to provide spiritual support to all of service members. my colleague and i know her comments mentioned that the military was instructing chaplains to perform such marriages. that is not true. they are not instructed to perform that they would be allowed to perform such marriages if they choose in those states in which marriage is recognized for same-sex marriages. so that's where wheal are and it sounds to me like we are going to be taking another work of

this and i would certainly hope they come up with the same solutions they came up with before. where we are treating people equally and acknowledging people who serve their country, serve their country voluntarily, earnestly, courageously as they do that they can go to the on-site facility at the base and be married. i'm not sure this is something we need in the service to put their heads down and say no we are not going to allow that to happen. thank you, mr. chairman. islamic gentlelady yields that. from virginia mr. mitchell. >> i support the chairman 18's amendment. one only needs to look at the recent reversal of policy by the navy which was very public, and from my view it really didn't

reflect well on the navy or senior leadership. i believe it is entirely appropriate that we provide guidance on this critical matter. the amendment is very simple and it provides clarity to all services, and i respectfully urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields that. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, dr. fleming. >> thank you, mr. chairman. some of the arguments in hearing on the other side are very interesting. i, for one, believe in the constitution's separation of powers in the rule of law. but with regard to doma, the administration has decided in its infinite wisdom for some reason it's not even going to try to defend it in court it makes no sense at all because what the administration is really doing is substituting its judgment for the supreme court

and number should be the cause abrasion of power that is to the supreme court, the administration. we are seeing this also in the immigration law where the administration refuses to implement and respect and move forward on immigration law is the verso important. we even had a case where the president of the united states stands in front of the justices and criticizes them directly in the citizens united case telling them that they were wrong. i just don't believe the administration has the power to substitute its wisdom for that of the supreme court. i hear with the gentlelady says about this idea of volunteers, but it's voluntary for a chaplain if he or she so chooses to marry or not marry a same-sex couple that that is clearly up to him or her.

well, you know, we had a similar debate with respect to abortion and we are finding for instance under obamacare the health care providers are increasingly being put in the position which used to be voluntary. now to participate in one way or another with abortions. so i would suggest that yes, maybe it's voluntary now, but again chaplain's particularly military chaplains are under the direct order from their superiors, and they may easily be pressured or ordered to cooperate with that. so for these and many other reasons i fully support the amendment. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back into the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i yield back to the gentleman from missouri, mr. aiken. >> thank you mr. chairman. the point here i think and i don't think people understand this, if there is a state that

recognizes same-sex marriage that's fine for that state. but doma doesn't allow military property or personnel to be involved in that situation. it just is flat the law. so what we are really talking about is are we going to obey a federal law -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> i would be happy to yield. >> can you please show me in doma where it speaks to that? >> the section in doma -- doma has two parts. the first is it says one state you don't have to recognize the same-sex marriage of another state. there was one part of doma. the other piece of doma talks about two things, talks about u.s. personnel and u.s. property, those two things. and so, those two cannot be involved, which their force is the policy that the military is considering is just flat against doma. so, to me, it isn't so much a matter of whether you like or don't like same-sex marriages with or not we're going to follow the federal law.

that's -- i think that's the question before us. and i would yield back. >> i think that we have added -- >> the gentleman yields back his time. >> further debate on the amendment? if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. aikn. in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. >> please ask for a roll call vote. >> roll call vote is requested, and we will hold that as we move on. the chair now recognizes mr. johnson for an amendment. this is an amendment that was inadvertently left off of the glock package should have been included, so therefore i think it's acceptable to both sides,

mr. johnston has recognized for five minutes will the clerk please pass of the amendment? without objection reading the amendment will be dispensed with. >> the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. i believe this was cited in the glock package to on the second page. it should have been included it was left out clerical error. it does and control in the opposition. this has to do with our chezem and a tricare pilot program.

the results are promising in the children are getting care. this amendment would require to dig deeper into the results of the study and generate some data that would allow the pilot to be scaled up and allow private insurers to offer affordable coverage to america. professionals in the autism treatments firmly support this amendment and reports are costly. i know that but it's even costlier to run an expensive pilot program and failed to get the most valuable information you can out of it. so that reason, mr. chairman -- and i do appreciate you and your staff's assistance in developing this measure, and i ask that my colleagues support it. and i yield back. of the amendment offered by mr. johnson so many in favor say

aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. that concludes our debate of the section for military personnel. so a roll call vote was requested on several amendments that will take place at this time first being amendment to 13, the 100 amendment on his pilot program on scholarships. roll call vote was requested on that, the clerk will call the roll. >> [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> how is congressman aikn recorded? stack, as many in, you're voted

down as aye. >> i vote no. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> mr. chairman, on this vote, the ayes were 26, the noes were 34. >> the amendment is not agreed to. next there is a roll call vote requested on amendment to ten, mr. hunter on service chiefs the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] >> the clerk will report the tally. >> on this vote the ayes are 33, the noes are 27. >> the amendment is agreed to. roll call vote was requested on amendment number 98, ms. ms. hartzler. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, on this vote the ayes are 39, the noes are 28. the ayes were 39, the noes were 22. >> the amendment is agreed to. the roll call vote next requested was on the amendment to 05, mr. aikn. the clerk will call role. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman on this vote the ayes are 38, the noes are 23. >> the amendment is agreed to. is that it? if there are no further amendments, the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina for the purpose of offering a motion. >> mr. chairman i move to adopt the said committee report of the subcommittee on military personnel as amended. >> the question is on the motion and the gentleman from south carolina so many are in favor will say ayes. those opposed, new mac. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> the subcommittee work, now we

will move on to the full committee. the committee will now consider provisions of the bill involving the full committee matters pursuant to the committee will 17 in consultation with the ranking member we will postpone all of the recorded votes on the amendment in this particular mark until the end of the market estimate in the interest of time i will only highlight a few provisions of my mark focusing on victory in afghanistan this legislation offers the authorization for the use of military force, strengthens the detention policies and procedures and targets corrupt contracts in afghanistan and iraq. as we come from the nation's fiscal crisis the legislation reduces cost reporting requirements, raises the bar for the dod financial management. recognizing the service and sacrifice for the military men and women is a down payment this bill takes a sensible approach

in tricare. it includes a modest fee increase will protecting military families from steep standard fee increases in the future. as we look to future threats, the bill goes after vulnerable these informations systems takes steps to secure sensitive information. the legislation also includes a number of provisions related to the military strength with china and iran especially as it relates to the access in areas of the capabilities. we require risk assessment to the u.s. debt held by china and the mother terrie power, the and stable north korean regime. as we move forward to a we are mindful this legislation is not about us, but a lot our war fighters. i trust in our discussions and debate will reflect the seriousness of the task before us. i turn to the ranking member for his comments. >> thank you.

given the lateness of the hour i will be very brief. i already made an opening statement submitted for the record and i want to thank the chairman for his cooperation and for his leadership it has been a very by a delete the bipartisan effort and i think this bill does support our troops and our military. i have a couple of things i disagree with the will become amendment to be dhaka parent and i yield back. >> thank you. >> before entertaining amendments is there any discussion on the chairman's part? >> the chairman recognizes mr. langevin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just briefly, i want to be on record saying how i support the committee's language in the military activity in cyberspace. in the past physical damage to our civilian infrastructure as we know could only be carried off with kinetic weapons.

today however that is no longer the case. in a series of keystrokes the weapons of today and tomorrow will be able to bring military missions to their knees not to mention the economy. these are no longer imaginary weapons, unfortunately the country and indeed the rest of the world mostly controlled territory with regard to how they develop limit or employe. we need to begin having an honest discussion about how we view the internet with regard to the military action and the realities of the floor debilities we face online. i'm supportive to try to figure the way through these questions and i'm increasingly frustrated that we have not yet seen the administration we in on this topic. we all need to work towards today before we face a cyberattack on the scale of the pearl harbor or 9/11. with that mr. chairman i think you and he'll back the balance of my time. i do have one more statement as

well. >> the gentleman from texas mr. conaway. >> 821823 on the contractor language and sections 10611066 on the audit readiness in the record and express my appreciation for the chairman of including his remarks and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. gibson, the chair recognizes mr. gibson from new york. thinks mr. chairman. i just want to express my appreciation to you and your staff. we've worked together on a number of issues throughout this process and i want to mention the role in the insert we've done to the mark. as you know, i've been critical of the cutie our process and i

do think that this is a good first step in addressing the role of the missions and i want to express my appreciation. the chairman is going to make and his staff are going to come forward with the assessment there and work its way through and i think we may get two different perspectives and it could be helpful but i think what is really needed is much more comprehensive analysis and i think that was writ large to us as we move through the process and we got to the questions of the president's budget and we talked about the force structure and the fact the services were going to cut the structure beginning in 2015 assumption completed the operations in afghanistan and iraq but when we ask for more analysis analytics just weren't there and a couple things, one, the keillor didn't really get done what we needed to get done for the country and also the congress and the president need to be more involved in the process i think early on and

towards that end i want to commend the committee for its work in the last congress to chartering of the independent panel and this is a good reading for anybody that hasn't had a chance to go through it yet, but i like a lot of the recommendations in the independent panel and one of the things that is stated is we should move beyond the to your process. in fact, it's basically states that the process the dod goes through should be continued but in addition to that, we should add an independent strategic review panel comprised of the executive and the legislative branch to provide guidance on threats, ideas and concepts and risk that i include in up being much more helpful as they move through the process. you look at the qdr here for 2010 and in particular page 46 and you get a listing of elements, organizations and the force structure but what is missing is all of the thought

process and analytics on the front end that would be able to animate or justify this. so you talk about threats one of the things the defense community talks about his antiaccess. but from there what we don't see is the development of the capstone concept for joint operations, different ways to address the antiaccess that then would provide detail on the kind of the force structure necessary so when you look across threats and across the capstone that would lead to a panoply of choices on the organization's which would then lead to risks which the congress and president could work together, and i think using that a more thoughtful process going forward we will not be in a situation where we found ourselves this spring when we were looking at the amount of money we had and then the cuts appeared because really there wasn't an integrated approach

