense in the U.S. 
     Central Command area of responsibility: (a) passenger motor 
     vehicles up to a limit of $75,000 per vehicle; and (b) heavy 
     and light armored vehicles for the physical security of 
     personnel or for force protection purposes up to a limit of 
     $250,000 per vehicle, notwithstanding price or other 
     limitations applicable to the purchase of passenger carrying 
     vehicles.
       Sec. 9005.  Not to exceed $250,000,000 of the amount 
     appropriated in this title under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Army'' may be used, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, to fund the Commander's Emergency Response 
     Program (CERP), for the purpose of enabling military 
     commanders in Afghanistan to respond to urgent, small-scale, 
     humanitarian relief and reconstruction requirements within 
     their areas of responsibility: Provided, That each project 
     (including any ancillary or related elements in connection 
     with such project) executed under this authority shall not 
     exceed $20,000,000: Provided further, That not later than 45 
     days after the end of each fiscal year quarter, the Secretary 
     of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees a report regarding the source of funds and the 
     allocation and use of funds during that quarter that were 
     made available pursuant to the authority provided in this 
     section or under any other provision of law for the purposes 
     described herein: Provided further, That, not later than 30 
     days after the end of each month, the Army shall submit to 
     the congressional defense committees monthly commitment, 
     obligation, and expenditure data for the Commander's 
     Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan: Provided further, 
     That not less than 15 days before making funds available 
     pursuant to the authority provided in this section or under 
     any other provision of law for the purposes described herein 
     for a project with a total anticipated cost for completion of 
     $5,000,000 or more, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a written notice containing 
     each of the following:.
       (1) The location, nature and purpose of the proposed 
     project, including how the project is intended to advance the 
     military campaign plan for the country in which it is to be 
     carried out.
       (2) The budget, implementation timeline with milestones, 
     and completion date for the proposed project, including any 
     other CERP funding that has been or is anticipated to be 
     contributed to the completion of the project.
       (3) A plan for the sustainment of the proposed project, 
     including the agreement with either the host nation, a non-
     Department of Defense agency of the United States Government 
     or a third-party contributor to finance the sustainment of 
     the activities and maintenance of any equipment or facilities 
     to be provided through the proposed project.
       Sec. 9006.  Funds available to the Department of Defense 
     for operation and maintenance may be used, notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, to provide supplies, services, 
     transportation, including airlift and sealift, and other 
     logistical support to coalition forces supporting military 
     and stability operations in Afghanistan: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Defense shall provide quarterly reports to the 
     congressional defense committees regarding support provided 
     under this section.
       Sec. 9007.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this or any other Act shall be obligated or 
     expended by the United States Government for a purpose as 
     follows:
       (1) To establish any military installation or base for the 
     purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United 
     States Armed Forces in Iraq.
       (2) To exercise United States control over any oil resource 
     of Iraq.
       (3) To establish any military installation or base for the 
     purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United 
     States Armed Forces in Afghanistan.
       Sec. 9008.  None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used in contravention of the following laws enacted or 
     regulations promulgated to implement the United Nations 
     Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 
     Degrading Treatment or Punishment (done at New York on 
     December 10, 1984):
       (1) Section 2340A of title 18, United States Code.
       (2) Section 2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
     Restructuring Act of 1998 (division G of Public Law 105-277; 
     112 Stat. 2681-822; 8 U.S.C. 1231 note) and regulations 
     prescribed thereto, including regulations under part 208 of 
     title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, and part 95 of title 
     22, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (3) Sections 1002 and 1003 of the Department of Defense, 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes 
     in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 
     (Public Law 109-148).
       Sec. 9009.  None of the funds provided for the 
     ``Afghanistan Security Forces Fund'' (ASFF) may be obligated 
     prior to the approval of a financial and activity plan by the 
     Afghanistan Resources Oversight Council (AROC) of the 
     Department of Defense: Provided, That the AROC must approve 
     the requirement and acquisition plan for any service 
     requirements in excess of $50,000,000 annually and any non-
     standard equipment requirements in excess of $100,000,000 
     using ASFF: Provided further, That the AROC must approve all 
     projects and the execution plan under the ``Afghanistan 
     Infrastructure Fund'' (AIF) and any project in excess of 
     $5,000,000 from the Commanders Emergency Response Program 
     (CERP): Provided further, That the Department of Defense must 
     certify to the congressional defense committees that the AROC 
     has convened and approved a process for ensuring compliance 
     with the requirements in the preceding provisos and 
     accompanying report language for the ASFF, AIF, and CERP.
       Sec. 9010.  Funds made available in this title to the 
     Department of Defense for operation and maintenance may be 
     used to purchase items having an investment unit cost of not 
     more than $250,000: Provided, That, upon determination by the 
     Secretary of Defense that such action is necessary to meet 
     the operational requirements of a Commander of a Combatant 
     Command engaged in contingency operations overseas, such 
     funds may be used to purchase items having an investment item 
     unit cost of not more than $500,000.
       Sec. 9011.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, up 
     to $88,000,000 of funds made available in this title under 
     the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'' may be 
     obligated and expended for purposes of the Task Force for 
     Business and Stability Operations, subject to the direction 
     and control of the Secretary of Defense, with concurrence of 
     the Secretary of State, to carry out strategic business and 
     economic assistance activities in Afghanistan in support of 
     Operation Enduring Freedom: Provided, That not less than 15 
     days before making funds available pursuant to the authority 
     provided in this section for any project with a total 
     anticipated cost of $5,000,000 or more, the Secretary shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a written 
     notice containing a detailed justification and timeline for 
     each proposed project.
       Sec. 9012.  From funds made available to the Department of 
     Defense in this title under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Air Force'' up to $508,000,000 may be used by 
     the Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, to support United States Government transition 
     activities in Iraq by funding the operations and activities 
     of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq and security 
     assistance teams, including life support, transportation and 
     personal security, and facilities renovation and 
     construction: Provided, That not less than 15 days before 
     making funds available pursuant to the authority provided in 
     this section, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a written notice containing a detailed 
     justification and timeline for each proposed site.


                        (availability of funds)

       Sec. 9013.  Each amount designated in this Act by the 
     Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     shall be available (or rescinded, if applicable) only if the 
     President subsequently so designates all such amounts and 
     transmits such designations to the Congress.

                             (rescissions)

       Sec. 9014.  Of the funds appropriated in Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Acts, the following funds are hereby 
     rescinded from the following accounts and programs in the 
     specified amounts: Provided, That such amounts are designated 
     by the Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global 
     War on Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985:
       ``Retroactive Stop Loss Special Pay Program, 2009/20XX'', 
     $79,900,000; and
       ``Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, 2012/20XX'', 
     $500,000,000.
       Sec. 9015.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Defense-wide'' for payments under Section 1233 
     of Public Law 110-181 for reimbursement to the Government of 
     Pakistan may be made available unless the Secretary of 
     Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State 
     certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that the 
     Government of Pakistan is--

[[Page 11647]]

       (1) cooperating with the United States in counterterrorism 
     efforts against the Haqqani Network, the Quetta Shura 
     Taliban, Lashkar e-Tayyiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Al Qaeda, and 
     other domestic and foreign terrorist organizations, including 
     taking steps to end support for such groups and prevent them 
     from basing and operating in Pakistan and carrying out cross 
     border attacks into neighboring countries;
       (2) not supporting terrorist activities against United 
     States or coalition forces in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's 
     military and intelligence agencies are not intervening extra-
     judicially into political and judicial processes in Pakistan;
       (3) dismantling improvised explosive device (IED) networks 
     and interdicting precursor chemicals used in the manufacture 
     of IEDs;
       (4) preventing the proliferation of nuclear-related 
     material and expertise;
       (5) issuing visas in a timely manner for United States 
     visitors engaged in counterterrorism efforts and assistance 
     programs in Pakistan; and
       (6) providing humanitarian organizations access to 
     detainees, internally displaced persons, and other Pakistani 
     civilians affected by the conflict.

