>> without objection. the reading of the amendment. >> unless he uses all the resources available to the federal government, to ensure that our bridges are safe and our ports can continue to support the goods we need mystically and nationally. it is for this reason that i offer this amendment to clarify us for fiscal year 2010, it can be used by the administrators to

provide support. currently the language only allows for technical assistance. grant programs are available for infrastructure needs aside from the various iterations. this program can provide a much-needed source of funding for critical infrastructure products we have a 200 million-dollar impact on the economy. and that will improve transportation efficiencies and create jobs and promote economic growth and genetically enhanced our hugs by river, barges, trains, and trucks. we support for the amendment's passage as we move for the consideration. ask for unanimous consent to withdraw.

>> without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed. the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purposes of offering and explaining this amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the representative and i offer this amendment to stop the waste of millions of dollars by the military services. while simplifying logistics in the process. at the time when we are asked in the military to do more with less, we must find ways to cut costs, no matter how big or small. not too long ago back in 2002,

the armed forces only used two different camouflage uniforms. one for the wooded jungle terrain and one for the desert. now there are 10 different combinations and more being developed. it is worth noting that from 1982 up to 2002 from the military services were one, and uniform. if you recall, they were number four spot in one without proliferation in combat uniforms. it speaks to the question is what is needed to maintain military effectiveness. it is noted that over the past 12 years, with a $10 million has been spent for development and testing. hundreds more have been spent in all the required matching

equipment. the gao estimates that if they partner with another service, on amendment would do the following. there should be a joint combat with durations aloud with different combat environment. second, it prohibits the military services from fielding a uniform unless it is going to be a joint uniform use by all the services. third, the service secretaries coordinated to ensure that they are compatible with other services, including body armor and other important purchases. it provides a blanket waiver of

the secretary of defense can exercise with exceptional circumstances require different uniforms with the services. we should not cut and abundance of uniforms and other installations across the country. i urge them to reduce costs and simplify the process from services. >> the gentleman yields back from virginia. >> thank you. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. back and forth, hopefully this

resolves this and gets going forward. i understand having this uniform to make sure that the service branches can do the things that they need to do to make sure that they maintain their service branch identities. i understand those things that there will be some short-term cost with current uniforms and development of another uniform. there will be some short-term cost. but i do believe that this does point to an effort to create efficiencies in some uniformity there with the exception to allow the service branches to do the things they need to do. so i hope that this resolves once and for all the service registry will to do what they need to do on the development of the joint combat uniform. with that, i yield back this

amendment seeks to stop the waste of millions of dollars. also you will find logistic requirements. in 2002, the u.s. military used two different camouflage uniforms. one for jungle terrain and one for desert terrain. among the armed services there are 10 different camouflage uniforms. with more in development. a recent "washington post" article noted that military services have spent more than $10 million just on the testing of camouflage uniforms. hundreds of millions more were sent for you new uniforms and on the required matching personal equipment. ammunition vests and body armor carriers. the army in the past 10 years is

working on another new design. in a recent report, the army alone could save $82 million to partner with another service to have a common uniform rather than having another service specific one. it is for these reasons that i am in support of this amendment. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado. >> i went would like to speak in opposition of the moments that gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. having served in the army and marine corps, those of us that have worn uniforms and served,

this is really a morale issue. now, the marine corps should not be penalized for this. i was speaking in very strong opposition to this amendment on behalf of the men and women who wear the uniforms. >> i am proud to support this amendment as it cuts down on the waste of millions of dollars of unnecessary cuts.

with over 30 years of service in the military, if you can match the amount of time that we have spent for this great nation. for many years the marine corps and the united states have the same uniform. as of right now, more are in development. more than $10 million has been spent as we prepare these new uniforms and matching equipment. these costs are unnecessary and do not strengthen our strategy. as we establish further discussion, i yield back my time. >> there are no more questions on the adoption of the

amendment. those who aren't support cs and those who are opposed say no. >> okay, he reached the end of the subcommittee. any further amendments? will the clerk please pass out the amendment? without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is simple and should be noncontroversial.

