Amendment Text: H.Amdt.1433 — 112th Congress (2011-2012)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (07/19/2012)

This Amendment appears on page H5057 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H5027-H5072]
             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013


                             General Leave

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

                              {time}  1245


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 5856) making appropriations for the Department of 
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Denham (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, 
July 18, 2012, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King) had been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 
153, line 15.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 7 of title 1, United 
     States Code.

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

                              {time}  1250

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

                                   Under Secretary of Defense,

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

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

[[Page H5028]]

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

                                                General Counsel of


                                    the Department of Defense,

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

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


                      TITLE 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS


                    CHAPTER 1--RULES OF CONSTRUCTION

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

  Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment. This amendment is being offered for purely political 
reasons.
  As the gentleman knows, the Defense of Marriage Act is already 
current law. Despite the successful repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell 
last year under DOMA, same-sex military spouses are not entitled to the 
same benefits as other married couples. This amendment only seeks to 
divide this House. He knows that current law already prohibits same-sex 
spouses from independently shopping at military commissaries, using 
base gyms, or benefiting from subsidized dental and health care.
  I do believe we should have the debate of the effects of DOMA on our 
servicemembers and their families, but introducing this contentious and 
discriminatory amendment to this bill is not the place. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this divisive amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I rise in support of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman from Iowa has explained the 
amendment very thoroughly. It is easy to understand. The House has 
spoken many, many times strongly on the issue, so I would add my 
support to the King amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee of California

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

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

  Ms. LEE of California (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlelady's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is 
straightforward. It would put a responsible end to combat operations in 
Afghanistan by limiting funding to the safe and orderly withdrawal of 
United States troops and military contractors.
  Eleven years after Congress wrote a blank check for war without end, 
which I could not support, the United States is still in Afghanistan. 
Ever since that vote, I have introduced this Lee amendment--that 
responsibly and safely brings our troops home--on numerous occasions 
and at every opportunity. It is past time that Congress caught up, had 
the debate, and passed this amendment.
  Today, we have the opportunity to stand squarely with the war-weary 
American people who want to bring our troops home. It is clear that the 
American people have been far ahead of Congress in supporting an end to 
the war in Afghanistan. The call has been growing across this land to 
bring this war to an end, and it is past time for Congress to answer 
that call.
  After over a decade of war and over a half a trillion dollars in 
direct costs--not a penny of it, mind you, paid for, and we talk about 
deficit reduction--when we should have been actually investing in jobs 
and our economy here at home, it is really time now to say enough is 
enough. It is crucial to our economy and to the future of this country 
to stop pouring billions into a counterproductive military presence in 
Afghanistan. It is no wonder that 7 out of 10 Americans oppose the war 
in Afghanistan. The American people have made it clear that the war 
should end, that it should not go on for another year or 2 years and, 
surely, not for another decade or more.
  Mr. Chair, the costs of the war are unacceptable, particularly when 
we ask what we gain by keeping our troops in Afghanistan through 2014. 
The war in Afghanistan has already taken the lives of over 2,000 
soldiers, has injured tens of thousands more, and has drained our 
Treasury of over a half a trillion dollars. These costs will only go up 
as we spend trillions of dollars on long-term care for our veterans, 
which of course we must do.
  As the daughter of a military veteran, I know firsthand the 
sacrifices and the commitment involved in defending our Nation; but the 
truth is our troops have been put in an impossible situation. There is 
no military solution, and it is past time to end the war and to bring 
our troops home. Quite frankly, it is time to use these savings from 
ending the war to create jobs here at home. We need to provide for the 
health care and economic security of our returning troops by rebuilding 
the American economy.
  The American people have made it clear that the war should end. Not 
an extra day--not an extra dollar--should be spent extending the 
decade-long war in Afghanistan. After 11 long years now, it is time to 
bring our troops home.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect, so I ask for a 
ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?

[[Page H5029]]

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

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

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

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

                              {time}  1300

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

[[Page H5030]]

               Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee of California

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

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

  Ms. LEE of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to be joined by my 
colleagues in offering an amendment to set Pentagon spending at the 
levels from the 2008 financial year adjusted for inflation, or at $500 
billion.
  I'm offering this amendment for one simple reason: the bloated 
Pentagon budget must be addressed if we are serious about solving our 
Nation's deficit. Quite frankly, our real national security is about 
rebuilding our economy. It's time to use these tax dollars to create 
jobs here at home.
  It's time to rebuild America and also to provide for the health and 
economic security of our brave troops and the communities that they 
live in back here at home. Even with this modest cut--and it's very 
modest at $19.2 billion--the Pentagon-based budget would still be, mind 
you, a half trillion dollars, excluding war funding for Afghanistan, 
far outpacing any other nation in defense spending.
  Americans across the country have been forced to cut back, and many 
are barely able to make ends meet while Pentagon spending has doubled 
over the past decade. The United States spends as much on its military 
as the next 14 countries combined, and all but three of these are close 
allies. Americans believe no Federal agency should be immune from cuts, 
including the Pentagon. In fact, the average American would pursue a 
much larger cut of over $100 billion according to a poll released 
earlier this week by the Stimson Center.
  Some have argued that defense cuts will result in job losses. The 
Pentagon, quite frankly, is not a jobs program. Even if it were, 
defense spending creates fewer jobs per billion dollars spent than 
investing in other sectors: education, health care, clean energy, or 
even tax cuts.
  The bloated Pentagon budget has been immune from oversight and 
scrutiny for too long. We couldn't even pass my amendment yesterday 
calling for an audit of the Pentagon. This really has resulted in 
unbalanced spending where nearly 60 cents of every discretionary dollar 
now goes to the Pentagon. If we are serious about addressing the 
deficit, we must take reasonable steps to rein in Pentagon spending.
  My amendment makes modest cuts to defense spending while protecting 
our active military personnel and retirees from misguided efforts to 
cut their compensation and health care expenditures by prohibiting the 
additional cuts from coming from Active Duty and National Guard 
personnel accounts from the defense health program. Let me repeat: not 
a single penny would come from Active Duty and National Guard personnel 
accounts or from defense health programs.
  President Eisenhower famously said that the United States ``should 
spend as much as necessary on defense,'' which we all agree with, ``but 
not a penny more.''

                              {time}  1310

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

[[Page H5031]]

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Brooks

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Defense or a component thereof 
     to provide the government of the Russian Federation with any 
     information about the missile defense systems of the United 
     States that is classified by the Department or component 
     thereof.

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

                              {time}  1320

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

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

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

[[Page H5032]]

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

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

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

                                            Michael R. Turner,

                          Chairman, Strategic Forces Subcommittee,
                                   House Armed Services Committee.

  Mr. BROOKS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this actually may be the most 
critical amendment that we will consider on this bill today. There 
should be no secret deals on our missile defense with a Russian 
President or any other person not involved with the security of our own 
Nation. This amendment precludes that.
  Mr. Brooks has pointed it out extremely well and Mr. Turner has 
certainly made a very strong case. But let me add, our national defense 
interests have got to be our interests, not somebody else's. Our 
national defense investments must be made based on what is the threat 
to our Nation, and missile defense in particular. The Iranians have 
just shown a massive arsenal of missiles--short-range, medium-range, 
and some long-range capability. Those missiles would have the ability 
to target our troops wherever they might be in the Persian Gulf region. 
They can even reach to Israel, one of our very best partners and 
coalition allies.
  We just can't let this happen. We can't let anyone make a secret deal 
with a Russian President on missile defense. The threat is too great.
  The threat is growing not only from Iran, but from North Korea. The 
North Koreans have invested a lot of time, a lot of money, and a lot of 
technology in developing their missiles, and I don't suspect that they 
are for peaceful purposes.
  We have to be always on guard that we protect Americans and our 
interests

[[Page H5033]]

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

                              {time}  1330

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

[[Page H5034]]

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


               Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee of California

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

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

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

                              {time}  1340

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

[[Page H5035]]

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

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

  He went on to say:

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

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

       Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.

  He went on to say:

       Everybody must do their part.

  He said:

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

  That is why this body, on a bipartisan basis, agreed to the Budget 
Control Act. So it's very unfortunate that this bill now comes to the 
floor in violation of an agreement, in violation of an understanding 
that in order to get our fiscal house in order, we had to make tough 
decisions on defense and nondefense alike.
  By violating the agreement in this regard, what the committee is 
saying is they're willing to make really tough decisions. In fact, they 
make irresponsible decisions with respect to the nondefense domestic 
spending, and we doubt we'll even see a Labor-H bill on the floor of 
this House, it's so bad. The reason it's so bad is because, in part, 
that Budget Control Act was violated and so much was added to the 
Defense Department, again, as my colleagues have said, more than 
requested by our military leadership and more than requested by the 
Defense Department.
  I agree with Admiral Mullen, who said we all need to share in this 
responsibility. I agree with what my Republican colleague said just 
last year when we passed the Budget Control Act. Let's stick to an 
agreement and let the people know that when this body comes to an 
understanding after a hard compromise, we stick with it for the public 
good.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5856, the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2013. Until we 
can rein in defense spending and treat it like all other federal 
programs facing damaging funding cuts, I cannot support yet another 
bloated defense budget. Republicans talk about how entitlements like 
Medicare are driving the debt. But it is clear that defense spending 
has become just as much of an entitlement, complete with a team of 
lobbyists and members of this body that are more interested in 
protecting defense contractors than protecting our country.
  This bill marks the 12th fiscal year the United States has been 
fighting and funding the War in Afghanistan. During this time, we have 
pursued a variety of strategies and plans--none of which have delivered 
peace and stability to Afghanistan or the region. The War has, however, 
contributed to fiscal instability in our own country. Since 2001, we 
have spent $634 billion on the Afghanistan War alone. This 
appropriations bill is going to cost another $608.2 billion that we do 
not have. Yet the cycle continues.
  This year's bill exceeds the Republicans' own funding caps set by the 
Budget Control Act by almost $8 billion. This bill ignores 
administration proposals to delay or terminate several military 
programs while providing funding for weapons programs the DoD said it 
doesn't want or need. Apparently, funding wars and weapons instead of 
better health care, education, and repairing our crumbling 
infrastructure are more important to the Republican Majority. It is 
unconscionable for us to be cutting these vital programs at the same 
time we're increasing the defense budget. That is why I joined with 
Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) to offer an amendment to cut that $8 
billion from the defense appropriations bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and join 
me in voting against this out of control defense spending bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman, Mr. 
Young, in a colloquy if he will so engage.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend you and your committee for your hard work 
putting together this bill. The efforts

[[Page H5036]]

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

                              {time}  1350

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the administration of the Armed Services 
     Vocational Aptitude Battery for the student (high school) 
     testing programs.

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

[[Page H5037]]

We dealt with that in No Child Left Behind. I was on the other side on 
that, but my amendment doesn't stop that.
  But it stops the administration of this test in schools, so it can't 
be used as a recruiting tool disguised as a test that targets children 
who are legally too young, too young to consent to a career in the 
Armed Forces.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment. This amendment would basically prohibit funds 
from being used to administer the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude 
Battery test. This amendment would negatively impact both the education 
and recruiting communities.
  This test is administered free of charge on a voluntary basis. It's 
on a voluntary basis to high school and college students as part of a 
comprehensive Career Exploration Program. This program integrates 
student aptitudes and interests to help them explore postsecondary 
opportunities, including college, technical schools, and civilian as 
well as military careers.
  As education resources grow together, many schools rely on this free 
test to provide a valuable career exploration experience. And we, as a 
Nation, benefit from this test. Through this amendment, the gentleman 
would effectively prohibit high schools from offering this test, which 
would be unfortunate, and we are strongly opposed to the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to advise 
Members of something that they might be exposed to here shortly. 
Recently, I had an opportunity to experience what I call ambush 
journalism on an issue that--I really found it hard to believe that 
this investigative reporter would raise the issue.

                              {time}  1400

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

[[Page H5038]]

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

                              {time}  1410

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to Rosoboronexport.

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

[[Page H5039]]

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

                              {time}  1420

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

[[Page H5040]]

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

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. ELLISON. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to see that 
there's broad bipartisan agreement on this issue. It's always a great 
benefit when we can work things out--and occasionally we do, just as 
we've seen. So that's a good thing. But I do have an obligation to 
speak up for constituents of my own on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to say on the record that there have been more 
than 17,000 people killed in Syria over the last 14 months. That's when 
a nonviolent uprising began in response to Bashar Al-Assad's brutal 
torture and murder of teenage kids in the city of Dara'a. Violence 
against civilians has escalated rapidly in months. There have been 
large massacres in the villages of Houla, Qubair, and possibly Tremseh.
  The international community, including the Arab League, has 
overwhelmingly condemned Al-Assad's violent repression. One country--
Russia--has refused to stop arming Al-Assad and his murderous campaign. 
In fact, a Russian cargo ship could deliver military helicopters to 
Syria this week. Rosoboronexport is the Russian weapons dealer arming 
the Al-Assad regime. There's substantial evidence Al-Assad is using 
weapons from Rosoboronexport against innocent civilians in Syria. I was 
surprised to learn that our own government is buying Russian-made 
helicopters from Rosoboronexport.
  Put simply, our government is supporting Syria's arms dealer, which 
is enabling the Syrian regime's bloody crackdown. This should stop. 
That's why I urge all to support this amendment, which it looks like 
there's broad agreement on. American taxpayers should not be supporting 
Syria's arms dealer. If the military wants to buy helicopters, it 
should by American ones and create jobs at home, not in Russia. Our 
amendment does the right thing. It ends the U.S. purchases from 
Rosoboronexport. I'm proud that it has strong bipartisan support, and I 
urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Turner of Ohio

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to--
       (1) reduce the nuclear forces of the United States in 
     contravention of section 303(b) of the Arms Control and 
     Disarmament Act (22 U.S.C. 2573(b)); or
       (2) implement the Nuclear Posture Review Implementation 
     Study or modify the Secretary of Defense Guidance for 
     Employment of Force, Annex B, or the Joint Strategic 
     Capabilities Plan, Annex N.