                                TITLE X

                     ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS


                       spending reduction account

       Sec. 10001. The amount by which the applicable allocation 
     of new budget authority made by the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives under section 
     302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the 
     amount of proposed new budget authority is $0.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, from the Clerk's reading, we've 
reached the limitations portion of the bill, and we would encourage 
Members having amendments for us to consider in that arena, or portion, 
this would be the appropriate time for them to come forward.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1950

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to share the concern of seven 
Members of this House that represent Army depots and arsenals, 
including Letterkenny Army Depot in my congressional district in 
Pennsylvania.
  The following letter fully addresses our concerns:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 2012.
     Hon. C.W. Bill Young,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Norm Dicks,
     Ranking Member, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks: As Members 
     with Army Depots and Arsenals in our districts, we wish to 
     express our concern over significant funding reductions in 
     this year's House Defense Appropriations Bill that will 
     negatively impact the Army's organic industrial base. The 
     Fiscal Year 2013 Defense Appropriations Bill, Sec. 8087 cites 
     ``excessive levels of funding carryover at Army Depots'' and 
     reduces ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'' (OMA) by $1.207 
     billion and ``Other Procurement, Army'' (OPA) by $1.253 
     billion. This reduction of approximately $2.5 billion will 
     have harmful consequences far beyond what was originally 
     forecasted and will derail the Army's ability to maintain 
     equipment readiness. Ultimately, we believe this legislation 
     as it currently stands will cripple the ability of depots and 
     arsenals to support our soldiers during a time of war. We 
     understand the competing priorities facing the committee, but 
     we believe it is vital that we work together with you to 
     address this critical issue.
       This reduction of funds will not only hurt the ability of 
     Army depots and arsenals to generate and maintain its 
     workload for the next Fiscal Year, but will also have lasting 
     impacts on the defense industrial base that will be felt well 
     beyond 2013. The cuts to OMA and OPA will cause an estimated 
     3,000 layoffs of specialized technicians that cannot be 
     easily replaced or retrained if workload returns to its 
     normal rate. Core depot logistics requirements will be 
     increasingly difficult and costly to meet and the Department 
     of the Army will be forced to turn to contracted alternatives 
     in order to reduce the backlog. This cut will make the 
     organic base less attractive for program managers and will 
     likely reverse the recent trend of depots and arsenals being 
     the preferred source of manufacture and repair.
       It is our understanding that the Army did not provide a 
     detailed explanation for excessive levels of carryover money 
     until after the Appropriations Committee passed this year's 
     Defense Bill. Once the Army provided this analysis, it became 
     clear to all parties involved that the House Appropriations 
     Committee's proposed funding levels would not provide 
     adequate funding to sustain depots and arsenals throughout 
     Fiscal Year 2013. As we approach the debate over the Defense 
     Appropriations Bill on the House floor, it is still unclear 
     to us what possible measures will be taken, if any, to reduce 
     the impact of these cuts.
       We look forward to further discussing this issue with you 
     and working with you on any potential adjustments that can be 
     made before this legislation is considered by the House of 
     Representatives. We believe that a strong organic industrial 
     base is critical to maintaining our national security posture 
     and the current Defense Appropriations Bill will result in 
     unrecoverable consequences for our Army depots and arsenals.
           Sincerely,
     Bill Shuster.
     David Loebsack.
     Blake Farenthold.
     Mike Rogers (AL).
     Ralph Hall.
     Robert Schilling.

  This bill includes reductions in funding for depots and arsenals due 
to a perceived surplus of funded workload available for previous fiscal 
years. After further analysis and additional feedback provided by the 
Army, we believe these cuts, as currently structured, could have a 
lasting negative impact on the organic industrial base.
  It is my understanding that the House Appropriations Committee agrees 
that these current general provisions should be modified and is already 
developing an alternative plan.
  As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I look forward to 
working with the chairman to address these concerns and to ensure we 
provide adequate funding for depots and arsenals. I know we are both in 
favor of a strong and capable organic industrial base and value the 
critical role our depots and arsenals play in maintaining the readiness 
of our military.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Loebsack).
  Mr. LOEBSACK. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Our depots, arsenals, and their workforce are critical to our 
national security and ability to rapidly equip our soldiers. For 
example, in 2003, the Rock Island Arsenal produced 500 Humvee add-on 
armor kits to protect our troops within 3 months of receiving the 
order.
  We must strengthen our arsenals and depots so that they are able to 
continue to produce the equipment that is vitally needed by our men and 
women in uniform. I am strongly concerned that the effects of the 
bill's reductions will be felt beyond 2013 and across the organic 
industrial base, and I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work 
with us. I look forward to closely collaborating with him in support of 
our arsenals and depots, and I appreciate this time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman from Iowa.
  And the gentleman from Texas, who's not here on the floor, I'd like 
to talk a little bit about his situation down at the Corpus Christi 
Army Depot, which is an industry leader of repair and overhaul for our 
aviation helicopters, employing over 6,000 civilians, of which 56 
percent are veterans. Without CCAD, the Army would be unable to sustain 
maximum combat power for the warfighter.
  Further, the depot in Corpus Christi's stewardship of taxpayer 
dollars is evident in the cost effective repair and overhaul of rotary 
wing aircraft systems. For example, in fiscal year 2011, a record 
production year, more than $47 million in cost savings was documented 
at the CCAD.
  With today's rotary wing aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems 
flying in record numbers, the work at Corpus Christi Army Depot has 
become invaluable to the aircraft to remain airworthy. I am concerned 
that any lapse in production of the UH-60 Black Hawk Recap, CCAD's 
larger single program, would have a negative impact on supporting 
components programs and major OEM contracts and employers.
  I know that the gentleman from Texas looks forward to working work 
with the chairman--as do I and other Members of the House that 
represent depots and arsenals--and the House Appropriations Committee 
as this bill moves forward to conference.

[[Page 11648]]


  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentlemen for their comments, and we 
share in their support of a strong organic industrial base and a 
strong, ready military.
  We are pleased to work closely with members of the army depot and 
arsenal delegation throughout the conference proceedings to ensure 
their concerns are fully addressed and the necessary adjustments to 
depot and arsenal funding are made.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Woolsey

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. The total amount of appropriations made available 
     by this Act is hereby reduced by $181,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's transportation infrastructure 
is in terrible, terrible disrepair. More than ever, we need to be 
pumping resources into transportation projects and into initiatives for 
that end.
  We need to upgrade and modernize our roads and highways, but we also 
need to build up mass transit systems, buses, rail lines, et cetera. 
Doing so improves lives in our communities, allowing people to move 
around more freely and easily, and it also creates jobs. And by 
reducing our dependency on automobile travel, this transportation is 
clean, energy-efficient, and environmentally sensitive, as well.
  Luckily, we have a Federal agency, the Federal Transit 
Administration, or FTA, that exists to make exactly these investments. 
I'm proud to say that my home district has benefited from FTA grants to 
the tune of $11 million over the last year. A new commuter train, the 
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, or SMART train, that connects the major 
cities in my district is just one of the local projects that is putting 
FTA money to good use.
  So, at a moment when our transportation needs are so great across the 
country, wouldn't it make sense to increase the FTA budget? Except that 
the House, expressing the priorities of its Republican majority, 
recently passed a fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill that cut $181 
million from current FTA spending levels. And at the same time, they're 
now presenting us with a Department of Defense spending bill that calls 
for $1.1 billion more in military spending over current levels.
  Why are we all being asked to tighten our belts while the military 
industrial complex gets to loosen theirs by a few notches year after 
year after year?
  If the Federal budget crisis is so dire, Mr. Chairman, so dire that 
we can pinch pennies on badly needed transit infrastructure, surely we 
can do the same with a bloated Pentagon budget that has been growing 
out of control for more than a decade now. And that's the simple 
concept behind my amendment.
  In the interest of fairness and shared sacrifice, I'm proposing a 
$181 million cut to the Defense appropriations bill identical to the 
reduction in FTA spending passed by the House a few weeks ago. I trust 
that all my Republican colleagues, each one more fiscally responsible 
than the next, will jump at this chance to further cut Federal 
spending.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentlewoman's amendment. I'm the first to admit that defense should not 
be immune to reasonable, analytically-based reductions, which are what 
we've already done over the past few years.
  Just 2 years ago, when Congress considered the fiscal year 2011 
defense budget, the Department was planning on a fiscal year 2013 
budget of roughly $562 billion. Their actual request for 2013, however, 
was only $516 billion, $46 billion less.