and working with you on the wind domitian's it is a first step there is much more that needs to be done and going forward we can put into the legislation some of these great ideas that were in the independent panel and i certainly would look forward to working with you once again and your staff as we do so. >> the gentleman yields back and i want to thank him especially for all the work he's done in this area. he's bringing a lot of experience to the committee. the chair recognizes mr. young, the gentleman from indiana. >> thank you. i will be speaking on a related matter in fact i had the privilege of sitting down with and mr. gibson on a couple of occasions and for working together as well as with you and the rest of the committee on this. defense budget as we know right now the defense budget decisions have always been made in a

constrained resource environment but today's challenging physical environment at, in the increasingly complex global security environment abroad because the need for the rigorous decision making all the more urgent. there's the comprehensive review to identify $400 billion in defense savings over the next 12 years. now the pentagon said the review will affect the fiscal year 2013 request pleasing some immediacy on the task because we know the budget negotiations are already under way. gordon adams who oversaw the national security budgeting at the omb under president clinton said that this review is, quote, going too fast to mean something, and of quote. they would undoubtedly benefit from and more direct of national security guidance issued by the white house. it will also benefit from refinements of the strategic making process within the dod, the quadrennial defense review,

qdr. but we must take care to arrive at these decisions only after meaningful analysis and deliberations we in congress% to our oversight responsibilities must insist must defeat to the this deliberation occurs. now already goldwater nichols, that act of 86, requires a president to submit the annual report on the national security strategy to congress ideally such guidance will serve as a tool for interpreting and reconciling the national security related activities of all government agencies as follows balancing u.s. activities with those of our partners and allies around the world but in practice reports in the national security strategy don't prioritize among the multitude of national security objectives nor do they have a responsibility for achieving those objectives to specific departments and agencies. as for the qdr process, the independent panel by congress to

study this process rightfully concluded, quote, instead of unconstrained long-term analysis by planners who are encouraged to challenge preexisting thinking the qdr have become explanations and justifications often with marginal changes of the established plans and decisions, in dove quote. the qdr report gives a sense of the dod strategic vision and highlight areas of particular emphasis and concern about the reports issued the field to prioritize the many requirements described in the current legislation might be believe is called and it doesn't explicitly require to such disparities. they assert u.s. forces must be prepared to conduct a wide variety of missions under a range of different circumstances end quote. then goes on to describe an array of scenarios with each scenario including a combination

of military operation. ultimately this approach leaves our military services to take away the key message of multiple requirements but without any sense of prayer position among the requirements. so as the committee was forward this year's defense authorization bill i urge my colleagues to work with me and others on implementing the recommendations on the independent panel that this body established to rise the new national security strategic planning process. first as the panel urges the u.s. needs a comprehensive national security strategic planning process that begins at the top and provides requisite guidance not only to the dod, but also to other departments and agencies of u.s. government that must work together to address the range of global threats confronting the nation. second, congress should see that the qdr process is significantly

improved or even discontinued and we should mandate the disparities capabilities to be prioritized especially in today's constrained fiscal the environment. in conclusion the discussion of the deficiencies in the dod must continue on the basis for mounting debt and deficit. however that discussion must take place in the context of a comprehensive national security strategy. that is a target response to prioritize the threats to the national security. so i encourage my colleagues to help me move forward with an effort to rework the national security strategic planning process to i look forward to working with all of you. thank you so much for your time, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i want to thank him also for working on this very important issue, the qdr, and where we are going in the future. if there is no further discussion now, we get to the chairman's mark i ask unanimous consent to call the end block.

>> mr. langevin is recognized to speak. specs before mr. chairman. just briefly i want to mention that i am opposed to the committee's efforts right now to bring the debate over the batvinis risch's nuclear policy to cut the budget talking about the ohio replacement chairman of the strategic committee last year by thank think mr. turner and i had on the net ministration to keep the nuclear deterrent state while the same time work to eliminate fritz that fall into terrorist hands. i want to say that i'm worried that the funding for the critically rely and try and in

places that's already on a very tight schedule. the navy has been working diligently with contractors and seized the boat launches on time on budget and dragging a nuclear policy to put these efforts in the nuclear deterrent at risk of lead to mukasey for the record mr. truman to work together on this issue in the yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. i ask unanimous consent, the amendments that have been worked on the minority side and i would ask the clerk to pass the amendment. >> reading of the amendment will be dispensed with

>> this and what the amendment comprises the following amendment regarding changes to the name of the annual report on military and security development involving the people's republic of china and additional reporting requirements relating to chyba to the coach linus lubber espinel should devotee. an amendment by mr. forbes clarifying qdr should be independent of the president's budget request in order to allow the congress to determine the level of acceptable risk to execute the missions associated with the national defense strategy. in amendment by mr. griffin that requires the dod identify the corrective action plans for weaknesses and deficiencies in the execution of a financial and improvement readiness plan and develop such plans if none exist

to read the amendment by mr. reyes would direct the army to comply with the current law regarding the contract and report to congress on the issue. an amendment by ms. castor and expressing those members of the united states armed forces responsible for killing osama bin laden. an amendment by mr. hunter regarding the report from secretary defense of the special content in certain aircraft. an amendment by mr. kaufman requiring the administrator defense logistics agency strategic materials to develop a plan just a wish the earth materials and an amendment by mr. kaufman regarding the gao report on competitive versus the sole source contracting in the defense industrial base. >> the chair recognizes ms. castor. >> thank you mr. chairman. members, i believe it is very important that of the 2011

national defense authorization act includes a common to the special operations forces for the successful osama bin laden operations when special forces brought osama bin laden to justice in obscure pakistani compounds the commander and personnel of special rations command central command and related command in the regimental across this country have every right to be proud and the joint special operations command for the operating base in afghanistan with the admiral and that we all understand the collaboration, the talent, the indication to the critical missions by all of these brave men and women. german foreign very mentioned earlier that the bin laden mission gives a window into the modernization of our special

forces. more americans now know and appreciate the incredible dedication of the special forces like the navy seal, and indeed all of our brave men and women in uniform. also like to recognize members of this committee over the past few years have guided the policy shift towards special operations and asymmetrical warfare in order to address the unconventional threats to the national security. the elimination of osama bin laden represents a milestone victory and my amendment simply expresses the gratitude of this congress for the work of or special forces and for their outstanding service and the successful historic mission. i urge approval of the and what amendment. >> the gentlelady yields back. is there further debate on the amendment? mr. griffin from arkansas is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

with regard to amendment 49, i just wanted to mention the department of defense has slowly but still moving towards financial statements and as they implement the financial improvement and audit readiness plans they are inevitably finding weaknesses and deficiencies as they go along. and so what my amendment does is asks them to compile the weaknesses and deficiencies, report them to the congress, and report some kind of plan of how they intend to deal with those. with this does is a los those weaknesses to be addressed as the move towards a possible financial statements, and as they comply with the law instead of waiting until the very end. so, this will hopefully help us learn from the weaknesses and

deficiencies in the pentagon's financial structure and help us find a way to address them and hold them ms. moore quickly towards audible financial statements. >> thank you. >> is there further debate on the amendment? if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. mccann. in favor, say of aye. opposed, noes. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. the chair now recognizes mr. griffin for amendment number 48. if the clerk will please pass out the amendment. without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. while we're waiting for the amendment to be passed out i just might remind everyone that

it is now past noon by about 12 hours, and i know we all want to speak on every subject, but if you can restrain yourself if someone has already said what you were dying to say, we will be able to back on the committee schedule and a project we would be out of here by about 2:30 so i've given up on newlin and we are now working on the 2:30 and if we can beat that that would be wonderful. the gentleman is now recognized to explain his amendment. >> with that admonition will keep it brief, mr. chairman. this requires the department of justice to consult with the secretary defense and the director of national intelligence before initiating a

prosecution of an alien who has committed or is thought to have committed a terrorist offensive to read what this does is it makes certain that folks at the doj are talking with people in an intelligence community and of the defense department before the doj decides to prosecute an alien in a federal court so they have to speak with the three individuals, identified at the department of justice, the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, or the assistant attorney general who heads the criminal division. one of those individuals has to consult with the drug professional intelligence and the secretary defense about two main things. number one, whether the prosecution of the individual for terrorist act should be in the federal court or whether it should be in the military commission and number two,

whether that individual should be transferred into military custody. what's the point of this? the point of this is to make sure that before the doj steps out to prosecute one of these individuals that the people who would have intelligence on them if any exist make sure they're brought into the loop. i also sit on the judiciary committee, and this language reflects a lot of thinking of sherman smith and we have a waiver on this particular amendment. so i would ask you to support this amendment. >> the gentleman yields but it recognizes ranking member smith from washington. >> thank you mr. chairman. this is a much more toned down version of something deeply concerning bouncing around which was the notion that there would be the requirement for military custody for people to find in this way.

there had been earlier proposals and discussion requiring anybody who was not a u.s. citizen committed a terrorist act in the u.s. required to go to military custody. that was deeply concerning to me. i am still concerned about any sort of creature words our military being involved in our criminal-justice system here domestically taking over control of the system. this, however, appears to simply say that they are to consult and discuss, which my understanding is they do that now. the sort of consultations are not congressionally mandated and i would potentially deal to my colleagues i know mr. reyes worked on these issues on intel and off the top as i look at this consultation requirement does not cause me that big of a problem though i would reserve the right to think about this more before the action but rather take up more time than i would go into debate. i will remain neutral on this

amendment unless i hear something that is more alarming and i will as i said reserved the right to consider this on the floor. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman. 64. i speak in vigorous support. mr. griffin's amendment i think it is absolutely critical in our effort to determine how we coordinate efforts in prosecution to make sure we're always determining the best course of action and the way we determine the best course of action is to make sure this communication is occurring between the department of defense between the intelligence agencies and the secretary of defense. i believe this has to happen to make sure we are successful. we saw successful operations in the pursuit of osama bin laden

communications at all different levels so i want to make sure we understand how important this is in going forward. if we are going to be successful in the course of prosecution but also coordination of efforts in how we handle these extremists especially extremists being brought to justice. this communication is critical and occurring for bringing this forward i think this is good coordination of the public policy, and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. thank you. with that i yield back. estimate the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. reyes. >> i just want to say that post-9/11, this is already being done as one thing we've been able to do in the post 9/11 operations. it's shared information, make

sure that all of the lists are checked and double checked it while i don't have any objection to the amendment i want to assure the committee that these actions are already being done by law enforcement of the department of justice fbi which has the need in terms of terrorism domestically and national counterterrorism center which has the responsibility for all other cases. thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> mr. space, gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> i would like to yield my time to mr. griffin. i would like to quickly point out that what this does is it makes sure that the tide of information sharing and conversations hopefully are

occurring lakeshore they have been at a high level, and also summit samples of the tide of individuals that this is intended to address at duals chollet, the underwear bomber, the times square bomber and the eshoo bomber, richard reid, those are good examples of the type of people that we are trying to address. thank you. ..