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

[[Page H5041]]

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

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

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

                              {time}  1440

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

[[Page H5042]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Washington has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. DICKS. You don't need thousands of these weapons. A couple 
hundred, frankly, could take out Iran and almost any country you can 
imagine. So, again, we can't afford to do everything. We are in an era 
where we're dealing with terrorists, and we need to have special forces 
that can be utilized. We need to have these very effective drones. We 
need to look at the threats that are out there today and equip our 
military accordingly.
  This is not our responsibility. The Senate handles advice and consent 
on treaties. We should stay out of this. In my judgment, this amendment 
is unnecessary.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We support the amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. On behalf of the Appropriations 
Committee, we appreciate his work.
  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his 
work on this on the appropriations side.
  This is an important issue, and this really goes to the heart of our 
national security. My amendment does nothing, by the way, to prohibit 
the implementation of New START. But the thing that is important here 
is that there are those who talk about nonproliferation, and I think we 
are all wanting nuclear weapons to be restricted and to stop their 
growth. But there's a difference between nonproliferation and 
disarmament of the United States. Only the United States is reducing 
our nuclear weapons. In New START, Russia wasn't required to reduce at 
all. Only the United States was reduced.
  You have India, you have Pakistan, you have Iran and North Korea. 
North Korea already is a recognized nuclear weapons state. Iran is 
seeking nuclear weapons. And both of those nations are seeking ICBM 
technology for the purposes of placing the United States at risk. 
Secretary Gates, upon his departure, was saying that North Korea is 
becoming an absolute threat to mainland United States with its nuclear 
weapons and its ICBM technology.
  We can only be confident that others will not use nuclear weapons to 
the extent that we can stand strong as a nuclear weapons state. That 
needs to be derived from what is the threat and the number of weapons 
to ensure that we have both survivability and the ability to place 
their assets and their nations at risk.
  A couple of hundred--and all due respect to the ranking member--is 
based upon no science whatsoever. Our commander of U.S. Strategic 
Command, General Chilton, who has been through this science and who is 
charged with keeping the United States safe, said that the arsenal that 
we have is exactly what is needed today to provide the deterrent.
  Our concern is that the President, on his road to zero, has made it 
clear that even though it will have no effect on reducing the nuclear 
arsenals of other nations, he would move to unilaterally reduce ours. 
That's why we're on this floor, not as the Senate, but as the House to 
say we are going to restrict funding to prevent the President from 
unilaterally disarming us.
  If the President is committed to a road to zero, show us any evidence 
that he is able to persuade anyone else to reduce their nuclear 
weapons, because we don't have any evidence of anyone else reducing 
except the President's trying to reduce ours.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be 
postponed.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Let me begin again by thanking 
Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks for their continued leadership 
on this bill and this very important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, yesterday, Representative Baca and I offered an 
amendment that directs $10 million from the Defense-Wide Operations and 
Management account and moves it to the Strategic Environmental Research 
Program and the Environmental Security Technology Certification 
Program.
  These funds would provide the Research and Development Programs 
additional resources for competitive grants that allow our communities 
to provide clean water. It is critical that Congress support DOD 
efforts to develop innovative solutions that use the best technology 
available to us for problems like the perchlorate contamination that 
areas in my district in California deal with.
  Perchlorate is a chemical used to produce explosives that, when found 
in groundwater, can be harmful to women, children, and the elderly. In 
fact, one-quarter of Inland Empire aquifers, including basins from 
surrounding counties, contains high concentrations of perchlorate.
  Just this week, the U.S. Geological Survey released findings from a 
statewide assessment of groundwater quality that high levels of 
perchlorate were discovered in 11 percent of wells and moderate 
concentrations in 53 percent of wells. That is statewide, Mr. Chairman.
  Groundwater contamination and other contamination from former defense 
sites are becoming increasingly problematic throughout the Nation. 
Based on those facts, I would like to yield to the chairman for the 
purpose of entering into a colloquy, with hopes that we can work on 
this issue in the future.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The committee does, in fact, recognize that these R programs 
provide necessary resources that help invest in innovative new 
technologies which benefit local communities that are dealing with 
these contamination issues through competitive grants.