                              {time}  2000

  In fact, in the past two fiscal years, our committee has produced a 
defense budget which totaled $39 billion below the request.
  My point is that we have cut defense, but we have done so reasonably 
and without impacting readiness or threatening the Department's ability 
to protect our Nation and our allies. This fiscal year 2013 budget is 
the first we've seen in which there are identifiable and significant 
risks associated with the budget decisions we've made.
  We've talked about that a lot today, about our pivot towards the Asia 
Pacific, the growing capability of China, things on the North Korean 
peninsula, for example, in cutting ships and in reducing the required 
Navy ship fleet size, in retiring large numbers of aircraft, some of 
which have been delivered, and in significantly underfunding facility 
maintenance and modernization. We have tried to mitigate these as best 
we could within our given allocation. Speaking of our allocation, it is 
essentially in line with both the Ryan budget as well as with the 
Defense authorization bill, both of which passed the House.
  Finally, in just the CBO's most recent analysis of the Department's 
future-years' defense program, they determined that the Department's 
plans will cost $123 billion more than they projected over the next 5 
years. National security, of course, should never be subjected to 
partisan politics. Instead, we should show our support for our brave 
men and women, who have sacrificed so much and who continue to do so on 
our behalf.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to operate or maintain more than 300 land-based 
     intercontinental ballistic missiles.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we would like a copy of the 
amendment, please.
  I reserve a point of order until we have had a chance to look it 
over.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey reserves a point of 
order.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Our current nuclear arsenal has significant overkill that 
is built into it. Our country continues to spend more and more taxpayer 
money on nuclear weapons even though the President and the Senate have 
already agreed to reduce the number of deployed nuclear weapons, and 
even though there is a growing bipartisan consensus that the United 
States has an excessive number of nuclear weapons and that the United 
States spends far more than it needs to for a nuclear deterrent and 
defense.
  That is why I rise today to offer my amendment: to reduce the number 
of deployed intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles from 450 to 
300.
  I believe that this is the soundest approach to both our national 
security and our economic security needs. Each of our land-based 
nuclear missiles costs us--and this is an incredible number--$2.4 
million every year to operate and to maintain. My amendment would save 
the taxpayers about $360 million next year and every year after that.

[[Page 11649]]

  It's not just arms control groups that support this departure from 
Cold War thinking. It also includes General James Cartwright, who until 
last year was the commander of the United States' nuclear forces. 
General Cartwright published a report in May that concluded that zero 
intercontinental ballistic missiles are necessary for our nuclear 
deterrent or defense. The former commander of U.S. nuclear forces 
doesn't think we need ICBMs at all.
  So reducing the number from 450 to 300 still leaves more than enough 
missiles for an effective nuclear deterrent. That's still more than 
enough missiles to annihilate any of our enemies over and over. It not 
only will turn our enemies into rubble, but it will make that rubble 
bounce and bounce and bounce again. That's how many nuclear weapons we 
would still have in reserve.
  That is a real savings, and that savings can be used for the NIH 
budget. The entire budget to find the cure for Alzheimer's--5 million 
Americans have it--is $450 million a year. If we would just cut out 
these ICBMs--and that leaves plenty left over--it would give us enough 
money to almost double the budget to find a cure for something that 
really is going to kill Americans, that really does terrify them in 
their homes.
  So I pray that the House will accept this amendment and send us in 
the correct direction in which we should be heading in terms of really 
protecting the American public.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to compliment the gentleman on listening to what we 
discussed in the last go-around and then taking a hard look at land-
based ICBMs, which I believe have always been the most vulnerable part 
of the triad. The most invulnerable part, of course, is our ballistic 
missile submarine--and bombers are second--but the land-based ICBMs are 
vulnerable. There is no question about that, and I do believe we can 
reduce the amount of money we are spending on strategic forces. I think 
the focus should be, as General Cartwright has suggested, on reducing 
the ICBMs.
  So this is a way to start this debate, and I am going to support the 
gentleman's amendment today.
  Mr. MARKEY. I just want to note here that the gentleman from 
Washington State did pioneering work in the 1980s in identifying the 
vulnerability of the land-based ICBM fleet. That discussion continues 
even today out here on the House floor.
  Mr. DICKS. I recall--and you might remember--that we had a great 
discussion about synergism, about the synergy of the three legs of the 
triad giving some protection to the land-based missiles.
  I agree with the gentleman's overall premise that we don't need as 
many nuclear weapons. I can remember John Lehman--famous for his 600-
ship Navy--always saying to me, if you want to cut something, cut the 
submarines, and go ahead with the aircraft carriers and more airplanes 
because they're conventional weapons and, therefore, more usable.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's point of order is withdrawn.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, normally the committee is given the 
courtesy of seeing amendments that come to the floor. This is the third 
time today, I believe, the gentleman from Massachusetts has shown a 
lack of courtesy in letting the committee have copies of his 
amendments.
  Let me say, as a Nation, we still believe in a nuclear deterrent. The 
last time I checked, there was bipartisan support for that. Both Mr. 
Visclosky and I serve on the Energy and Water Subcommittee, and part of 
our jurisdiction is to make sure that the President of the United 
States, our Commander in Chief, verifies that we have nuclear 
capabilities. The last time I checked, the administration was 
conducting what we call a Nuclear Posture Review relative to what our 
position should be in negotiations with other nuclear powers in terms 
of the type of weapons that are so critical to the nuclear triad.
  So, with all due respect to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who 
referred to a lot of what we said as the fantasy land of our bill, it 
would be good, actually, for the Members of Congress to have some facts 
from the Nuclear Posture Review before we consider something here which 
might put our Nation at risk.
  I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so 
as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.

                              {time}  2010


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Woolsey

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. The total amount of appropriations made available 
     by this Act is hereby reduced by $293,900,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, whenever we debate the Defense 
appropriations bill, I feel like I'm living in an alternate universe, 
because the other 51 weeks of the year all I hear from my Republican 
colleagues is that the sky is falling and we have to rein in a deficit 
that is wildly out of control. When it comes to the military budget, 
that rhetoric is nowhere to be heard and my friends in the majority 
become the biggest spenders of all. If cutting spending is a matter of 
such great urgency, then I believe the Pentagon, which has been 
generously funded over the years, can pitch in its share.
  Why do the programs that Americans depend on for basic needs have to 
take the budget hit? For example, under the Labor-HHS appropriations 
bill, the title X program is not just trimmed but completely zeroed 
out. For more than 40 years, title X has been a lifesaving source of 
family planning services and preventive health care for millions and 
millions of low-income women. PAP tests, breast exams, early detection 
of cervical cancer--uninsured women depend on title X in order to 
receive these vital services at clinics nationwide. The proposed 
elimination of funding would be devastating to these women and to their 
families.
  It's critical to point out, Mr. Chairman, by law, not a single penny 
of title X money is used to perform an abortion. If, however, you want 
to reduce unintended pregnancies, as the other side says it does, then 
there is no more effective program than title X.
  Title X was signed into law by President Nixon and has historically 
enjoyed broad bipartisan support, at least until the Republican 
Congress decided to launch a war on women. Now they want to eliminate 
funding for the program completely. We spent just under $294 million on 
title X last fiscal year. To put things in perspective, Mr. Chairman, 
that's less than what we spend on any given day to continue a failed 
military occupation of Afghanistan.
  Mr. Chairman, if we're going to ask poor women to give up all the 
benefits they receive from title X, then I think we can ask the 
Pentagon to give up the exact same amount: $293 million. It's just so 
big, it makes my head spin. If we did that, we would be saving the