as those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. if you hear some gentlemen ask for -- you are not asking for a recorded vote? good decision. very some noise outside. if you hear it is a demonstration and has nothing to do with us. just part of life on the hill. the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi is recognized for an amendment number 282. with the clerk please pass help bill? without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with

the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> i am sorry mr. chairman. this amendment, which is being passed out is very simple. it would strike section 1034. section 1034 is nothing short of a declaration of war. that is precisely what it is and it is not just a declaration of war in afghanistan. it is against any nation that has anything to do with terrorism. that is rather broad because we know terrorism can be found in an awful lot of places particularly the al qaeda branch of terrorism. i think we ought to be really really careful here. this is not been debated and to my knowledge there has been no discussion in any particular subcommittee on certainly has been debated by this entire body but this is a declaration of war

very broadly written and it includes, check it out, any nation. that has anything to do with al qaeda or taliban or anybody else affecting us in that regard. we ought not be doing this and surely if there is ever a part of a bill that should be referred out of committee this is it. this is big stuff. this is very very important and at the end of this meeting to have this issue before us without a significant or any debate is unwise and therefore i suggest that we strike us out and this become an issue for the entire congress because this is a very broadly written declaration of war. i ask for an aye vote on this amendment. >> the gentleman recognizes -- the gentleman from texas mr. thornberry. >> mr. chairman i oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from california and i do agree however that this is

important that all members ought to take a few minutes and think about this and read the exact language. the original authorization to use military force was passed in september 2001. smoke was still coming out of the twin towers. the taliban was still the government of afghanistan. there were many more al qaeda attacks still to come and in those days right after september 11, the congress passed an authorization to use force that said, and i paraphrase only slightly, the president is use all appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned authorize committed or aided a terrorist attack that occurred on my levin or harbored such organizations. now a lot has happened since then. as i say a number of attacks as we have put pressure on al qaeda

in the afghan-pakistan region, some terrorists have squirted out to other places and there are al qaeda affiliates or however you want to describe them in yemen, in western sahara, in somalia, all planning, launching attacks and in addition to that of course the internet is being used now to instruct and inspire and even direct others who may never go to a meeting or engage in formal training. the point i'm trying to make is a lot has changed since september 2001 and it is time for congress to up date the authorization that the military and intelligence folks have been living under to protect us against terrorists ever since. one article i just read said that it is increasingly strained in our -- and artificial to tie everything our military intelligence folks are doing

back to the attack of 9/11 and so this provision that the gentleman is trying to strike out has been carefully negotiated and work through on both sides of the aisle, but it is completely consistent with what the obama administration has been arguing in court as what they were doing and the reason they were doing it. in other words this breaks no new ground. this is simply trying to shore up the ground that we have been standing on and the ground that we have been sending men and women overseas to help defend. it just seems to me that if we are going to ask them to go do their job rather than contorting words and trying to figure out how to tie everything back to 9/11, we'd need to do our job and that is affirmed what is actually happening under both bush and obama administration's. so that is what this thing tries

to do rather than force lawyers to stretch and strain language. it just try to affirm what is actually happening. and i would suggest that the death of osama bin laden means that it is especially appropriate at this point for congress to up date and affirm where we are today in this fight against terrorism and that is what this language tries to do. whether it is now, between now and then i would encourage people to look at that original authorization from september of 2001 and compare it to this language, talk to the lawyers, look at the legal briefs the obama administration is filed in a number of cases and i think you will find that this language fits without exactly. >> would the gentleman yield? >> the gentleman yields back. >> i thank the gentleman for the analysis and his position. i wanted to bring this to the

attention of the committee for the purpose of what you and i just engaged in and i thereby withdraw the amendment. i look forward to a floor debate. >> the gentleman withdraws his amendment. the chair now recognizes the ranking member mr. smith from washington. >> just quick that want to thank mr. garamendi for raising this issue because i'd be with both of his points in mr. thornberry's point. it is appropriate to look at this issue but it is something we need to look at harry carefully before we commit to doing it. i think it is something appropriate for the full house. this is an issue, the foreign affairs committee has jurisdiction over and once we get to full house they will have their say as well and i look forward to their debate and i thank mr. garamendi for raising that issue. with that i yield back the. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman withdraws his amendment. the chair now recognizes

mr. johnson for the purpose of addressing amendment number 275. the clerk will please pass out the amendment. without objection reading the amendment will he dispense with. >> thank you mr. chairman. i offer amendment. >> the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> to strike section 1033 of the underlying bill. section 1033 would allow defendants in military commissions to plead guilty to capital offenses. i oppose such a provision. preserving the requirement of a trial in capital cases would give any sentence of death and subsequent execution more legitimacy at home and around the world. our values and our character as a nation requires that america not sanction state assisted

suicide by a military commission you have an accused who wants to plead guilty and martyr himself so that individual can stand with others who are considered moderates. and they're being no factual basis that is in the public or that would support the imposition of a death penalty in such a situation. so that is why it is very important that we have a trial any time the federal government in a military tribunal is seeking the death penalty. there may be cases where the government evidence may have been extracted by torture.

it is critical and those kinds of situations that we have a full trial that examines all of the evidence and ensures every step of bringing the defendant to justice comports within international human rights laws. allowing an individual to be executed without a trial based on a guilty plea plays into the hands of our enemies who contend that the military commission's system makes it easier for the government to obtain a death sentence. we should not soil our reputation throughout the world by lessening the requirements of a trial in a capital case. finally, a full trial allows us to establish a historical record, which is a traditional purpose of a war crimes trial. high-value detainees who are

charged with capital offenses may be the architects of gross acts of terrorism, allowing police in such cases makes the compilation of a definitive record in those crimes impossible, and mr. chairman, it is also necessary that there be some consistency between military tribunals and the court-martial procedure. congress has chosen to try individuals suspected of terrorism in military tribunals and explicitly modeled military commission procedure on the procedures under the uniform code of military justice. with regard to capital cases, the treatment of capital accused

under the mca is parallel to their treatment under the ucmj insofar is no accused to plead guilty may be executed. do you see mj achieves this result by for bidding please in capital cases whereas the mca achieves that by borrowing the death penalty where the accused pleads guilty to a capital charge? the effect on capital accused is the same with the exception that a capital accused in the commission system is permitted to plead guilty to a capital charge in return for a sentence less than death. good reasons for leaving the system in place. first, a rule that permitted capital please and commissions but are them in regular military justice systems would almost certainly violate the law as interpreted by the supreme court. in hamden versus rumsfeld.

which held that the geneva common article iii was part of the law of war and it requires military commissions to conform to cart -- court-martialed procedures only if some practical need explains deviations from court-martial practice so for those reasons i oppose, i oppose this section 1033 and i will yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes. >> mr. chairman i don't really totally understand the basis behind this amendment but first of all let me clarify some of the facts. for a guilty plea to be accepted, it has to be voluntary and the court has to so determined that, so you couldn't

have one that was entered aced upon torture or anything else. and secondly it does have to be based on the evidence. instead of based on this language between the military tribunals and a federal criminal court. but what really surprises me is we just passed a resolution where we are, or language where we are applauding the department of defense for activities that they have basically issuing an order to kill the worst terrorist in the united states, osama bin laden and if we are turning right around now and saying that we want to remove language that stops that same kind of terrorist from pleading guilty on a voluntary basis when there is a factual evidence for doing that. the two of those don't line up so with that mr. chairman i hope we will reject this amendment and keep the language we have in it and i yield back. >> and mr. chairman? >> the chills when yields back.

>> because of the discussion that has ensued, it shows there are legitimate concerns which we can take up at a later time so i will withdraw this amendment. >> the gentleman withdraws his amendment and i thank the gentleman. we now, the chair now recognizes mr. smith, ranking member from washington for amendment number 265. with the clerk please pass out that amendment? and without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the gentleman is recognized to

explain his amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. this specifically, the issue of whether or not non-u.s. citizens currently at guantánamo are held by the u.s. anywhere in the world now or in the future can ever be transferred to the united states to be held or to be tried in an article for a court. the legislation before us prohibits back, which means any non-u.s. citizen currently in guantánamo are captured anywhere in the world, there will be no option that they could ever under any circumstances be tried in an article iii court. i think this has been captured and brought forward in part because the debate on whether not guantánamo bay should stay open and let me just say that regardless of how you feel about that, even if you believe guantánamo should stay open and continue to be utilized for the detention of terrorist suspects, you can still support this amendment. i concern is that in the legislation effort last session

to find some way to stop the closing of guantánamo, that we took an extreme step and simply said we are going to prohibit you from transferring anybody out of guantánamo and i will absolutely admit that is stopped cold in its tracks in the effort to close guantánamo but i think it also went further than was legislatively necessary to compass that goal and also to continue to make sure that our laws are in the best place to protect us and can prosecute the war on terror. for take article iii courts off the table completely for everybody we are taking a vital tool away from the president in way too many circumstances. we are simply not giving him the options that are necessary and i want to remind everybody something i said earlier in my opening statement. there've been over 400 terrorists, people who have been tried and convicted of terrorist acts, non-u.s. citizens in exactly the situation would have been tried in this country and convict did in putting to prison. right now there are over 300 of

them held in jail and the u.s.. it is beyond question or doubt that our department of justice and our federal courts can handle some of these cases. not all of them and the president would agree. the president, myself and others who want to see guantánamo closed agree that military commissions are an option on the table msp use in certain circumstances and in definite detention as an option that should be used but amongst those options should also be article iii courts held here in the united states. it has been a very successful tool in taking terrorists off the battlefield, putting them in jail and locking them up. i just want to close with a couple of wines. number one, the argument that somehow we can't do that safely within the u.s. -- i know it has developed a certain currency out their -- but it makes no sense when you look at the facts. when you look at the number of terrorist that are currently in prison and the united states and hack when you look at the number