my amendment extends the list of waste material emitted by law from disposal in open air burn pits to include all of the items currently listed in the dod instructions. in other words, the current dod practice is reflected, you may wonder what dod is are you practicing. first of all, the record on burn pits is appalling. for eight long years, dod continues the burning of noxious and toxins ways the committee noted that burn pits can be harmful to human health and environment the environment and should only be used for more suitable situations. the department of defense have had ample time to establish more suitable capabilities.

this includes section 317 and the dod mandates include inclusion of these materials. and because it's not law, it can be changed at any time. >> we are continuing our live coverage with the house armed services committee markup of the 2014 defense authorization act. work on the bill is expected to last several more hours. >> we will postpone all of the

recorded votes until the end of the chairman's mark heard by now that turns my good friend and colleague, mr. smith for the comments at the ranking member makes. >> i have not. >> before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the chairman's mark? mr. thornberry is recognized or a few minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do think that it is worth taking time to highlight provisions that have tremendous amount of attention. one provides a president to give us an assessment of al qaeda and its affiliates. we would like to talk about or

positional with these various affiliates, those need to be part of al qaeda around the world. the second person i want to highlight is when it has been cosponsored by mr. smith and others that sets up a mechanism that requires an administration to notify us with military operations, including legal operations and capture operations. the issue here, as i mentioned a few minutes ago, excuse me, a few hours ago, is how do we fit will our constitutional responsibilities to conduct the oversight of military operations in this provision sets up the framework for the administration has to tell us before and after and quarterly about the operations like drone operations that are not restricted to a particular mechanism.

this sets up a framework to make sure that there is the appropriate oversight by this committee. i think this is an important step forward. i appreciate the support, not only in this committee, but it looks like the administration will support this as well. as they say they want to be more transparent. i hope they do. i think all members need to focus on these issues because it is part of our responsibility. i think the chairman. i yield back. >> thank you very much, the gentleman yields back. >> you're recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, chairman. with respect to the congressman, mac thornberry, provision on oversight, i was one of those who signed on with hr 1904. the congress has talked about military operations. notably missing and that is an exception for afghanistan. that is because we are still at war in afghanistan. however, there is no provisions

that would give us oversight after those operations we heard we have had extensive conversations with her staff members. about working on that and perhaps the coming years, revisiting that. i did want to point that out because i do think that this congress should have oversight over what those operations are complete. >> i think the gentleman makes a very good point. when combat operations in afghanistan are more like other parts of the world, i think it is something that we definitely want to consider removing at that point. i think it is a fresh look at those exceptions and see what the status of things. i certainly agree with the point that the gentleman is making. it is my intention. there is an exception that we have a declaration of war.

but once that war is done, i think that exemption not go away. i feel that my time. >> thank you. any other discussion before we entertain amendments? >> i ask unanimous consent consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved by the minority side. without objection, so ordered. while the clerk please pass the amendment in a. >> we are ready to go. >> the first is comprised of the following. amendment number 002 r1. under which contractors can file for exemption.

includes suspected counterfeit parts, including obsolete parts in certain circumstances or at the amendment clarifies the regulations promulgated by section 818. they do not apply to procurement of license. amendment number 012 by mr. larson or relating to procurement and technical assistance agreement programs. and amendment number three evan r1 to promote the recruitment and retention of women. amendment number 056 r1 by mr. lehman and mr. larson to increase global threats by reduction initiatives by $20 million in protection and

cooperation by $23 million. amendment number 119 r1 by ms. spear including waiver decisions be available on a public website. acquiring the port on the capabilities and policy values associated with the active guard on the southwest corner of the united states. amendment number 168 by mr. jones to require the determination of costs that are incurred outside of the u.s. amendment 170 by mr. conaway and that this is the national guard counter narcotics program that ensures the continued funding. amendment number 185 by ms. porter to direct the secretary of defense on progress made toward adopting acquisition

strategy for insurance that minimizes the cost of such insurance to the dod and contractors as required by section number eight or three of fiscal year 2009. then by mr. andrews, giving at least equal importance to technical criteria and a technical evaluation of the program by the director of operational test and evaluation. amendment number two to one to affirm that nothing constitutes an authorization for the use of force.

any discussion on the unblocked amendments? >> you're recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to commend my colleagues for bringing these amendments forward. the national guard was placed on the border. they were most effective and i'm glad to see that the markup is going to address this issue. in my district, 13% of the border is represented. we also represent 30% of all captured in this country. the national guard in the past has provided and i look forward to the committee accepted our language on this matter. and i want to thank you for bringing this important amendment to the attention of the committee. i yield back my time.