                              {time}  1450

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Tonko

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to pay a contractor under a contract with the 
     Department of Defense for costs of any amount paid by the 
     contractor or any subcontractor of the contractor to an 
     employee performing work under the contract or any 
     subcontract under the contract for compensation if the 
     compensation of the employee for a fiscal year from the 
     Federal Government for work under Federal contracts exceeds 
     $230,700, except that the Secretary of Defense may establish 
     one or more narrowly targeted exceptions for scientists and 
     engineers upon a determination that such exceptions are 
     needed to ensure that the Department of Defense has continued 
     access to needed skills and capabilities. This section shall 
     apply to contracts entered into during fiscal year 2013.

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

[[Page H5043]]

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


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment changes the application of existing law. I ask for a 
ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language conferring 
authority on the Secretary of Defense to establish certain exceptions. 
The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support an amendment by my good 
friend and colleague from New York to cap excessive contractor 
compensation. Ballooning contractor costs are wasting taxpayer dollars 
and weakening our national defense.
  While our government employees accept pay freezes, the Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy raised the cap on executive compensation for 
contractor executives by 10 percent to nearly $770,000. This, my 
friends, is a no-brainer: we can't afford to pay contractors twice the 
President's salary.
  Now, mind you, this does not mean that the CEOs can't make more than 
$770,000. They can, in fact. In fact, they can be paid much more by 
their shareholders. We want to reduce the amount of money they make to 
no more than that of the President.
  Throughout this budget process, defense contractor CEOs have 
threatened to fire people if they do not get what they want through the 
suspension of sequestration, saying that they can't afford to continue 
their operations unless the Department of Defense is spared from the 
chopping block. But if you look at the Forbes magazine list of the top 
compensated CEOs, you see that it is the taxpayers who can't afford 
them.
  The Federal Government's top contractors make anywhere from $5 
million to $56 million each year. While these costs are not all coming 
directly from the Treasury, we contribute, nonetheless, in cost 
overruns and single-source contracts that make them all too big to 
fail.

                              {time}  1500

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


           Amendment No. 18 Offered by My Coffman of Colorado

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

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

[[Page H5044]]

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

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

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

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

                              {time}  1510

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

[[Page H5045]]

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

                              {time}  1520

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

[[Page H5046]]

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

[[Page H5047]]

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

                              {time}  1530

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Berg

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to reduce the number of the following nuclear weapons 
     delivery vehicles of the United States:
       (1) Heavy bomber aircraft.
       (2) Air-launched cruise missiles.
       (3) Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines.
       (4) Submarine-launched ballistic missiles.
       (5) Intercontinental ballistic missiles.

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

[[Page H5048]]

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

                              {time}  1540

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

[[Page H5049]]

  Mr. BERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Dakota 
will be postponed.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. I wish to engage in a colloquy with the ranking member of 
the Committee, but let me begin by thanking the gentleman from 
Washington and Chairman Young for accommodating my request, for the 
second year in a row, for an additional $20 million to be included in 
the appropriations bill for suicide prevention and outreach programs.

                              {time}  1550

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

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

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

[[Page H5050]]

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Flores

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce section 526 of the Energy Independence and 
     Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17142).

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

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

                              {time}  1600

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

[[Page H5051]]

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

[[Page H5052]]

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

                              {time}  1610

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Runyan

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the Operation and Maintenance funds made 
     available in this Act may be used in contravention of section 
     41106 of title 49, United States Code.

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     appropriations made in title IX of this Act are hereby 
     reduced in the amount of $12,670,355,000.
       (b) The reduction in subsection (a) shall not apply to the 
     following accounts in title IX:
       (1) ``Afghanistan Security Forces Fund''.
       (2) ``Defense Health Program''.
       (3) ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, 
     Defense''.
       (4) ``Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund''.
       (5) ``Office of the Inspector General''.

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

[[Page H5053]]

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

                              {time}  1620

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

[[Page H5054]]

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

                              {time}  1630

  I look at all the waste in Afghanistan. It is a country that will 
never change, no matter what you do. History has proven that. What Mr. 
Garamendi's amendment says is let's stick to the plan that's been laid 
out by the President with the advice of the military.
  I worry about the wounded. The $12 billion that Mr. Garamendi is 
talking about saving could be spent to take care of the wounded.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a book called ``The Three Trillion Dollar 
War,'' written by Dr. Joe Stiglitz and coauthored by Professor Linda 
Bilmes at Harvard University. Dr. Stiglitz is now saying, no, it's not 
the three trillion dollar war when you factor in all the pain and the 
wounded from Afghanistan. I would rewrite the title of the book to be 
``The Five Trillion Dollar War.''
  Are we prepared for that tsunami that is coming? No. We are a country 
that is financially broke, but we owe those who have given so much. 
That's all this amendment is doing. It's saying let's follow the plan 
by the President and advice from the generals. Let's save $12 billion, 
spend it on the wounded and take care of their pain for the next 25 or 
30 years.
  I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will look 
seriously at this amendment. Let's do what is right first for the 
wounded and their families; and, secondly, let's do what's right for 
the taxpayers and their families and bring this war to an end. If we 
don't do it here in Congress, there will be no end. It will be 2014, 
2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018.
  Let's pass this amendment. Let's say to the President, Sir, we trust 
you. You listened to the generals, and this is the plan to bring an end 
to Afghanistan because it is a corrupt country, and nothing will change 
no matter what we do or how many lives we expend or how much money we 
expend. It will never change.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