of mass murderers, child killers and on down the list of some of the worst people in the world, people who we certainly wouldn't want out in society being held in our prisons and yes in our communities, being held and held safely there is no question we can do this. it is a safety argument in the u.s. is a bogus argument. if the members of the majority party feel that way i'm surprised we don't have an amendment before us to take over those 300 terrorists who are currently imprisoned in the u.s. and send them someplace else. before a offer up such suggestions i suppose, the point is they are here and they are being held safely. and that proves we can do that. and second, it is a legitimate point that how we look to the rest of the world and how we look in terms of whether or not we are living up to our own values as an important part of the fight against al qaeda. i will defend the other part of that finding with al qaeda which was best represented by the raid that killed osama bin laden. i defend the notion that we have to strike out against terrorists

anywhere in the world where they threaten us and where we can get them in that manner but i think we also need to spend the basis of our justice system and understand to the extent we don't try people in the traditional way it does undermine our credibility. i could go through a laundry list of military leaders including general petraeus at the top who said the presence of guantánamo and what we are doing their best place is at greater risk, is a major recruitment trover al qaeda and does undermine our national security. by showing the rest of the world that we try them, convict them and lock them up forever giving them justice is a powerful tool in our arsenal. not one that should be mandated, but one that certainly shouldn't be completely taken off the table as it is in this legislation so i'm simply arguing that we give that option. in some instances as i've said over 400 have already been used, it will make sense to try these people in article iii courts so this legislation would

completely prohibit that for any non-u.s. citizen captured outside of the u.s.. with that i will yell back and urged the court. >> the gentleman yield to. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. shilling. >> thank you mr. chairman. you know i strongly oppose this amendment just for a very simple but serious reason. we must have protections in place to make sure that the gitmo detainees would not be transferred to u.s. soil. and it just kills me because constantly these folks that have to do with knocking over at the two towers, killing 3000 u.s. citizens continue to get compared to corner gas station robbers and molesters and things like that. these are the worst of the worst that are there, number one. this amendment seeks to loosen the prohibition of transfers from gitmo to the united states and i am will strongly disagree

with this because number one and the last time they were looking at bringing these folks here was into illinois about dirty miles away from a nuclear facility in cordova of annoyed which is inside the 17th district, which i represent. is not about fear tactics. is about being a realist and you know a fear tactic would be back on september 9 of 2001 and telling people that these people or going to knock over our two towers. this is a real situation and these aren't like i said earlier, your gas station guys. i have into gitmo personally. all i heard from the news media here in the united states of america is how bad these people have it. when i got there it was unbelievable how well treated they were and i give a lot of credit to our soldiers and all that they have put up with from his people and what they get dumped on them and how they are

treated. it was pretty impressive to me. they have a library with 14,000 books in it. they get to go outside and run the soccer fields back and forth. i mean it would be a pretty nice place to spend a weekend i guess you might say. but i believe moving the detainees to begin a poses unnecessary risk and the question we have to ask ourselves here is that by bringing the detainees here to the united states, does that make the united states of america any safer? that is the question. you know, so i think we need to really proceed with caution with this. earlier this year i was a proud sponsor of the detainee security act along with chairman mckee on and several other members. the legislation would ensure that no detainees will be transferred to the united states of america. let's prohibit bringing detainees to the united states

and oppose this amendment, please. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back in the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey mr. andrews. >> thank you mr. anders. the question my friend from illinois just raised his exact right. would a decision like this to try detainees in article iii courts made the country more or less safe? that is exactly the right question. and for us to presuppose that in every instance, under any circumstance, the answer is no it would not make sense to bring them back and try them here is a mistake. mr. smith's amendment does not close guantánamo. it does not say that every prisoner must be moved to illinois or new jersey or tennessee or anywhere else in the united states. what it says is that in circumstances like the 400 times

the terrorists were tried in article iii courts, that if the president, the secretary of defense, the attorney general, director of national intelligence, others involved in this decision, if they conclude that the best course is to try that detainee in an article iii courts, they are given the authority to do so. not to mandate that the authority. you know, for us to pre-judge and for us to decide that under all circumstances in all contexts at all times it is never the right thing to try one of these people in an article iii courts i think is a significant mistake. if that prohibition had been put on the united states, according to our research, 400 times in the last 10 to 12 years would not have been able to try people in article iii courts.

i think military commissions have a place. i think some if not many of these detainee should be tried in military commissions, but i think for us, based upon limited information and certainly within inability to see the future and all the circumstances that are coming in it for us to determine that under no circumstances can someone be tried in an article iii chord is a serious mistake. we should support mr. smith's amendment and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes. >> thank you mr. chairman and mr. chairman, my good friend of mr. andrews just said that we shouldn't prejudge. it is not prejudging that concerns us, it is judging at all and when you talk about the fact that the ranking member mentioned that there was some kind of argument that we could not drink them here and hold them here safely and try them safely, we have debated that issue over and over on this

committee and i have made clear in the debates that we have had, none of this question that we can bring them here and keep them in jail and try them safely. what we say is that once you bring them here if they are international terrorists and international reputations it is not them that we worry about. it is not even keeping them safely in jail but you may very well have put a target on the back of every school, every business person in that community where they may be held and where they may be tried and that is is the concern. >> would the gentleman yield for a quick second? >> when i'm finished i would be happy to. the second thing that shulman mentioned is that if we don't try people in a traditional way it may be a bad example to the rest of the world. what our big concern is the bad example we have to the rest of the world and to the united states only don't try them at all. when you say that you are taking an option away from the president, you bet. the option is to continue to say we have got one foot and in one foot out and we don't know

whether we will try them here or whether we are going to try them here because what we have to remember is this. in this president came into office, we have already had almost two years of prosecutions going on on the worst terrorist that ever hit the united states, the 9/11 defendants. this president without examining it, went in and stop that prosecution, broke up the prosecutorial teams completely, took all of those motions they had over 56 motions they fought for and all that period of time and all that now was gone. and we have waited two and a half years for them to say okay we are going to come back and prosecute them. one thing we said last year when they pass this provision was we said we are specific a message, go ahead and prosecute them in the military tribunals. the third thing is this. the court has made it very clear and some can argue it here or not argue it here, but once they hit u.s. soil, just the fact

that they hit the u.s. soil could potentially get them constitutional rights that none of us totally know what they are or where they are. and why in the world we would want to do that to these terrorists who mr. shilling mentioned are the worst of the worst is beyond it. and the final thing is, when this was debated on the floor of the house, it was under a democratic majority and this is the law. this is the law of the land that they can't be brought here in the former chairman of this committee quite honestly stood up then and said, when it comes to terrorism, let there be no mistake that there is no light between the republicans and the democrats and supported the amendment to make sure that they weren't transferred to the united states. i think we should hold without law. i think that it is important for us to try them but not to bring them to the united states and take the risk that would come from that and i would be happy to yield.

>> thank you. 1.1 question. you said the worst of the worst and i agree with you. i agree with you that i don't support the way the obama administration handled this for precisely the reasons you stated. i think there was too much decision on what to do. i think it didn't make sense to go back and undo what the military tribunals were doing but again you are not talking about the worst of the worst. you are talking about everybody. everybody we picked up under no circumstances are tried in article iii so it is not just the worst of the worse. the last point is double-stranded people i keep talking about international terrorists who are housed here in the u.s., among them are ramsey yusuf, the blind sheikh and others who have perpetrated the attacks on the twin towers in the first place. these are very dangerous people. they are held right here. without terrorist attacks around and. >> if i could reclaim my time. one of the concerns we have are not what the people being held there right now. we are concerned with when we

bring people here who were not here and there in guantánamo bay, though by what they hit u.s. soil it is very clear that they will pick up certain constitutional rights. what is not clear is what those rights would be and how far they would go and i would just suggest to you why do we want to go down that path? why don't we go ahead and prosecute them? why we continue do we continue the law as it is and say mr. president time for us to go ahead and prosecute them. let's don't give them these extraconstitutional rights and with that mr. chairman i hope we will defeat this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back or coba chernow wreck nice as the gentleman from texas, is to raise. >> thank you mr. chairman. i will try to beat reef at this. i just want to make a few points. let's not forget we have over 400 defendants charged with crimes related to international terrorism that have been successfully convicted and the united states and incarcerated

since 9/11 here already. second, over 300 individuals convicted of crimes related to international terrorism are currently incarcerated as mr. smith said in federal prisons within the united states and i have to underscore without a single escape. no concerns about our ability. >> would the gentleman yield? >> let me just finish making my point and i would be glad to yield. the third i wanted to make is both former attorney general john ashcroft and general colin powell had gone on record as saying they have no problem with providing the kind of flexibility that in their opinion makes military commissions stronger, not weaker but stronger. it provides in their mind and appropriate and legitimate

alternative which to me, that is really the bottom line. it is not about providing a more restrict the environment in which they go after these terrorists, the worst of the worst or least of the worst or whatever kinds of terrorist. a terrorist attack against this country is an attack against all of us and we need to have those kinds of options and that kind of flexibility. that is why i hope that we support mr. smith's amendment and who was asking to yield? >> yes, please. we keep hearing the number of foreign to people who have been prosecuted, 300 our jails. this is apples and oranges we are talking about here. we did not have 700 people in jail, 400 convicted and 300 waiting in the united states who were captured outside of the united states and brought into the united states.