[[Page 11650]]

misguided elimination of title X. That's what my amendment does, 
because I believe women need to access lifesaving health care at least 
as much as the military needs another $293 million. In fact, if my 
Republican colleagues truly believe that the Federal deficit represents 
a moral crisis demanding sacrifice from everyone, then I'm confident 
they're going to support my amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I don't know how many times that 
I have said this on this floor and in the committee and to anyone that 
would listen: You cannot make your decisions on national defense based 
on politics. You can't make your decision based on national defense 
just on a number. And this number, by the way, on this similar 
amendment, has changed. Where is the commitment?
  The policies and the investment in our national defense must be based 
on the real threat to our own security, to the security of the United 
States, to the security of our troops, and to the security of our 
allies and our interests, whatever they might be. Stop and think. The 
threat has not diminished. The threat has not gone away.
  Did anybody happen to watch Iran's exercises last week where they 
fired short-range missiles, medium-range missiles, and long-range 
missiles? Iran is moving to make itself a strong military capability 
nation. That is a threat. Their commentaries about the United States 
and to the United States, that's a threat. We have got to be careful.
  China is expanding its military, expanding its technology, and 
expanding its work in cyber. The threat is growing, and so this is not 
the time to reduce our capability, to reduce our readiness, to reduce 
our training, to reduce in preparing our troops for whatever is 
required to defend the Nation that we love so much.
  This amendment just can't go, and I strongly ask Members to oppose 
this amendment and the message that it would send around the world that 
we don't care about the threat. We do care about the threat, and we are 
aware of the threat, and we know what it could mean to us.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. LoBiondo

  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to operate an unmanned aircraft system except in 
     accordance with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, the Fourth Amendment is unequivocal that 
``the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, 
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches, shall not be 
violated.'' I'm a firm believer in this. I'm also a firm believer in 
article I, section 8 of the Constitution that Congress shall have the 
right to provide for the common defense of the United States. 
Therefore, I offer my amendment to ensure that no funding will be used 
to operate unmanned aerial systems, except those operations that are in 
accordance with the Fourth Amendment.
  We need to make sure our citizens explicitly understand that while 
funding for these platforms is critical for our Nation's intelligence 
activities, these normal operations will not conflict with our 
constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
  This language would ensure that there is no misperception about the 
Department's use of these technologies, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2020


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract for UH-60 Leak Proof Drip 
     Pans using procedures other than competitive procedures (as 
     defined in section 2302(2) of title 10, United States Code).

  Mr. FLAKE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the reading be dispensed with.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. This bill would prohibit the use of funds in the bill to 
enter into a contract with a company for leakproof drip pans unless the 
contract is awarded using competitive procedures as defined by statute.
  A recent article by The New York Times highlights the story of a 
sole-source contract being awarded to a for-profit company to produce 
leak pans used in Black Hawk helicopters operated by the U.S. Army. 
These pans, according to The New York Times, cost $17,000 apiece, and 
in the last 3 years the Army has purchased $6.5 million of them.
  An Army spokesman is quoted in the article, saying, ``Congress 
mandated a leakproof transmission drip pan,'' and that the contract was 
awarded without competitive bids.
  I think that we can all agree that any contract administered by the 
Army or any other Federal agency should be awarded based on competitive 
procedures, which are already codified in statute.
  While there are no line items for these pans included in the bill 
before us or the accompanying report, the Times reports that the Army 
has indicated that it ``might get more pans if financing is approved.''
  The Department of Defense is already in the process of slashing its 
budget. They are learning to do more with less as Americans all over 
the country have had to do in the past several years. If a competitor 
exists who will produce these pans for less than $17,000 apiece, we 
ought to make sure that they compete for the project.
  The amendment before us now would not prohibit the procurement of 
these pans even if it is determined that there is one company that can 
supply the Army with them--now, if there is only one company--but it 
would ensure that any purchase of these pans is done in a manner 
consistent with competitive procedures, putting to rest any notion that 
Congress has mandated sole-source contracts for private companies. This 
is a good governance, commonsense amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt it, and I look forward, if there is any 
objection--I think it's a good government

[[Page 11651]]

amendment, but I would love to be able--I can't reserve my time, but I 
would like to have a dialogue if somebody has an issue with this 
amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DICKS. So what you are saying is you have got to have a 
competitive procedure.
  Mr. FLAKE. That's correct.
  Mr. DICKS. This is, I think, what we tried to do a few years ago on 
defense-related--with private companies is to have a competitive 
procedure, which I agree with. I think the gentleman is right on this. 
I appreciate his amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. It has been a long-standing practice put in 
place by appropriations legislation years ago that the contracts for 
these pans must be awarded under a competitive process. In fact, the FY 
2010 DOD appropriations bill required that the contract be competitive, 
and every year the Army holds an open competition where it asks all 
qualified companies to place a bid.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I don't think the amendment is necessary, 
but I do agree with what it does, and I accept the amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman, and I know that we have made 
efforts in the past to make sure that these are all competitively bid.
  The reason I am bringing this amendment is that the Army stated in 
this case that this contract was not competitively bid. We just want to 
make sure, and that's why I appreciate the gentleman accepting the 
amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. We do understand that the law does exist that 
requires it, so we're with you.
  Mr. FLAKE. Thank you.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee of California

  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--None of the 
     funds made available by this Act may be used for any account 
     of the Department of Defense (other than accounts excluded by 
     subsection (b)) in excess of the amount made available for 
     such account for fiscal year 2008, unless the financial 
     statements of the Department for fiscal year 2013 are 
     validated as ready for audit within 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Accounts Excluded.--The following accounts are excluded 
     from the prohibition in subsection (a):
       (1) Military personnel, reserve personnel, and National 
     Guard personnel accounts of the Department of Defense.
       (2) The Defense Health Program account.
       (c) Validation Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``validation'', with respect to the auditability of financial 
     statements, means a determination, following an examination, 
     that the financial statements comply with generally accepted 
     accounting principles and applicable laws and regulations and 
     reflect reliable internal controls.
       (d) Waiver.--The President may waive subsection (a) with 
     respect to a component or program of the Department if the 
     President certifies that applying the subsection to that 
     component or program would harm national security or members 
     of the Armed Forces who are in combat.