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

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

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

[[Page H5055]]

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

                              {time}  1640

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

[[Page H5056]]

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

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

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

                     [From The Hill, June 28, 2012]

            The Executive Viewpoint--Time To Bite the Bullet

                        (By Lawrence Wilkerson)

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

                              {time}  1650

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

[[Page H5057]]

  This amendment, which has bipartisan support, is something that is an 
important moment for this House because, on one hand, the budget that 
is being prepared through DOD appropriations is sufficient enough for a 
strong defense, and, on the other hand, we're saying part of a strong 
defense is fiscal accountability. The two actually go hand in hand.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina will be postponed.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues and 
good friends, a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, 
Mr. Frelinghuysen, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. 
Dicks.
  First of all, I'd like to thank the chairman and the ranking member 
for their hard work on this very important legislation. Their efforts 
to strengthen our national defense and support our men and women in 
uniform have been tireless, and they truly should be commended. 
Moreover, I'm very pleased that they make key investments in areas of 
great interest and concern to me, the first of which is the Virginia 
class submarine, as well as cybersecurity.
  I believe that our technological edge is critical to ensuring that 
our warfighters not only can do what we ask them to do in the future, 
but can do so as safely and efficiently as possible. In addition to the 
Virginia class submarine and cybersecurity, no family of technologies 
shows as much promise to this end as directed-energy weapons.
  With that, I would yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman and welcome the opportunity 
to engage with him.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. In this vein, I'd like to talk about the decades of 
investment that this Congress and the Department of Defense have made 
into directed-energy weapons research. More specifically, I'd like to 
direct them to a recent report by the Center for Strategic and 
Budgetary Assessment that clearly showed many directed-energy 
technologies have actually matured to the point that cultural factors, 
not technological maturity, are the most significant barriers to 
operational deployment.
  To this end, I offered an amendment to this year's National Defense 
Authorization Act that would require a report detailing how we can 
accelerate the deployment of the most promising directed-energy 
initiatives; and I recognize the commitment that this bill before us 
today continues in terms of investing in directed-energy weapons 
technology, and I would encourage the committee to support these 
efforts in future appropriations measures.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The committee is aware of the Department's 
research into directed-energy capabilities and shares the gentleman 
from Rhode Island's interest in ensuring that our warfighters have the 
capabilities they need to operate in the complex environments of the 
future.
  I would assure the gentleman that the committee will continue to make 
every effort to ensure that the Department of Defense is adequately and 
effectively resourced to meet the challenges of the future, including 
the transformational technologies such as directed energy.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DICKS. I, too, echo the gentleman's interest in the field of 
directed energy and solid-state laser technology. With the threats and 
environment that the warfighter and the intelligence community are 
facing, the addition of new technologies that provide a tactical and 
strategic edge should be examined more rigorously.
  I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the chairman for his and the ranking member's 
commitment, and I certainly look forward to working to realize the 
potential of directed-energy weapons and to harvest the Nation's past 
investments in this family of technologies.
  With that, I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We appreciate the gentleman's view. And I will 
assure him that we'll look forward to working with him and the ranking 
member, Mr. Dicks, to make sure that our warfighters can realize the 
benefits of our Nation's research and development investments, 
including directed energy.
  Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for his hard work on this issue and 
look forward to working with him.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the ranking member and the chairman, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Defense or any other Federal 
     agency to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles, for any 
     executive fleet, or for an agency's fleet inventory, except 
     in accordance with Presidential Memorandum-Federal Fleet 
     Performance, dated May 24, 2011.