if the gentleman would yield. >> i would be happy to yield. let me return my time in yield to mr. smith. >> perhaps they do have some of them. ramsey yousef. >> i will be happy to yield in a second. we do have some that were captured outside of the united states and brought in here. so okay maybe it is 25, 5100 whatever it is. not 300. there are two points being made. one is that we can in fact convict international terrorists and two weekend house the men three we can bring them from the u.s. and from outside of the u.s.. finally on a constitutional point that mr. forbes brought up i don't really want is to appear to be desperately afraid of our constitution, and ramsey yousef and all these other people yes they have the constitutional right. constitutional rights do not stop people from being convicted and being locked up. >> would the gentleman yield? >> that is what they did in this

case. >> would the gentleman yield? >> let me yield to mr. turner and then i would the glad to yield. >> i was finished. i just wanted to make a point. >> mr. forbes. >> first of all let me just say nobody in here saying we are afraid of the constitution of the united states. in fact, there were no raider supporters i hope of the constitution of the united states than all the members of this committee. what we are saying is that when you capture some of these terrorists and especially some of them on the battlefield as many of these have been captured, we don't have the opportunity to go through the same kind of constitutional protection that you would have here. we don't always have the opportunity to get search warrants. we don't always have the opportunity to do proper wiretaps. sometimes with soldiers busting in to get these people on the battlefield. the key is this though, when you bring them here, my question is to you, why in the world would we want to a of ford them more constitutional rights and make it more difficult to get a

prosecution, which is exactly what we are doing if we bring them here. >> let me yield the rest of my time to mr. smith to answer your question. >> a two-part answer. number one, why? to show them our constitution and laws work and precisely the point you made that we are not afraid if the works and we lock them up. let's keep in mind he put us in a very easy position on our side of the argument because you are all or nothing. i will grant you there are instances and we will pick someone up and it probably does not make sense but every single one? every single one? >> why would the gentleman say you would differentiate between one and not the other? howdy sit there and say? >> i will be happy to renew this on somebody else's time or gus be with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> jow recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. renny. >> thank you chu chairman. mr. forbes is dealing some of my thunder there but i will

reiterate that mr. smith talks about the values of article iii. nobody here obviously saying that arctic you -- article iii courts are inadequate or our constitution is inadequate to prosecute these guys. it is not a matter of whether or not we bring somebody here and we get a conviction and put them in supermax and they are going to be detained forever and everybody will be safe. of course. the argument is with regard to the 200 remaining detainees at gitmo which you are sort of boiling down by the way to the worst of the worst sooner rather than later. is a matter of jurisdiction and mr. forbes was touching on this. jurisdiction attaches when you bring them here and certainly you are right, the underwear bomber, the times square bomber. these guys that were captured in america may have jurisdiction attached to their afforded article iii rights but when you are talking about people that were detained in iraq and

afghanistan or wherever brought to get moment then we are going to bring them here to have jurisdiction attached and give them our constitutional rights where they don't deserve it, i think runs afoul or steps into an area where you also mentioned mr. yousef who if you had asked the judge in the people that participated in that trial and the blind sheikh's trial and the circus that went on with bringing those people to conviction and the amount of sources of intelligence we had to give up with providing the evidence wind they are allowed to face their accuser and face the evidence brought against them, the amount of people that we outed in the amount of sources we had to give up just to prosecute. >> would the gentleman yield? >> just a-minute. just a-minute. rather than having a military commission where that evidence could be brought up in a secure way and mr. reyes knows this as well, brought up in a secure way so we can gain conviction

without revealing our sources abroad and this is well documented. it is a matter of, and usa values, somehow the military commission doesn't rise to the level of the values of our constitution and the spirit of our country. why doesn't the military commission represent who we are as well? just because we are trying to protect the sources and the intelligence that you know we might not want to give out to the rest of the world by. >> can i answer that question? >> i will yield. >> we have a 225 some odd history using our federal courts. the military commissions are barely being tried so they are not by history of nothing else and finally there was a very serious charge that it in a trial you said that we outed some people, we revealed sources to people? i would love it not now if you

don't have it available, it would love to get the specific instance of that because i've not heard that and i don't know you come back about. >> the evidence that had to be revealed through the disclosure of the evidence during both of those trials was such that i don't think anybody in this room, once they knew the specifics, would be comfortable revealing. but we had to do it to gain a conviction. and with regard to the matter that is at hand, i just want to get back to the fact that if we have an article iii court which i agree with you, i think it is just as capable as the military commission to try them at gitmo, but the matter results that to why would we give them jurisdiction in the united states when the military commissions are just as useful and the justice they are at gitmo, why would we do that for the sake of usa values lacks

that presupposes the values we have the military commissions are inadequate and with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back in the chair recognizes announcement from georgia, mr. johnson. >> thank you is your chairman. i cannot look past the mistaken impression that the obama administration stop the military commission process and just sat around and did nothing for two years before announcing that it plans to try the high-value detainees and the article iii courts. i recall that the u.s. supreme court, a bush friendly u.s. supreme court, had some constitutional misgivings about the then military commission

process, and so this body was called upon to make some revisions. once those were done, then the military commission set up continued. and i just wanted to correct that. also, i do want to weigh in support of the ranking members amendment. the real question is who should make the decision as to whether or not a prosecution should be in the military commission system or in the article iii courts? >> i feel that the attorney general is in a much better position than a room full of politicians who have never -- we have heard about folks who never

had been on the ground in combat. i would venture to suspect that most folks in the congress had never been in combat in a court of law. so you have no appreciation of the niceties that go into an attorney general making that kind of a decision. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> the gentleman was correcting something that didn't need to be corrected because i would ask the gentleman that he can cite any case of all -- when the administration came to office that stopped that prosecution? in fact what happened was this. we had a special prosecutor that have been working on this. they had been working on it for over 18 months. the only thing that stopped that and the facts are clear about this, the only thing that

stopped it was the moment the administration came into office, before they ever went down and made an inspection in guantánamo bay. >> i want to reclaim my time and i will say that i don't want to get us caught up this late at night on collateral matters but i simply wanted to correct the record and with that i would yield back. >> the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman -- the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. >> mr. chairman perhaps it is late and i'm trying to fully understand the conversation. there seems to be two things. one, should be a federal court article iii or should it be a military tribunal? apparently, the amendment before us allows that decision to be made by appropriate people to go one way or the other. the second matter appears to be where's the federal court if it is chosen to go that way? my question is to all the

lawyers here. could reestablish guantánamo as an article iii court site and solve the problem of location? >> the gentleman yields that. the chair recognizes the johnson from arizona, mr. frank's. >> mr. chairman i would like to yield my time to mr. forbes. >> i thank the gentleman. first of all my good friend from georgia said we shouldn't get in collateral issues but the very statement he raised was we need to correct the facts and the facts are these. we had an ongoing prosecution of these five defendants. the only thing that stopped that was the executive order that said you are disband, was in an executive order to stop the movement of that prosecution after all of the amendments and here is what was worse. that prosecutors said he had guilty pleas out of all of those defendants within six months.

if he had been allowed to continue. >> would the gentleman yield? >> not yet because you did not want to talk about collateral matters. the second thing is, after that happened the administration was two and a half years. we asked them over and over again when you are going to prosecute? when you are going to make a decision? they couldn't make that decision. i would ask the gentleman today, when are they going to prosecute them and where's that going to be held? to answer the gentleman's question about trials, this amendment is not about whether they are military tribunals or article iii courts. the gentleman from florida hit it right on the no's when he said this is all about whether we bring them to the united states because the moment we do that the courts have been very clear, they are going to pick up some constitutional rights that nobody in this room knows the extent of what they are. what we are saying is not something new. is what we said a year ago when there was in majority of democrats in here.

do not bring them to the united states. try them where you got them and mr. chairman with that, i yield back. i yield back to the gentleman. >> the gentleman yields back his time. the chairman now recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez. >> thank you chairman mckeon. i would like to say a couple of things. first of all probably out of anybody on this committee i've been watching this issue of the military commission for a long time. recall if you go back and look historically, i dropped a bill may be five years before we ever got around to military commission. in a lot of ways i have agreed with a lot of the things the republicans have said with respect to the commission. actually you know the supreme court ruled that people have

certain rights that we haven't given them before. and, i have been very hesitant to be excited about bringing people into the united states to be tried under article iii. but, what i believe is important is for us to keep both sets of tools available. the reasons why we should try people under the military commission and there may be reasons why we should try somebody here in the united states under article iii. and to just blanket, eliminate that as a possibility, i just don't believe that is a smart way to proceed. and i do have -- i do have problems with who we bring in

and what kinds of rights. and i think that is something that we don't really know but remember that actually the supreme court gave those people in gitmo rights that they didn't have before. if you go back and look at what they did two or three years ago in their decision. lastly i would like to say, you are right. i was very disappointed, and i told the president i thought he was wrong and just like it's saying that you know, that he would shut down gitmo and he did stop the process to try to understand a lot longer but i think he should still reserve both systems, and i think that is important because in some cases we will pick up people that are not in war and should be tried under an article iii court.

so i would hope that my colleagues on the other side would give this consideration, to have those systems. they are both probably needed and with that i will give up the rest -- i will you go rest of my time to ranking member smith. >> he i just want to hit up on a couple of arguments. first the idea that somehow we can try them in an article iii court without releasing secret information. we have provisions with an article iii courts that are similar to the provisions within military commissions to make sure that information is sealed and protected. we have done it and mock trials and terrace trials for quite some time and that is really not a legitimate issue to raise as a reason not to do article iii courts. and again, we simply want this option to be on the table. we have a very good idea what constitutional rights attached and people are brought here and we believe, and we have in the past, handle those rights, try people successfully and i want

to also remind folks that we are not just talking about, think the 172 people now who are left out and get my. we are talking about anybody in the future. not talking about the worst of the worse. we are saying anyone picked up outside the u.s. from this point forward, it will never be an option to try them in an article precourt so it is not just the worst of the worst but it is much broader than that. i actually agree as i said that some of these people should be tried in military commissions. i don't think obama administration handled that well but i think we are overreacting and taking the option completely off the table. >> would the gentleman yield? whose time? will the gentlelady yield? >> i yield to the chairman. >> i don't know whose time it is. i just know it is late. but there is a lot of discussion back and forth and i have just one question. if you have the option of

article iii or a military tribunal by attaching someone out of the country not anwr how would you make the decision to try them? who would make the decision? >> right now the attorney general and the department of justice and the president would make the decision. that is their job and that is their experience. i just want to give them the option. >> based on how they have handled it up to this point, i am in solid opposition to the amendment. if there are no more discussions, the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. smith of washington. so many as are sr in favor will say aye. opposed will say no. the no's have it and the amendment does not agree to and we will have a recorded vote later this morning.

mr. smith, ranking member from washington, is recognized for amendment 266. will the clerk please call -- pass out passout the amendment and without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. [inaudible conversations] >> the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. i will be much briefer on this one i promise. this is a provisions that restrict the ability of the present to transfer people who are at gitmo now or who would be there in the future back to their home country.

the current provision in the bill the secretary defense has to certify before such transfer could take place. the secretary of secretary of defense have stated that based on those requirements he would never certify such a thing because he can't make the guarantee based on the requirements that are there and i'm concerned about how this ties their hands. we have got the problem right now of the people left at guantánamo bay and there are fair number of them that we don't know what to do with exactly. would like to get them back to their home country but this place restrictions on that. keep in mind those restrictions create a very interesting dilemma. this is my main concern. is possible and we have to does been documented, picked up people and sent them to blunt tone amman later found that we really didn't have, that we really shouldn't have. it wasn't the person we thought it was. it was someone who is not going to place a threat to this country but under the bill we would then not really have much we could do with that person.