  Ms. LEE of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlelady's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I join with my esteemed 
colleague, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, in offering an 
amendment which hits really at the heart of the issue of fiscal 
responsibility.
  My amendment is short and to the point. If enacted, it would freeze 
Department of Defense programs at fiscal year 2008 levels unless the 
financial statements of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2013 
are validated as ready for audit within 6 months of enactment of this 
act.
  This amendment would exempt military personnel, Reserve and National 
Guard personnel accounts, as well as the Defense Health Program 
accounts from this potential funding freeze. It also contains a waiver 
for any potential harm to national security or combat forces.
  Now, some of my colleagues may make the argument that the Department 
of Defense is making progress on this issue in response to 
congressional engagement. They might reference language in recent 
Defense authorization bills requiring DOD to develop and implement 
plans to achieve audit readiness by September 30, 2017.
  But let me just say, Mr. Chairman, this is wholly unacceptable that 
we are still just developing plans for the Department of Defense to 
have much its fiscal house in order 5 years from now. This problem is 
not newly discovered and further delay is really an abandonment of our 
congressional duty, given the enormous and increasing proportion of 
Federal dollars going towards the defense budget. In the 1990s, 
Congress was promised that these financial deficiencies would be solved 
by 1997. This timeline then was delayed to 2007 in the early 2000s. 
Given the Pentagon's past failures to meet deadlines, why should we 
believe the 2017 timeline will be honored?
  Nearly 60 cents of every Federal discretionary dollar now goes 
towards defense spending, and by the Pentagon's own admission, they 
cannot properly account for how the money is spent.
  Can you imagine? We have nonprofit organizations that get shut down 
behind a few thousand dollars in unaccountable funds.
  There is no doubt that these circumstances have contributed to 
instances of waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon, including more 
than $300 billion in major weapons cost overruns identified by the 
Government Accountability Office.
  It's time to finally do away with the culture of unlimited spending 
and no accountability at the Pentagon. Being strong on defense does not 
mean handing a free pass to irresponsible spending. I believe it's 
critical that the Department of Defense be not only prepared and 
validated as ready for an audit, but actually pass an audit.
  Today I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and take a first 
step toward compelling the Department of Defense to act with urgency on 
this matter. The financial reforms necessary to abide by basic 
accounting standards, laws, and regulations at the Department of 
Defense cannot wait.
  I deeply regret that my colleagues would invoke a point of order on 
an issue of such vital importance to Congress' charge to conduct 
responsible oversight on Federal expenditures. I wish that the Pentagon 
would be held to the same standards as nonprofit organizations and 
those in business and other entities responsible for responsibly 
spending Federal dollars.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment grants new authority.

[[Page 11652]]

  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order? If not, the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment imposes a new duty on the 
Secretary to validate certain data as ready for audit. The amendment 
therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. 
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.

                              {time}  2030


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Wittman

  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to propose, plan for, or execute an additional Base 
     Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WITTMAN. This amendment directs that none of the funds made 
available in this act may be used to propose, plan for, or execute an 
additional Base Realignment and Closure, or BRAC, round. During the 
House Armed Services Committee markup of H.R. 4310 on May 9, a similar 
amendment passed with overwhelming bipartisan support by a vote of 44-
18, with 14 of 27 Democrats voting in favor of a similar amendment.
  On February 27, 2012, I joined 41 fellow Members of Congress in 
signing a bipartisan letter to President Obama expressing our concerns 
over his administration's announcement of the intent to request two new 
rounds of BRACs. Six House Armed Services Subcommittee chairmen signed 
this letter also.
  The 2005 BRAC is estimated to cost $36 billion, and the taxpayers 
will not realize that net savings until 2018, at the earliest. Congress 
has robustly funded the military construction accounts over the past 3 
years to accommodate the growing Army and Marine Corps. Proposed new 
rounds of military base closures by the President will require 
additional expenses in a time of military spending reductions. More 
BRAC rounds will cost more than it saves in the near-term and negate 
the value of deficit reduction. More BRAC rounds will cost billions of 
dollars and thousands of jobs.
  According to the GAO in a study that was concluded in March 2012, 
DOD's fiscal year 2012 budget submission to Congress on BRAC 2005 shows 
that costs to implement the BRAC recommendations grew from $21 billion 
originally estimated by the BRAC Commission in 2005 dollars to about 
$35.1 billion in current dollars, an increase of about $14.1 billion, 
or 67 percent. In constant 2005 dollars, costs increased to $32.2 
billion, an increase of 53 percent.
  In 2005, the Commission estimated net annual recurring savings of 
$4.2 billion and a 20-year net present value savings by 2025 of $36 
billion. GAO's analysis shows annual recurring savings are now about 
$3.8 billion, a decrease of 9.5 percent, while the 20-year net present 
value savings are now about $9.9 billion, a decrease of 73 percent. As 
such, DOD will not recoup its up-front costs until at least 2018.
  Implementation of the 2005 BRAC round was officially completed on 
September 15, 2011. This took 6 years to fully execute. Strategically, 
as we draw down from over 10 years of combat operations in the Middle 
East and shift our focus to balancing the Middle East threat with the 
emerging security issues and presence of forces in the Asia-Pacific, 
additional rounds of BRAC at this time cannot be justified. After 10 
years of war and a substantial 2005 BRAC round, we now have a well-
trained, battle-hardened, combat-tested, efficient, streamlined all-
volunteer force that is now more joint than ever. This is simply not 
the time for an additional BRAC round.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I want to associate myself with the remarks of 
Mr. Wittman. He is right on. And I just want to emphasize how strongly 
I agree with what he has to say, and I strongly support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Woolsey

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The total amount of appropriations made available 
     by this Act is hereby reduced by $1,700,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, a few months ago, the Republican majority 
passed their budget blueprint which, unbelievably, called for the 
complete elimination, over 10 years' time, of funding for the Social 
Services Block Grant. This program is designed to help people in 
desperate straits, people who have fallen on hard times, people who 
need a hand up from their government in their hour of need. But the 
majority said, Sorry, we can't afford that. The country, they say, just 
can't afford day care for children and adults, special services for 
people with disabilities, substance abuse assistance, low-income 
housing, home-delivered meals, employment services, and other support 
that people need when they have fallen on hard times and what people 
need when they're working very hard to become self-sufficient. That 
kind of compassion is too expensive, apparently.
  But this week, when we're deciding how much to spend on our war 
machines and our Department of Defense bureaucracy, the sky is the 
limit. Money is no object. Well, those aren't the values I was taught. 
That's not the kind of country I want to live in.
  The Pentagon has received more than its fair share of taxpayer 
dollars over the years. And, frankly, they haven't always been the most 
careful stewards of the people's money. They haven't always had the 
best accountability and oversight. They haven't always delivered the 
best bang for the buck, Mr. Chairman.
  Recent polling indicates that Americans overwhelmingly want defense 
cuts, but instead we've got a defense spending bill that is larger than 
last year's and larger than what the President requested. I say it's 
time that the Pentagon contribute its fair share. My amendment calls 
for a $1.7 billion cut to Defense appropriations--an amount equal to 
the cut we have asked of the Social Services Block Grant program for 
next year.
  If you believe that human dignity and basic compassion are more 
important than throwing money at wasteful weapons, then I hope that you 
will support my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the 
gentlelady. She is certainly determined. This is the third or fourth 
amendment on the same subject, just by changing the numbers. I'm not 
going to make the same arguments about the threat and about the need to 
defend our country. Again, you have heard that many, many times. But it 
is serious. It is serious.
  The numbers keep changing. I don't know why they keep changing, but 
the fact that they keep changing indicates to me that there's not 
really a real determination here on the number. But there is a 
determination on my side and from my viewpoint and, that is, the threat 
cannot be ignored, the threat is growing, and this is not a good 
amendment and I ask that our Members oppose it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

[[Page 11653]]