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


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

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

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

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

                              {time}  1700

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

[[Page H5058]]

it right back in, which sounds like a strange thing to do, but it's the 
only way within the rules to draw attention to the fact that this $5.6 
billion is in the war budget when it actually should be in the base 
defense budget.
  This is not a spending amendment; this is a good-governance 
amendment. This is not a spending amendment; it is an accountability 
amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment. Mr. Jordan from Ohio and Mr. 
Welch from Vermont are amongst those joining me in sponsoring this 
particular amendment.
  Again, this is a good-government amendment, and I would think that it 
would have bipartisan support. I ask for its support.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison

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

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

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

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


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment imposes additional duties.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting 
direction. The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained and 
the amendment is not in order.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, this is the, I believe, sixth time that I've 
come to the floor during this Congress to call for disclosure and full 
transparency throughout the Federal Government. So this is not my first 
time on the floor on this issue. I've risen on many bills, and I will 
continue to because I think it's really critical to help restore the 
confidence of the American people in their government and how it 
operates.
  I maintain the view, and it's shared by the majority of the American 
people, that transparency in the use of our tax dollars is absolutely 
critical. I want to pay tribute to my colleague, Mr. Ellison, for 
offering this amendment, and together we support it and offer it to the 
full House.
  I believe that with public dollars come public responsibilities. 
There are thousands of companies who do business with the Federal 
Government, and they receive billions of dollars--of public dollars--
for their services and products. And I think that all of our 
constituents deserve to know whether and how they spend these dollars 
and whether they are used to influence our elections.
  The amendment I'm offering with Congressman Ellison will provide this 
transparency by requiring that post-award contractors or 
subcontractors--which is very important, we don't want to interfere 
with the contracting process whatsoever, but once they have been 
awarded a contract--disclose all political contributions. This should 
be the norm of the day.
  Disclosure is extraordinarily powerful because it puts the American 
people in the driver's seat. Constituents deserve to know who is 
involved in their elections and what their purpose might be. I think 
it's sad that just a few days ago the United States Senate killed the 
DISCLOSE Act. It was a sad day for the Congress. But I think the 
American people are taking note.
  Anyone who supports the Citizens United decision, which I don't, 
legalizing corporate expenditures, should know that eight out of nine 
Supreme Court Justices endorsed prompt disclosure. Justice Anthony 
Kennedy wrote:
  Disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech 
of corporate entities in a proper way.
  Now, Republicans supported disclosure before they were against it, 
and I would hope that my Republican colleagues would come back into the 
fold. There's no reason to oppose transparency and disclosure unless 
someone really wants to hide anything. And I don't think any of us 
wants to hide behind the hiding. It just is not good government. The 
American people, the people that we are here to represent and have the 
privilege of representing, deserve more information and not less.
  We can bring this about by adopting this policy. I urge my colleagues 
to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H5059]]

                         Parliamentary Inquiry

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

                              {time}  1710

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

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

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

                                          The American Legion,

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

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

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the Stearns' amendment would 
prohibit funds from being used to implement an enrollment fee for the 
TRICARE for Life program.
  The Department of Defense does not currently have the authority to 
establish such a fee, but did submit a legislative proposal to do so. 
The House-passed National Defense Authorization Act chose not to adopt 
the legislative request that would give the Department this authority.
  While this Defense Appropriations bill does not have jurisdiction on 
TRICARE issues, we support strongly what Mr. Stearns intends to do, so 
we accept the amendment.
  Mr. STEARNS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague from Florida.

[[Page H5060]]

  I just want to say to the distinguished former chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, chairman emeritus, and also the chairman of 
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, that I appreciate his 
endorsement. Notwithstanding that, I would say to him that his 
acceptance is good, but I think the floor should have a vote on this.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Fitzpatrick

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract using procedures that do not 
     give to small business concerns owned and controlled by 
     veterans (as that term is defined in section 3(q)(3) of the 
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(q)(3)) that are included in 
     the database under section 8127(f) of title 38, United States 
     Code, any preference available with respect to such contract, 
     except for a preference given to small business concerns 
     owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans (as that 
     term defined in section 3(q)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 632(q)(2)).

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

                              {time}  1720

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract with any person or other 
     entity listed in the Federal Awardee Performance and 
     Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) as having been 
     convicted of fraud against the Federal Government.

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

[[Page H5061]]