sending them back to the home country is restricted and the restrictions in the bill don't say you know this person is convicted of any crime or proven to be a terrorist. just as if you are there you have to be a will to certify all of these things before you can send them back. it puts us in a position of putting people into guantánamo and really having not much in the way of an option for getting them out if we determine they should have been there or if we determine they are no longer a threat or goya believed the certification requirements here are too stringent. i was working on an amendment to adjust those on the floor. i would be interested in working with a majority to see if there some way to make changes in those. unfortunately as i understood the rules they can changes to the amendment committee structure would create a sequential referral process so i moved to strike us again. we should trust the secretary defense and the president of the united states to make decisions in the national security interest. they have severely restricted transfers in light of what we have learned over the course of the last five or six years in

the ocean administration and the obama administration but i think again this goes too far and i urge the adoption of the amendment. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to rise in vigorous opposition to striking this particular section. if you look at the process and again we went through this discussion last year, very vigorous discussion about how do we make sure that we are assured that the countries that are considered for reestablishment, re-entry of these detainees have the clear ability to make sure they don't end up back in the battlefield? as we have seen recently and in fact since 2008 the recidivism rate is 25%. we all know that it is incumbent upon all of us to make sure these detainees don't end up back in the battlefield and just as the chairman last year said, we all have a common cause here.

this is a nonpartisan issue and making sure that we are united in combating extremism and terrorism around the world and making sure these detainees don't make their way back to the battlefield. >> increase in recidivism is something that is deeply concerning. if you look at the countries that have received these detainees back and look at what they have done, look at the record they have put in place to attract these detainees to make sure they are keeping up with their activities, looking at rehabilitation programs. we need to have strict assurance that those things are happening. short of that, these detainees and up back in the battlefield. that is the worst thing i think that can happen in light of the threat that our forces are facing around the world with emerging threats. notches press not just trust that happen to make their way back on the battlefield because we don't have a clear detainee policy that is very vigorous in requiring the country certified

the receipt of these detainees. i think it is extraordinarily important that these requirements stay in place. it is the only assurance that we have that countries like yemen won't be able to receive detainees back and we see this history of this. we have seen in afghanistan. we have seen it in yemen. i want to make sure we don't regress and we don't go backwards. this is counter to the efforts we have made to make sure that we have a very thoughtful, rigorous process for countries that would receive back these extremists. again we put so much effort into making sure we are battling extremism around the world, why in the probe will do you want to go back and have these detainees show back up down the battlefield because countries are receiving them without proper certification or they are not digging the efforts either through rehabilitation for keeping up with those detainees to assure that they don't end up back on the battlefield. i think that is extraordinarily

important. we have had this debate last year. this i believe is covered in every aspect and the chairman last year was the vigorous in his assertion that we need to make sure that proper due diligence is practice and in assuring that these detainees again don't make their way back to the battlefield. the way we do that is to make sure we have strict certification requirements on countries that would potentially receive these extremists back into their countries. and with that mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. further debate on the amendment? if not the question is on -- mr. johnson, the gentleman from georgia is recognized. ..

reasonable safeguards by requiring cabinet officials to service by the coo service why it is in our interest. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. johnson? >> yes. >> i wanted to echo a point i'd think is very important. first of all, let there be no mistake i think there's unanimity on this committee of the person is guilty of an act of terrorism and they should be severely punished by the united states and whenever we waiting is appropriate. but, let's think about what this provision says about a person it's a mess and -- and jacinta. if our military, our justice department, our people to determine if a person is innocent and should not be brought to trial because there's not evidence to convict them of anything in the military or civilian court or wherever.

this provision in the underlying bill says that person who is innocent cannot be sent back to the country they came from if someone else was sent back to that country who was a terrorist and rejoined the fight. let me say this again. the person being released it is a determination that he or she has done nothing wrong cannot be sent back to the country they came to, if someone else is not in them did something wrong once they got back to their own country. surely we do not want to stand for that proposition. and let me say again if someone has done something wrong and committed an act of terrorism they should be severely punished. but if the determination is made someone picked up on the battle is in fact innocent to deprive the administration, any administration to send that person back to the country they came because someone else in

that country did something rahm frankly isn't something we stand for and i support this amendment. >> with the gentleman yield? >> the problem with recidivism i would guarantee you every single person that we have released they thought they were releasing in good faith. they didn't expect them to come back into the battlefield or they would not have released them but everyone that was released in good faith that came back into the bottle and it's a fairly high percentage, 20% has come back to the battlefield and could have killed more of our people. >> of the recidivism rate is 20% what about the other 80%? >> i guess i'm more concerned about the 20 petraeus >> i am also concerned if under the fact i'm talking about the person is determined to have done nothing wrong how can we

not repatriate that person if they hold the conduct against them? >> if that is the question we don't know the other 80% for sure that they are not back in the battle. we just know the 20 that we have caught for sure haven't heard back into the battle. >> i would simply say that's one of the reasons we have a country is because we rebelled against the government to help people without cause and no due process. for us to abandon that principle out of fear i think is a huge mistake and we need not do that. there's a perfectly rational way whether it is military commissions or trials to find out who's guilty and do something about. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry. >> let me just make a couple of quick points. number one, i would suggest no

member did this 20% number. it was a number that was put out at one point in this debate. a lot has happened since then and as the chairman points out it is those we can prove as a return to the battlefield which is a far different thing from saying 80% of the people who have released no problem. second, everybody that is the team has access to habeas corpus proceedings so they have opportunity to go through that long and very involved process to determine whether they are being rightfully held. third point i want to make is in the underlining germans provision, it says specifically if an individual or an order of the court or competent tribunal of the united states says this person can go from they can go. that's in the amendment. and the fourth point i would make that i don't think has been made on this amendment or the

proceeding amendment it says this applies to fiscal year 2012. it does not mean it is this way forever. it says it applies for the coming fiscal year and so all of those concerns we have heard about locking in options for never, no, these are restrictions that apply for the coming fiscal year. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, may i ask a question? >> the gentle lady from california. >> on page 41 online ten, isn't there a waiver that the secretary of defense may wave of the paragraph? >> yes, there is a waiver. >> maybe we can work on some of

this language, but i don't -- i think it's important we don't send back 20% of the people to go back on the battlefield. that is an alarming number. thank you. i yield back. >> with no further discussion, the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. smith. so many in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> the chair recognizes mr. johnson of georgia for amendment number 269. well, the clerk please deliver the amendment to the members? >> mr. chairman, this amendment -- >> without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with.

>> thank you. >> the gentleman is recognized to going ahead and explain this amendment. >> this amendment would strike section 1036 of the chairman's marks petraeus section 1036 would define in statute a process for the periodic review of the necessity detention of individuals held as guantanamo bay to read these individuals may not work be facing charges. they may be innocent. the media simply not lucky. they may have been framed by a snitch. they may have been falsely accused or implicated by someone who had something to gain by implicating them that could be the victims of mistaken identity

so many ways people were picked up in a dragnet over in iraq at might because they were in the wrong place of the wrong time. there are some people over in guantanamo, mr. chairman, who may be innocent, and so as section 1063 is written, those individuals would be denied legal counsel during the proceedings to review the necessity of the continued indefinite detention in the u.s. military custody. let's think about that for a second. these individuals face the possibility of unending military detention even if they face the charges and during the review proceedings to determine whether or not the detention is appropriate and warranted the would be denied access to an

attorney. the current executive order governing these reviews is far from perfect but it grants detainee's some access to private capital. the. i propose interim charming in the law in process the demise detainee's council while the necessity of the detention is being reviewed. mr. chairman, as an attorney, former judge and member of the house judiciary committee, i believe that it is an affront to the basic american value of due process and would set dangerous precedents in the wall and i urge my colleagues to join me in striking this dangerous ill-conceived precision strike section 1036 and i will yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. beginning in january this year the media began reporting president obama was going to issue an executive order establishing a periodic review

system for guantanamo detainees. i wrote a letter to the president seeking further information about these reports and also agreed such review process is necessary. i hoped and expected that such a process would be developed in coordination with the congress particularly with this committee and that we were committed to finding a path forward together. i received no response from the president or anyone in his administration to my letter. instead president obama issued his exit of order in march establishing such a review process. i received notice that the exit of order was coming out by a phone call from the pentagon immediately before its release and it had no opportunity to offer input or voice concerns. we have heard many times the president says he wants to reach out and work with us we had a grand opportunity to do that here. she turned his back on it.

after the president issued his executive order my staff and i analyzed carefully. and while i agree completely the military should conduct regular reviews to determine whether the continued detention of each detainee is necessary, i have serious concerns about several features of the process established and by the lack of consultation the new congress and when my staff work closely with the ranking member the staff and outside experts craft what we believe is a robust the administrative review process the what determine whether the continued detention of each guantanamo detainees necessary to protect u.s. national security. i want to make one last point on this matter while i have no interest in wasting u.s. government resources and manpower, detaining individuals who pose no threat to the united states and i believe detainee's

should be questioned consistent with all of our legal obligations, and they do have habeas i will never support in the process that puts anything other than the security of the united states first. i yield back my time. >> the chair recognizes -- >> mr. smith from washington >> this def has worked closely with my stuff even the way disagree as you heard some aspect of the detention policy pleased and here i think they have been very open and fair in the process and i also think and this is the main reason i oppose this amendment i think it is very important that the legislative intent on these

matters be not just in tent, sorry, that we have legislation on this that the congress's the voice is heard and what the process should be and this is the process the committee has come up with to review indefinitely. got to have a process. the president has initiated his and i would hope we would get closer to be on the same page but i certainly can't support an amendment the strikes it so that would leave us with no clear legislative language on what we view the process we want. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i'm sorry. yes, i would yield. >> mr. ranking member definitely well taken. i believe there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater and the chairman has worked with us to make this a better process but it means to go a little further and i look forward to working with you both

to satisfy all of our concerns, and with that, i will withdraw. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back and withdraws his amendment. the chair now recognizes mr. langevin for amendment number 277. the clerk will please to 77 the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. >> the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, before i begin my