  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  2040


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. The amounts otherwise provided in title IX of 
     this Act are revised by reducing the amount made available 
     for ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' and the 
     amount under that heading for payments to reimburse key 
     cooperating nations for logistical, military and other 
     support by $650,000,000, respectively.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the Chair.
  I thank the chairman, and his staff especially, for working with me 
on this amendment, which I would like to associate my previous remarks 
in a previous amendment on Pakistan to this amendment. Basically the 
intent is to cut half of the money that goes to Pakistan under title IX 
in this legislation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to thank the gentleman for working with us. As we discussed 
earlier during our debate, we would work together to find a solution 
that would be acceptable. You have done that, I congratulate you, and I 
support your amendment.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of engaging in a colloquy with Chairman Young.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Chairman, as you well know, 40-millimeter 
cartridges provide sustained coverage for our ground troops and have 
played a significant role in providing protection for our troops in 
Afghanistan. They are produced in a joint effort between the Iowa Army 
Ammunition Plant, which I represent, and facilities in Florida, 
Wisconsin, and several other States.
  In Iowa, 75 employees work on a state-of-the-art production line to 
load, assemble, and pack the 40-millimeter ammunition. This state-of-
the-art equipment allows this work to be done safely, at a high-quality 
rate, and in a cost-effective way for the taxpayers and the Army.
  The Army's budget request included 40-millimeter funding levels that 
are considered the minimum level necessary to sustain our capability 
and the highly skilled workforce needed to produce them. A reduction in 
funding could result in a break in work that would result in lost 
capabilities, lost jobs, and delays and quality concerns when the line 
is restarted.
  Mr. Chairman, I know we share a commitment to maintaining the 
workforce, capabilities, and lines that produce the 40-millimeter 
ammunition, and I very much appreciate your and Ranking Member Dicks' 
work with me over the last several weeks. I look forward to continuing 
to work with you to address this matter going forward so that we can 
ensure the final 2013 defense bill supports the 40-millimeter 
ammunition workforce and supply chain.
  I thank you for the cooperation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LOEBSACK. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for his work on this 
important issue.
  The gentleman is correct. Our Nation's ability to produce the 40-
millimeter ammunition is a critical readiness issue. I am very proud of 
the work that is done in Florida and other States to support production 
of this ammunition. This is a matter of importance to the readiness of 
the Army, and the readiness of all of our Armed Forces is a matter of 
top priority to me and it is a matter of great importance to both of 
our districts.
  I'm committed to ensuring that the funding necessary for production 
of 40-millimeter ammunition in 2013 is available and that the supply 
chain and workforce associated with the 40-millimeter ammunition 
remains strong.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman from Iowa to ensure that 
the final bill reflects that priority.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Bilbray

  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to remove any portion of the Mount Soledad Veterans 
     Memorial in San Diego, California.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It just 
says you will not use Federal funds to tear down the war memorial on 
Mount Soledad. It is very simple. It is basically a war memorial that 
was originally built in honor of the veterans of Korea.
  Mr. Chairman, when I was a young teenager, a young child, I still 
remember as my father and I drove up the coast from San Diego, he would 
point up at this memorial and say that is the only war memorial to 
Korea. At the time, I believed him. As far as I know, at that time, it 
was. Since then, the war memorial has been surrounded by over 3,000 
plaques; many show the Star of David, many show crescents, and many 
show crosses. But there are those that have taken offense to the fact 
that this war memorial happened to be a cross, the universal sign of 
memorial.
  All I have to say is that if we don't support this amendment not to 
tear down this one memorial, then I ask this body to be serious about 
the fact that in the United States, we have over 4 million crosses as 
memorials in this country. We have over 455,000 emblems that may be 
interpreted any way you want. We have 40,000 Stars of David as 
memorials on veteran property. In fact, in Normandy, England, Mexico 
City, and Panama, we have 130,000 crosses or other symbols that might 
be projected as being religious.
  Sadly, what we've got going on in San Diego is those who claim, in 
the name of religious tolerance, to want to destroy war memorials if 
anyone takes offense to this. All this says is we're not going to tear 
down the 4 million crosses on our veterans' memorials across this 
country and we're not going to tear down or use any funds from this 
budget to tear down the war memorial that stands on top of Mount 
Soledad at La Jolla, San Diego, California. It's very simple and very 
clear.
  I hope that my colleagues can say, in the spirit of tolerance, no one 
means to go out and be so intolerant as to tear down war memorials just 
because somebody may claim that it may have a religious connotation. 
God knows we don't want to start tearing down those 4 million crosses 
that exist today or those thousands of Stars of David that proudly sit 
today on veterans' and Federal property.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. We are happy to support your amendment.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the 
minority's consideration.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

[[Page 11654]]

  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee of California

  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     appropriations made in title IX of this Act are hereby 
     reduced in the amount of $20,843,869,000.
       (b) The reduction in subsection (a) shall not apply to the 
     following accounts in title IX:
       (1) ``Defense Health Program''.
       (2) ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, 
     Defense''.
       (3) ``Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund''.
       (4) ``Office of the Inspector General''.

  Ms. LEE of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, once again, is 
very straightforward. It reduces the overseas contingency operations 
account, which is currently funded at $85 billion, by $21 billion.

                              {time}  2050

  That leaves $64 billion in reserves, more than enough funds for the 
safe and swift withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
  This amendment allows Congress the opportunity to stand squarely with 
the war-weary American people who want to bring our troops home. It is 
clear that the American people have been far ahead of Congress in 
supporting an end to the war in Afghanistan. The call has been growing 
across this land to bring this war to an end, and it is past time for 
the Congress to answer that call here today.
  I want to thank all of the cosponsors of this bipartisan amendment 
and all of my colleagues who have worked on this issue throughout the 
year and supported my legislation, H.R. 780, to responsibly end the war 
in Afghanistan.
  Our brave troops have done everything that was asked of them and 
more. Asking our troops to remain in Afghanistan for another 2 years 
when there is no indication that circumstances on the ground will 
change is unconscionable.
  As we send our men and women in uniform back into danger on multiple 
tours, they are bearing an overwhelming and unfair burden of sacrifice 
while so many of us go on with our daily lives. An alarming number of 
troops are coming back home with post-traumatic stress disorder, 
suicide cases are rampant, and sadly, each day we continue to hear more 
and more about our veterans and the terrible toll this has taken on 
their lives.
  Mr. Chairman, the costs of this war are unacceptable, particularly 
when we ask what the added benefit is of keeping our troops in 
Afghanistan through 2014. The war in Afghanistan has already taken the 
lives of over 2,000 soldiers, injured tens of thousands more, and 
drained our treasury of over $500 billion. And those costs will only go 
up as we spend trillions of dollars on long-term care for our veterans, 
which of course we must and we should do.
  Instead of spending over $85 billion in Afghanistan this next year, 
we should restrict funding to the safe and responsible withdrawal of 
all of our troops and use the tens of billions of dollars in savings 
right here at home, investing in jobs and education and health care and 
mental health care.
  The situation on the ground in Afghanistan, whether we leave in 2013, 
2014, or 2020, whether 100 more United States troops die or 1,000, let 
me just say, not an extra dollar should be spent extending the decade-
long war in Afghanistan. We have the power of the purse strings in this 
House. For those who believe that enough is enough, they should vote 
for this amendment.
  As the daughter of a military veteran, I know firsthand the 
sacrifices and the commitment involved with defending our Nation. But 
the truth is that our troops have been put in an impossible situation; 
there is no military solution. It's past time to end the war and bring 
our troops home. And quite frankly, it is time to use these tax dollars 
from ending the war to create jobs here at home and economic security 
for the American people. It's time to rebuild America, and also to 
provide for health care and, of course, as I said earlier, the economic 
security of our troops.
  Today, once again, we have the opportunity to stand with 7 out of 10 
Americans who oppose the war in Afghanistan. The American people have 
made it clear that the war is no longer worth fighting. And I'll say it 
again, not an extra day, not an extra dollar should be spent extending 
the decade-long war in Afghanistan.
  I knew 10 years ago that this would be a war without end. I could not 
support it then. More Members of Congress are beginning to see that 
this was a blank check to wage war forever unless we end it now. So 
after 11 years, yes, we should bring our troops home. We can do that 
responsibly by voting ``yes'' on the Lee amendment today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, in working with the 
administration, the Department of Defense, and our commanders in the 
field in Afghanistan, we have come to a proper amount to be funded for 
this purpose. It's already included in this bill. I think to change the 
formula now from one that has been agreed upon by the administration, 
the Defense Department, and the commanders in the field who have the 
responsibility for operating this entire Afghan operation, I just 
oppose this amendment. I think it's the wrong thing to do.
  It's very balanced. It's agreed to by the parties that have the 
responsibility. I just hope the Members will vote ``no.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I'm proud to cosponsor the amendment 
offered by my friend from California.
  If approved, this amendment would accomplish two goals: One, to end 
this war, and two, to save the taxpayers $21 billion, something I think 
both sides of the aisle could agree on.
  Let's be clear about what this amendment really does. It fully funds 
a safe and responsible redeployment of our troops from Afghanistan. 
It's not cut and run; it's funding redeployment.
  The Afghan people do not want us there. The American people don't 
want us there. Yet, we are spending $10 billion a month for a decade-
long war that's failing to advance our national security objectives.
  Why would we want to continue down this road, especially at such a 
great cost in blood and treasure? More than 2,000 servicemembers have 
been killed, and $548 billion in taxpayer money has been spent.
  This amendment provides sufficient funding to ensure that every man 
and woman in uniform leaves Afghanistan safely. At that point, we can 
look away from defense spending to a national security policy based on 
the other two Ds: diplomacy and development. We can turn away from 
military force and toward SMART Security, an agenda that keeps America 
safe by alleviating human need and investing in human capital in 
Afghanistan and around the developing world.
  Since 2004, Mr. Chairman, I have come to the House floor 437 times 
during Special Orders to call for an end to the wars in Afghanistan and 
Iraq. Since I am retiring at the end of this term, this will be my last 
debate and last vote on defense spending. I hope it can be my legacy 
and yours to finally reorder our national security priorities and put 
an end to the war in Afghanistan. We owe it to the next generation, and 
we owe it to Americans in Afghanistan, together.