award contracts only to responsible sources. And Federal acquisition 
regulation subpart 9104-1 states that a satisfactory record of 
integrity and business ethics is one of the general standards of 
responsibility. But the term ``responsible'' is not explicitly defined 
anywhere in the law, and I know that we cannot try to define new terms 
using the amendment process, and that's not what we're trying to do 
here.
  The fact is that someone could commit fraud against the government 
and still get a contract with the Department of Defense, and that's 
wrong. We have to make clear that companies who've defrauded the 
taxpayers should not be able to get more DOD contracts.
  I'd like to point out that the underlying bill being debated here 
contains a specific prohibition against the use of Department of 
Defense funds in contracts with anyone who has an unpaid tax liability. 
Again, a party bidding on government contracts is supposed to affirm 
that they have no unpaid tax liability.
  So the point of this amendment is to make it absolutely clear that 
contract fraud against the American taxpayer will not be tolerated. 
According to groups like the Project on Government Oversight, which is 
only able to track the number of known and disclosed settlements, there 
have been dozens of instances of contractors committing government 
contract fraud since 1995. And of those dozens that are known to have 
committed this fraud, a total of $544 million in fines was paid. That's 
a tiny amount, really, when you're talking about in terms of fines, 
compared to the billions appropriated for Department of Defense 
contracts in the last decade.
  Bottom line, if you defraud the taxpayer, you should lose your 
privilege to receive more taxpayer money. So I would urge the adoption 
of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I will not oppose this amendment 
because I want to make sure that the Defense Department does not hire 
bad contractors. And I agree with Mr. Kucinich strongly on this issue.
  The only comment that I would make is we've just seen this amendment 
just a few minutes ago, and we have not really had time to analyze it, 
so if we could make any further explanation. But I'm not going to 
oppose the amendment. I suspect it's going to pass. It probably should 
because none of us want the Defense Department to hire bad contractors.
  Good job, Mr. Kucinich.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Jones

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

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

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

                              {time}  1730

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


                             Point of Order

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

[[Page H5062]]

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

                              {time}  1740

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

[[Page H5063]]

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  The second amendment by Mr. King of Iowa.
  The fourth amendment by Ms. Lee of California.
  The fifth amendment by Ms. Lee of California.
  An amendment by Mr. Moran of Virginia.
  An amendment by Mr. Turner of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 18 by Mr. Coffman of Colorado.
  An amendment by Mr. Berg of North Dakota.
  An amendment by Mr. Garamendi of California.
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Mulvaney of South Carolina.
  Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Mulvaney of South Carolina.
  An amendment by Mr. Stearns of Florida.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247, 
noes 166, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 487]

                               AYES--247

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)

[[Page H5064]]


     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--166

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

                             NOT VOTING--18

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

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. THOMPSON of California changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. YOUNG of Alaska, MURPHY of Pennsylvania, and ADERHOLT changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 487, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


               Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee of California

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 87, 
noes 326, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 488]

                                AYES--87

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

                               NOES--326

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

                             NOT VOTING--18

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1819

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

[[Page H5065]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
       Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 488, I was away from the 
     Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I 
     been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


               Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee of California

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


                             Recorded Vote

  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 171, 
noes 243, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 489]

                               AYES--171

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

                               NOES--243

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

                             NOT VOTING--17

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1822

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 489, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran

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


                             Recorded Vote

  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 407, 
noes 5, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 490]

                               AYES--407

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

[[Page H5066]]


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

                                NOES--5

     Barton (TX)
     Hayworth
     Long
     Paul
     Smith (WA)

                             NOT VOTING--19

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1826

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 490, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Turner of Ohio

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 491]

                               AYES--235

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

                               NOES--178

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

                             NOT VOTING--18

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

[[Page H5067]]

                              {time}  1829

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


          Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Coffman of Colorado

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


                             Recorded Vote

  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 123, 
noes 292, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 492]

                               AYES--123

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

                               NOES--292

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

                             NOT VOTING--16

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1832

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 492, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Berg

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


                             Recorded Vote

  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 232, 
noes 183, not voting 16, as follows:
    

[[Page H5068]]

                             [Roll No. 493]

                               AYES--232

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

                               NOES--183

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

                             NOT VOTING--16

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1835

  Mr. GARRETT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 493, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

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


                             Recorded Vote

  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 278, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 494]

                               AYES--137

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

                               NOES--278

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Berg
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance

[[Page H5069]]


     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--16

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1840

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 494, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

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


                             Recorded Vote

  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 247, 
noes 167, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 495]

                               AYES--247

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

                               NOES--167

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

                             NOT VOTING--17

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


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  1843

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


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

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


                             Recorded Vote

  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 238, 
noes 178, not voting 15, as follows:

[[Page H5070]]

                             [Roll No. 496]

                               AYES--238

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

                               NOES--178

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

                             NOT VOTING--15

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

                              {time}  1848

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 496, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

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


                             Recorded Vote

  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 399, 
noes 17, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 497]

                               AYES--399

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

[[Page H5071]]


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

                                NOES--17

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

                             NOT VOTING--15

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

                              {time}  1852

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

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

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with 
the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, 
as amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Woodall) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Acting Chair of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
5856) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, directed 
him to report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted 
in the Committee of the Whole, with the recommendation that the 
amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under House Resolution 717, the previous 
question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 326, 
nays 90, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 498]

                               YEAS--326

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

                                NAYS--90

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

                             NOT VOTING--15

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

                              {time}  1911

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

[[Page H5072]]

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


                          personal explanation

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

                          ____________________