prepared remarks this is an amendment dealing with the tracking of the surveillance system. i have some important points that need to be made but i want to let my colleagues know i plan to withdraw the amendment and hope to work with the majority to somehow restore funding to this important program. mr. chairman, the amendment would basically moved $100 million out of work for the system into what i believe is a critically important pt ssa system in the space surveillance system. first of all, my point here is that the $100 million of the funding for the gmp goes well beyond the president's budget and is needed by the department

by comparison the system has been killed in this market and desperately needs the funding. the pss is a constellation between nine and 12 satellites that basically offered assistance of the earth for the early warning missile launches and for the purpose of tracking those missiles. now, mr. chairman, here is an issue i've worked closely on with mr. ruppersberger in others who chaired the tactical committee on the house intelligence community where we announced the ranking member and he and others on this issue. with respect to the system it's very clear that democrats progress is including the president's budget request on

gmd. i devoted a great deal of time and i chaired the strategic subcommittee last year, but let me say that if the majority adding $100 million with above the president's request is sent justified in and particular, additional funding right now isn't needed and quite frankly, been a waste of. the general stated on numerous occasions including congressional hearings that he doesn't need the increase in the funds for fy 12th. additional funding wouldn't help the resolution of the fight test failures that have occurred, and again, it is needed. now the last two flights in the system in january, 2010 and

december, 2010 failed to achieve intersect. these tests the failures have upgrades, stockpole el and manufacturing. the general has made it clear also that our policy is now that we have tried before we buy. the cause of the flight test failures including malfunctions have to resolve before increase in manufacturing and so we can go forward. they are on track to conduct this rigorous analysis before it attempt some other fluid test. rigorous analysis without unnecessarily rushing to test the success of a smart investments. so this is a difficult technology. seven out of ten -- seven out of 15 gmd failed since 1999, and

pressing to accelerate to the analysis and testing to move forward on acquisition activities now will increase future risk and potential cost. so, we've let me just say that again funding isn't needed to protect against today's threats. with ptss however is something we need to fund to keep on track. ptss would offer world wide coverage, missile launches. its ptss can handle large capabilities beyond the current capability right now which ptss can handle with the tracking of launching 16 missiles. current technology can only

handle the tracking of ten missiles and the radar can only handle tracking 20 missiles. and the current system also put out security in the hands of other nations in the ground radar. so with that mr. chairman, this leads to stay alive. if the senate is able to keep this in on something between now and win the national defense authorization bill hits the floor. with that mr. chairman those are important points to make and i will withdraw the amendment at this time. islamic appreciate the gentleman with a drawing and we will be happy to work as we go forward. this is just the start of the

process. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from arizona for the amendment number 81. the clerk will please distribute the amendment. without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. >> the gentleman is recognized. specs before mr. chairman. this would require the secretary defense to conduct a study of the technical risks, the gaps, the constraints of developing and operating a limited sdi capability space-based interceptor cuba will lead the study including the assessment of the maturity levels of the very is associated technologies, the key knowledge, research and testing required for any nation to develop an operating

capability and cost effective estimates $8 million would be authorized for the technology account to conduct the study. mr. chairman, this is essentially to ensure we are not caught flatfooted in the future. we need to fully a understand the key technical constraints and knowledge points facing any nation that seeks to develop a space-based interceptor capability. i want to emphasize mr. chairman, this is a study. as missiles threat dewolf we need to keep on top of the various technology options for countering such a threat. this study would insure the understand the technical gaps and constraints that must be addressed buy any nation seeking to develop a space-based interceptor capability. the study would provide concrete data and comprehensive analysis to inform the future decisions and ensure we are as i say caught flatfooted should other

nations move in the direction of developing the capabilities. mr. chairman, i know that there would be some comments related to this being some effort to what a nice space. mr. chairman, i would just point out a lot of our satellite capabilities and space assets are and what the mize to some degree of integrated weapons systems and we have to make the decision whether or not we intend to defend those assets or leave them vulnerable and this could be very important aspect for that response. finally mr. chairman, we all know will our nations are going to do, and in being able to conduct this study ourselves it will help us know even if we don't develop an actual system ourselves with other nations might do or what their capabilities might be. with that, i would yield back. >> the gentleman yields back and the chair recognizes the gentle lady from california ms. sanchez.

islamic thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to oppose this amendment of mr. frank's, and he is right, we have had the weaponization of space discussion before as i said before on this subcommittee for over a decade. we decided we did not want to move forward with what position of space more indicate to others china or other countries that that is what we were doing. so i would hate to go down that road with this study. but i actually oppose this study for other reasons. first of all, space-based interceptors have been repeatedly studied for their potential ballistic defense merits and previous studies concluded space-based interceptors are costly and impractical.

the study may only be $8 million, but the cost of the space-based interceptor if progress is enormous. in 2000 for the congressional budget office estimated the potential cost of limited space based capabilities against north korea and iran would exceed over $100 billion. concept for the space-based interceptors would be extremely expensive to implement and they may not be fiscally sustainable which is a key requirement from the ballistic missile defense review. and an important point in a resource constrained environment. in comparison, for example, one of the yet advantages of the s m three is its low-cost interceptor, and i feel with the money spent on space-based interceptors would inevitably come at the expense of our programs. the study would be both

premature and it's redundant. past studies concluded space-based interceptors are costly, incredibly costly and impractical and moreover, in 2008 the congress appropriated $5 million for the institute of defense analysis, a federally funded research development center to conduct a space-based interceptor study. that study has not been finalized nor have the funding been reported to the congress. so why are we rushing to do another study on the system that we know is incredibly expensive. also there's no operational requirement for space-based interceptors. we have a robust a ground-based and sea based programs that continue to improve. and regarding the homeland defense the program is designed to protect us from those limited

tax from states like iran and north korea and does not require space-based interceptors of any kind. nor is it clear that space-based interceptors are appropriate to counter the regional ballistic missile threat to our allies and partners and deploy forces. and so i would hope this committee would say no to the study and i yield back mr. chairman. >> the gentlelady yields back and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. >> thank you. i'm speaking in support of mr. frank's amendment. i worked with mr. frank's on the language of this amendment and with the ranking member in hopes of fashioning this in a manner that responded to the rank the members' concerns, and i believe that it does. i think that he is brought before us here a very important concept that needs to be addressed and needs our

attention. mr. franks' doesn't bring forth the merit study it's not deployment, it's not even alternative to the current system we're doing it is a pursuit of knowledge. it's a research project looking at technical risks, gaps and constraints for the space-based interceptor system and the ranking member is concerned of the merit study or moving forward with the development or deployment so we can have an understanding of what the technology would be if a nation pursued this and part of what we have to do every day when we look at these issues is not just decide what we are going to do but also analyze what others are doing or what others have done to get the baseline knowledge of what are the technical gaps constraints for the system so

others pursue the lead with a ball doing and have an educated i and as we look to the issues from risks we will have this information. i think the studies are very important, and certainly will not take away but will add to our knowledge in this area. >> the gentleman from colorado is recognized. >> i would like to point out with the gentlelady that the technology has changed tremendously even in the last ten years in terms of capability of what we can do now. sweating a steady at this time would be warranted and i'd like to now yield the balance of wanting to representative. but like to reiterate some of mr. turner's points are a good thing and i think that applies

here. this doesn't build or deploy anything but getting all the facts on this issue is an important thing to do given the world we live in, and i hope the members will support the amendment. and i would yield back. >> is there further debate on the amendment? >> if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. frank's. so many in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. >> the chair recognizes mr. wilson for amendment number 276. will the clerk pass out the amendment? without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. >> mr. chairman? >> what purpose does

mr. thornberry seeks recognition >> i wish to raise a concern and point of order with the gentleman is amendment. estimate of a gentleman is recognized. >> the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina would require mandatory spending which would result in a point of order against the bill on the floor. it's certainly always been the practice of this committee to not allow such amendments to be offered in the committee when that could occur and so i would suggest it would be inappropriate to consider the amendment. >> of the chair finds the amendment if adopted would require mandatory spending which would result in a point of order against the bill on the floor. it's the practice and the custom of the committee to not accept amendments which would cause a point of order on the floor. the amendment is not in order.

>> 0155 with ask the the clerks out of the amendment >> mr. bartlett for maryland. >> in the conference and it's true in the democratic caucus we are able to express ourselves to get our thoughts out in one minute. deutsch of the lateness of the hour and so everyone might have a chance to say something before the debris i ask unanimous consent we move from the five middle to the two-minute rule. two-minute compromise. if you want to commend my amendment. >> any objections. >> there are important issues coming up. >> does the leedy object? >> yes, i do.

important issues. yes, i object. >> moving on, mr. forbes is recognized. the clerk will please distribute the amendment. >> the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. i would be happy to respond to any questions anyone might have in the interest of time. basically what this amendment will do is it complies with language that is already in the section 1226. section 1226. >> the united states the congress has to get notice of that. what this amendment says is if we have a permanent relocation of a thousand individuals are more we simply get notice of that by the congress for 90 days before they do it.