[[Page 11655]]

  Let's bring our troops home in a safe and responsible way. Let's vote 
``yes'' on Congresswoman Lee's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to administer the wage-rate requirements of 
     subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code, 
     with respect to any project or program funded by this Act.

  Mr. KING of Iowa (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Iowa?
  Mr. DICKS. I object.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue reading.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this is the Davis-Bacon limitation 
amendment that I believe most Members of this Congress have seen that 
applies to this appropriations bill.
  We have an existing code called the Davis-Bacon Act. What it does is 
it requires that any construction projects that have Federal dollars in 
them--$2,000 or more--be constructed under what the bill says are 
prevailing wages. While prevailing wages in 1931 might have been a 
legitimate evaluation, today, it's a federally mandated union scale 
determined by a formerly smoke-filled room of people from the 
administrative side and the construction side of the industry.
  I've spent my life in the construction business. I've been involved 
in the construction business since 1970, and I've worked on all sides 
of this that I can imagine. I've been a recipient of Davis-Bacon wages; 
I've paid Davis-Bacon wages; and I've done a fair amount of reporting 
of those wages into the bureaucrats.
  This law is the last remaining Jim Crow law in the U.S. Code. It was 
written to protect union workers in New York City from the southern 
African Americans who were brought up to do a Federal building in that 
city back during the Depression.

                              {time}  2100

  And in 1931 there was a Senator James Davis of Pennsylvania and 
Representative Robert Bacon of New York, Long Island, who, I might add, 
decided that they wanted to protect the unions in that locale, and so 
they brought this legislation to Congress and passed it. It has long 
been union scale, not prevailing wage. And, yes, merit shop employers 
have an opportunity to introduce those wages that they actually pay, 
the earned wages they actually pay; but, in the end, it's a formerly 
smoke-filled room, people deciding it doesn't cost us anything, if it 
raises our bottom line, we all put our add of our margin on top of 
that. So we'd kind of like to be able to outcompete the rest of the 
industry for the opportunity to hire the workers that will receive the 
highest pay.
  This is irresponsible on the part of a Congress that now we're 
finding ourselves nearly $16 trillion in national debt. We have a 
budget crunch like we've never seen. We've seen a President that's 
driven this national debt up about $1.33 trillion just in the last 
budget that the President offered. And we're looking at taxpayers that 
have had enough.
  We need a balanced budget amendment to the United States 
Constitution. We don't need irresponsible spending. We don't need wage 
protectionism.
  By the way, Senator Davis and Representative Bacon were both 
Republicans. They were two of the more misguided Republicans in the 
history of this country, and I regret that I, as an Iowan, have to 
stand here and inform this body that it was Iowa President Herbert 
Hoover that signed the bill on March 3, 1931.
  I'm pledged to undo this, to repeal Davis-Bacon in the end, because 
we believe in competition. We're a free and fair competition country 
that believes in free markets.
  I have listened to the gentleman from Massachusetts in the past who 
has said that anytime that you have two consenting adults that are 
conducting any activity that doesn't hurt anyone else, they should be 
able to do so without Federal interference. If that's the case, tell me 
why I can't climb in the seat of my son's excavator and say, ``Just pay 
me 10 bucks an hour, Dave. That's enough. I need the therapy to get 
away from this insanity of this overspending government that we have 
here in this Congress.''
  So I urge the adoption of this wage limitation so that we can build 
five bases, not four; five barracks, not four; five military hospitals, 
not four. We can do five of everything instead of four if we just let 
competition set the wages.
  The quality will be there. The gentleman's about to tell you that 
it's not. I will tell you, if I spend my life in this, we meet 
specifications. The high quality of the work is there.
  The other side of that's just an argument for union wage 
protectionism. We need to protect the taxpayers.
  And the unions are fine. If they want to organize, I encourage them 
doing so. But they need to do so without Federal protection. Compete in 
the competitive world on low bid like the rest of us, where you have to 
meet the specifications and the quality of work.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. The House has spoken on this issue repeatedly. There's 
been a very substantial majority in favor of retaining Davis-Bacon and 
opposing the gentleman's amendment.
  Some Members continue to try to repeal Davis-Bacon, despite the House 
record of supporting the protection on labor standards. I have been a 
longtime supporter of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements. It 
helps ensure that local projects provide local jobs with affordable 
middle class wages.
  The law protects the government from contractors trying to win 
Federal contracts by bidding too low to attract competent workers. And 
we have seen time and time again where you have prevailing wages. The 
State of Washington has its own prevailing wage standard in our State; 
and we find that on these projects, you get better work and the work is 
done at a higher quality.
  So, again, I oppose this amendment. And as I said, we have had 
several votes on this this year, and every time it's been defeated. I 
hope that we can again defeat the King amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recognition and would want to join 
with the ranking member, Mr. Dicks, in my strong opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  We had a similar debate during the consideration of the Energy and 
Water bill. And one observation I would make is we do have a disparity 
in this country, and it continues to grow, despite how hard the average 
American works.
  The problem today for that average American is that for 1 hour's 
worth of work--it could be pushing paper, it could be waiting tables at 
a diner, it

[[Page 11656]]

could be working at a steel mill, it could be laying brick, it could be 
a contractor, it could be a manager, it could be a CEO--is less for 1 
hour's worth of human labor in the United States today than it was in 
1977 when I came to Washington, D.C. on a congressional staff. That is 
not the country my parents left me.
  I think it is wrong to offer an amendment to further suppress the 
wages hardworking Americans are trying to earn to make sure that they 
can buy a house, they can send their children to what are increasingly 
expensive public institutions because of the lack of State support for 
them, and who now hold retirement programs that are probably about 40 
percent less in value than they were in 2007.
  This is a bad amendment, and I strongly oppose it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me just say that I rise in strong 
opposition to this amendment.
  Some Members here continue to try to repeal Davis-Bacon, despite the 
House being on record supporting the protection of labor standards.
  All of us, or at least the majority of us, have been in support of 
prevailing wage requirements. It helps to ensure that local projects 
that provide local jobs have these jobs that have affordable, middle 
class wages with benefits. The law protects government from contractors 
trying to win Federal contracts by bidding too low to attract competent 
workers.
  This amendment should be opposed. If we really want people to move 
toward achieving middle class standards, if we want to keep the middle 
class with good jobs, good-paying jobs with benefits, then there is no 
way we should repeal Davis-Bacon.
  People are losing the American Dream quite quickly here in our own 
country, unfortunately. And here we go again trying to erode one of the 
basic protections of working men and women.
  So I hope we oppose this amendment, maintain standards of prevailing 
wage for our workers, and ensure that they too have the opportunity to 
achieve the American Dream.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 4 by Ms. McCollum of Minnesota.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Kingston of Georgia.
  An amendment by Mr. Quigley of Illinois.
  The first amendment by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee.
  An amendment by Mr. Pompeo of Kansas.
  The first amendment by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
  An amendment by Mr. Amash of Michigan.
  The second amendment by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee.
  An amendment by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island.
  The first amendment by Ms. Woolsey of California.
  The second amendment by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
  The second amendment by Ms. Woolsey of California.
  The third amendment by Ms. Woolsey of California.
  The second amendment by Ms. Lee of California.
  An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. McCollum