that is without being an emergency or the president determining that it's in the national interest of the country to do to move it within that timeframe and here's the reason why. we are told the we are going to have $4 billion of cuts coming down. mr. chairman, i think that if we should be entitled to know when we will have permanent relocations outside the united states we ought to at least have knowledge, we are going to have the permanent relocations year and only just tell you why this is important because if you look for example the ranking member has the third strike brigade, fort st. brigade, 62nd airlift wing, 446, all of those would be included you have to have knowledge of the will be permanently relocated. if you look for simple she's got the uss 35th wing that would be part of that. if you look for example

ms. castor she has u.s. special forces, u.s. central command if you look at mr. larsen he's got the abraham lincoln if you look at mr. oginski has the first from second, third brigade combat teams each of which would require would fall under here. we have seen a growing sense with the department flatly that they will make these moves and not even let congress know about it. how are you doing they would go on the trash can. we never even get a response. this doesn't stop them from doing it. the question is going to be simply this. should the congress be at the table all? when we are making this kind huge shift within the united states and i think this is a very reasonable move the question is this if we have to be notified when they are moved outside of the united states it just makes sense we ought to be a player when it comes to permanently locating them within

the states and mr. chairman, with that of a wheeled back and be happy to respond to the questions. >> we are prepared to accept it in its current form. it's a 90 day notification requirement. >> the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. forbes. so many in favor will say aye those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> the next amendment, the chair recognizes ms. bordallo for the amendment number 96 and without objection reading the amendment will be dispensed with the

gentlelady is recognized for explaining her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment offers the text of h.r. 44, which is the guam world war ii recognition act as a title to the defense bill. ausley regret that i will have to withdraw my amendment because the chairman of the house natural resources committee has refused to grant a waiver of sequential referral. mauney bill refers to the house natural resources committee of the white wish the parliamentarians would see this differently. mr. chairman it's important to note that this bill has passed the house of representatives five times, five times, and i

thank my colleagues for their support in the past. we have also added the guam war claims measure the to the defense authorization bill for the last two years with overwhelming bipartisan support. and again, i thank my colleagues for their support. h.r. 44 would implement the recommendations of the guam war claims review commission was authorized by the 107th congress. it would correct a long standing injustice that was created by the occupation of guam by the japanese. resolution of this matter is related to the national security because it is important to maintaining the support of the people of guam during the military buildup. the people one guam say to me, and they wonder, how can we spend billions of dollars on the military realignment but not resolve the payment of claims to

those who suffered through the occupation almost 70 years ago? it's important to note that the text of h.r. 44 as introduced reflects a compromise that was reached with the senate in the last term particularly senator john mccain during the negotiations on the last year's md a. h.r. 44 removes the payment of claims to a controversial category of recipients. it's important to build on the work and the success from last congress. i cannot emphasize enough that it's time to bring this matter to a close. the people of guam have waited for way too long, and i want to thank the chairman for holding true to his word and working with me to include this important legislation in the m

da8. i plan offering this on the floor when we consider the mdaa, and i hope i can count on a support of many of my colleagues. mr. chairman, i am not going to give up on this very important issue to the people of guam and at this time i would withdraw my amendment and bring it to the floor and i would yield back. >> i commend her for the work she's put into this and i know that we've talked to the chairman of the other committee. he's not able to be with us this week because of a health problem, but we do have a week before, weak and a half before we go to the floor, hopefully something can be worked out and we continue to try working on that the gentleman from maryland

is recognized. i ask unanimous consent removed from the five central to the two-minute drills we can expedite the proceedings this evening. >> is there an objection? >> hearing none, we will move to the two-minute rule on the discussion. i recognize now the chair recognizes mr. forbes for amendment number 13. will the clerk please distribute the amendment. >> without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. estimate does all the members know the amendment requires the defense procurement comes from domestic sources from august reasons. in 1999 however when we were doing body armor, you only have two choices, you had kevlar and any country -- i'm in a company in the netherlands the was the

only competitors to win an exemption was put in the of the rescission bill exempting body armor fabric essentially from the very amendment however to do with the uptick in iraq, we've got several competitors in the united states to make the performance based products. honeywell makes a product, dupont mix of production and done am i makes a product the same way. with this amendment would do is say we no longer need the exception from the amendment and so, we would say the very amendment should apply to the body armor fabrics we have to get it within the united states. here's the uptick if we don't do it in their slugging of supply. we will use the industrial base in the united states and the body will this product from outside the united states as opposed to many factors in sight of the united states. that's the purpose of the amendment in light be happy to respond to anybody's questions they have.

>> mr. space is recognized. >> there are some fibers and body armor that i understand are not manufactured here and if this went into place this would increase the cost of the products we are buying. >> i am told that is absolutely not the case. i am told we have performance based standards now. there's some alternative products out there but they will need the performance standards and the point of the fact what's happened is the price has actually dropped down because of the demand it's been different. >> it's my understanding vose at trey on i think is the product that cannot be manufactured in the united states because of the epa has to be imported and makes up as much as 10% of our military uniforms and other

things -- >> i would respectfully say to the gentleman - foot is a different situation. if the gentleman has different facts on that i'm happy to look but the facts i've been given is that it's only one company. it's in the netherlands. and mr. simmons is telling me that is correct that we have several companies in the united states and they've made big investments in the united states. some put in $500 million of investments and south carolina one is put somewhere else but they aren't going to stay in business if we continue to buy from a source outside the united states it's not enough supplies it's the matter whether we are going to comply with the very amendment or continue the succession. >> of the chair recognizes the lady from ohio, ms. sutton.

>> thank you. i wish to share my support for doing all we can to make sure our military utilizes products made right here in the u.s. and when viable alternatives exist and we are using taxpayers' money i think if the voluble alternatives still the same performance requirements as those from the products and detector outside of the u.s. we should support these common sense policies that support jobs right here in the united states and i joined the gentleman in support of his amendment and i urge my colleagues to support this for the benefit of the american worker and the industrial base. >> we have an issue across this country with a lot of the manufacturing base. titanium went from about ten titanium companies in the united states down to just a couple because this amendment you can

drive a truck through this with the waiver process that's been going on so if we really want to establish and reestablish the manufacturing base in the united states and we want to utilize the military to do it we should continue to work on tightening of the amendment cities other specialty metals can be bought and manufactured here in the united states. >> further debate on the amendment. >> if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. forbes. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. >> the share now recognizes mr. aikn for the amendment 054 and ask the clerk to distribute the amendment. without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with.

>> the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this one was confusing because it's similar to what mr. forbes did but different. there are different materials used as fabric in uniforms. one of the materials that is particularly effective in terms of being a good flame retardant is rayon which as i anderson and because the epa rules is not made in this country anymore so the wall is currently set up, we have to if the year in the authorizing committee authorized the fact the military could import rayon from europe to meet our uniforms. what this amendment does is to say we don't have to do this every year. we are going to give the authority to the dod to buy the product from europe because it is not made in this country as we understand.

and rayon has several different qualities different than other synthetic fibers. the first is it's a good flame retardant and the second thing is it is very wearing resistant so uniforms where you need fire protection as well as there is a lot of activity so you are wearing the fabric with the rayon is effective, so this is just simply doing what we do every year saying we are not going to have to do it every year and there are any questions i would be happy to take them. >> is there any debate on this amendment? >> the chair recognizes mr. scott from georgia. estimate i would like to point out i was right about the issue is wrong about the amendment. [laughter] i hope you'll bear with me i was concerned mr. griffin of arkansas wouldn't be able to get

a new suit if we band rayon from coming into the country. [laughter] >> i want to take down his words. i just needed to laugh, mr. chairman. it's been a long day. i will put on myself a little bit. [laughter] >> so the time has arrived. any further debate on the amendment? if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. aikn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the agreement to the amendment is agreed to. mr. conaway for the amendment 088 or. the clerk will please distribute the amendment. without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> can i get the full two

minutes? mr. chairman, section 526 to the 2007 energy bill put in place a restriction on the use of synthetic fuels from coal to liquid and other fuel sources such as oil sands out of canada. my amendment simply fences off to the fore when the defense from that restriction and allows them to buy fuel that is any way they want to. the department shouldn't worry about studying the emissions when they are purchasing fuel from the fighter. my argument is really not about the fuel sources versus, it's not about securing from the largest source in the united states in section 526 stifel. it's about the thousands of jobs or billions to generate the process. it's about the department of defense keeping them focused on their mission defending liberty protecting freedom at home and abroad. this provision serves as a distraction to the larger context of the global war and terror. it's time to remove the obstacle and keep the department of

defense focused on what they should be focused on and that is keeping us safe and i'd like the record to reflect the institution of the pool does not affect the the importance of the amendment offered under the two-minute rule and i would yield back. >> the gentleman yield spec. is there a discussion on the amendment? >> the ranking member from washington is recognized. >> thank you. i'm a strong proponent encouraging the use of fuels and fuel efficiency within the department of defense and any amendment that restricts that. at this point, i don't have a good argument against this amendment on behalf to take a closer look to reserve the right. >> with the gentleman yield? >> please. >> this frees up the the problem of defense to use the call to liquids and were other alternative fuels which they are prevented from doing now.

unless they come up with a lifecycle contant xu this allows the department of defense a broad latitude. >> i yield back and i have no objection of the amendment. >> and i know that the department is looking for ways to save on fuel because a would require less trips, protect more lives and it is a win-win. further debate on the amendment? if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. conaway. so many in favor say aye. those opposed, no. ravee ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california for an amendment to 34. the clerk will please distribute the amendment. without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the gentleman is recognized to

present his amendment. >> mr. chairman, thank you. given the two minute limitation i'm going to shorten my remarks and simply ask the be entered into the record. this bill or this amendment does three things. one, it focuses our purpose and mission in afghanistan to one of counterterrorism and away from the counter insurgency. second, it would cause a reduction in the troop force to 25,000 as of december 31st, 2012. and 10,000 on december 31st, 2013. it also would allow us to continue to train both the military into the police and go after terrorists in the region.

there is much more to be said about this. and given the lateness of the hour, i think it's important to focus our attention on why we are spending $120 billion a year in afghanistan. but while our attention is focused i learned long ago when the mind is tired it's likely a bad decision will be made, and when the mind are both tie your its best not to make a decision at all. therefore i withdraw this amendment and promise i will take it on the floor. with that i withdraw the amendment. >> the gentleman with drawls the amendment and i commend him for his wisdom. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from missouri, mr. aikn for the amendment number 247 if the clerk will distribute the amendment and

without objection the reading will be dispensed with. the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is going to move a little bit of money around, and we are going to do is there is $1.1 billion in the budget to fund to give to pakistan to fight terrorists said the pakistani government can fight terrorism. we are taking just 10% of that money which is 143 -- 123 million we are going to use it for three purposes on the air forces unfunded mandate list. one of them is to pay for the ordinance that's been expended in libya. the second is to upgrade the old fashioned that we keep using and

abusing and smart munitions which the air force also needed to replace so that's my understanding we're just taking 10% of the 1.1 billion from the money we are giving to pakistan to fight terrorists and using it instead to pay four ordinance that the air force has used and to upgrade the 810. if there are questions mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'm going to oppose this amendment the counterinsurgency fund is rather criminal to the national security. we've all debated over the course and pakistan is a difficult one and they don't help us and many ways as they would like if it makes for the phill better pakistan feels the same way.

but getting them better trained to engage counter insurgency is critical and i've been there several years and worked with our own special forces who are doing that training and they are getting better and have made improvements and been aggressive in place is going after and groups in a way that is helpful to us to cut that fund is to underline our own national security and further threat to the relationship with pakistan it's difficult enough as it is so i'm going to oppose this amendment. >> the gentleman yields back. >> the chair recognizes mr. hunter. >> i like to commend the gentleman for this amendment i think it's a good one. one we've been preaching we have to pay for what we use and this is an amendment that actually