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166, 
noes 250, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 472]

                               AYES--166

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Amash
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Bonner
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Buchanan
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clay
     Coffman (CO)
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Courtney
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Griffith (VA)
     Gutierrez
     Hanna
     Hartzler
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt
     Israel
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Levin
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Olver
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pompeo
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Roby
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stearns
     Sutton
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Waxman
     Webster
     Wilson (FL)
     Woodall
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--250

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeGette
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gonzalez
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Moore
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee

[[Page 11657]]


     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schock
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Akin
     Becerra
     Boren
     Cardoza
     Conyers
     Filner
     Hahn
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Polis
     Reyes
     Sewell
     Stivers
     Welch

                              {time}  2135

  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Ms. FUDGE, Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, Messrs. 
RANGEL and BACHUS, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, and 
Messrs. DOGGETT and SCHIFF changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. LUETKEMEYER, WEBSTER, WALDEN, PRICE of North Carolina, 
SCHWEIKERT, COFFMAN of Colorado, Ms. JENKINS, Ms. PELOSI, Messrs. 
NEUGEBAUER, RYAN of Wisconsin, YOUNG of Indiana, KEATING, Ms. CASTOR of 
Florida, and Messrs. RUPPERSBERGER, GARRETT, HURT, GOODLATTE and ISRAEL 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 472, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kingston

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 202, 
noes 216, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 473]

                               AYES--202

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Amash
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garrett
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Israel
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Olver
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Roby
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Waters
     Waxman
     Webster
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey

                               NOES--216

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Berg
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Renacci
     Richardson
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Boren
     Cardoza
     Filner
     Hahn
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Polis
     Reyes
     Sewell
     Stivers


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2140

  Mr. WOMACK changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 473, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Quigley

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

[[Page 11658]]




                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 60, 
noes 359, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 474]

                                AYES--60

     Amash
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Campbell
     Carson (IN)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Garamendi
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lee (CA)
     Lowey
     Lummis
     Markey
     McClintock
     McCollum
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Napolitano
     Paul
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Speier
     Stark
     Tipton
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walden

                               NOES--359

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Richardson
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Akin
     Boren
     Cardoza
     Filner
     Hahn
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Polis
     Reyes
     Sewell
     Stivers


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. ELLISON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 474, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145, 
noes 273, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 475]

                               AYES--145

     Altmire
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanna
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Yoder

                               NOES--273

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway

[[Page 11659]]


     Connolly (VA)
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Akin
     Boren
     Cardoza
     Filner
     Hahn
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Polis
     Reyes
     Sewell
     Stivers
     Sullivan

                              {time}  2149

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 475, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Pompeo

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 137, 
noes 282, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 476]

                               AYES--137

     Adams
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Biggert
     Black
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Cohen
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Doggett
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Gutierrez
     Hensarling
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latta
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Speier
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     Westmoreland
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--282

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Israel
     Issa
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stark
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     West
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Akin
     Boren
     Cardoza
     Filner
     Hahn
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Polis
     Reyes
     Sewell
     Stivers


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.

                              {time}  2154

  Mr. POE of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.

[[Page 11660]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 476, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 150, 
noes 268, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 477]

                               AYES--150

     Ackerman
     Amash
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huizenga (MI)
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--268

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Akin
     Boren
     Cardoza
     Filner
     Hahn
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Polis
     Reyes
     Sewell
     Stivers
     Tsongas


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.

                              {time}  2158

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 477, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Amash

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186, 
noes 233, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 478]

                               AYES--186

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg

[[Page 11661]]


     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Tipton
     Turner (OH)
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--233

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     West
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Akin
     Boren
     Cardoza
     Filner
     Hahn
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Polis
     Reyes
     Sewell
     Stivers


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.

                              {time}  2201

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 478, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 191, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 479]

                               AYES--228

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Amash
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Yoder

                               NOES--191

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Berg
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pompeo
     Quayle
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)

[[Page 11662]]


     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Van Hollen
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Akin
     Boren
     Cardoza
     Filner
     Hahn
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Polis
     Reyes
     Sewell
     Stivers

                              {time}  2206

  Mr. POE of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 479, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Cicilline

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 149, 
noes 270, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 480]

                               AYES--149

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Amash
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Coble
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DesJarlais
     Doggett
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hurt
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Keating
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Landry
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lummis
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rohrabacher
     Ross (FL)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schrader
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Yoder

                               NOES--270

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Berg
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeGette
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Van Hollen
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Akin
     Boren
     Cardoza
     Filner
     Hahn
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Polis
     Reyes
     Sewell
     Stivers


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.

                              {time}  2209

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 480, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Woolsey

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 114, 
noes 302, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 481]

                               AYES--114

     Amash
     Baldwin
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Buchanan
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Deutch
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones
     Keating
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lance
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott

[[Page 11663]]


     McGovern
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ribble
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Yoder

                               NOES--302

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hochul
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Akin
     Boren
     Braley (IA)
     Cardoza
     Filner
     Hahn
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Polis
     Reyes
     Sewell
     Stivers
     Turner (NY)
     Visclosky


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.

                              {time}  2213

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 481, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 136, 
noes 283, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 482]

                               AYES--136

     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--283

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul

[[Page 11664]]


     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Akin
     Boren
     Cardoza
     Filner
     Hahn
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Polis
     Reyes
     Sewell
     Stivers


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.

                              {time}  2216

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 482, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Woolsey

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 106, 
noes 311, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 483]

                               AYES--106

     Amash
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Braley (IA)
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Deutch
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Goodlatte
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones
     Keating
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Markey
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ribble
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--311

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hochul
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Akin
     Boren
     Cardoza
     Filner
     Hahn
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     McCaul
     Polis
     Reyes
     Rokita
     Sewell
     Stivers


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2219

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 483, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 483 on H.R. 5856, I 
mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted ``aye.''


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Woolsey

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the third amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.

[[Page 11665]]

  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 91, 
noes 328, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 484]

                                AYES--91

     Amash
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Braley (IA)
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Deutch
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones
     Keating
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McGovern
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Peters
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--328

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hochul
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Akin
     Boren
     Cardoza
     Filner
     Hahn
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Polis
     Reyes
     Sewell
     Stivers


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  2222

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 484, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


               Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee of California

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 107, 
noes 312, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 485]

                               AYES--107

     Amash
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Braley (IA)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Keating
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Paul
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--312

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)

[[Page 11666]]


     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Akin
     Boren
     Cardoza
     Filner
     Hahn
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Polis
     Reyes
     Sewell
     Stivers

                              {time}  2225

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 485, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 235, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 486]

                               AYES--182

     Adams
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Walberg
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--235

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hultgren
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Boren
     Cardoza
     Filner
     Hahn
     Hirono
     Hunter
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Polis
     Reyes
     Sewell
     Stivers

                              {time}  2229

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 486, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.

[[Page 11667]]

Westmoreland) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, Acting Chair of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
5856) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________