>> the gentleman yields back to mr. brighton is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank the chairman and breaking member for including amendment on counter counterfeit electronic arts. we need to thwart counterfeit electronic parts in the acquisitions process and we need to save taxpayer money. the senate armed services committee, investigators uncovered approximately 108,000 counterfeit parts came from china. investigators traced more than 70% of counterfeit electronics up to china. the committee report concluded that china is the dominant source for counterfeit electronic parts and that they are infiltrating the supply

chain. we all know how quickly consumer electronics become obsolete. it's a matter of months and not yours. we build weapons systems that last for decades and this means that many of the electronic parts become obsolete. it forces contractors to rely on as the suppliers beyond original manufacturers authorized dealers and trusted server buyers. this would include remedies that are obsolete. i would like to thank you for allowing this amendment. >> the gentleman yields back. is there any further discussion we met ms. davis is recognized or two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have brought together a bipartisan delegation of women from the committee. i want to talk to you that the

future security of women in afghanistan is inherently tied to the presence of women in all levels of government. it is tied to our national security as well. on these repeated trips we have seen women slowly but increasingly take on roles within security forces. we have have an opportunity to visit with those that are supported by all but. but what we did find is that even basic facilities there had not been developed for the women. and we saw this on the part of the afghan government. this is an attempt to talk about dollars that have not been utilized for the security forces for the afghan women.

we know how hard our men and women have fought on behalf of them taking this role in afghanistan. so i would like to take the committee for helping us with that. this is less than 1% of the total amount of afghan security forces. there are number of other women and others who participated and argued vociferously to the afghan ministers. this is a very important. >> any other discussion? if not, the question is the adoption of the amendment offered by buck mckeon. please say yes if you are in favor, those of you who are posed, say no. the amendment is agreed to.

next we move to the amendment 015. the clerk will distribute the amendment. [inaudible conversations] >> without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. paterno recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is pretty straightforward, there are already requirements prohibiting dod from purchasing certain items. so you might think that this

would not be necessary when it comes to purchasing flax by the dod. you would be wrong. you might think that somebody would have the thought that american flags ought to be made in america as well, you would be wrong to sell at a time when i think that this is a straightforward, it is unacceptable for some tax dollars to be made overseas. u.s. flags are added to the list of those covered by the amendment. i'm hopeful that all of my colleagues will see that this is a commonsense approach. i ask for support of the amendment and i yield back my time. >> is there any other discussion on the amendment? okay. if not, we will move forward. the question is about the

amendment offered, numbers are 15. those who are in favor, they will say aye. those who are posed will say no. the amendment is agreed to. next we will have the amendment by mr. smith, number 244. will the clerk please distribute the amendment. >> without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. ..

to the united states with the recent increase in costs racing at guantánamo and controversy going down there is hunger strikes and sustainability of what was to be a temporary facility. one of the criticisms is that the president has not offered a plan for how to close it, but unfortunately congressional language has been barred him from doing that. if i is the president to come up with a plan, we have to give him

flexibility to do that as long as he's restricted from transferring out of guantánamo to the u.s. there's no way to get there and it's worth remembering that president george w. bush, then candidate john mccain, secretary of defense bob gave out why to close wonton about and had good reason for it. it was an internationalized solar. an example of the united states not living up to his values. make no mistake, it hurts us when we work with our allies to get full cooperation and confronting al qaeda in the threats from various other groups associated with them. closing 8 cents in 2008 when everybody running for president that we should and continues to make sense now. one of the other reasons that is the most expensive prisoners were given its remote location is not easy to maintain, not easy to do the basic construction necessary to continue that way now as $250 million in this bill to

continue to make it temporary. there's no way to make it permanent. the objection is they can't possibly bring these folks to the united states, but again i say in the united states of america, we have successfully locked up the most dangerous despicable people in the world. if the u.s. is incapable of having a prison that will successfully hold the most dangerous people in the world, we're in a world of hurt guantánamo or no point, no. we're 300 terrorists are good people at guantánamo held here in the u.s. in a prison. we have murderers and serial killers have not comes dirty facilities. there's no question we're capable of doing it. there's been some concern about cause. the report we try to bring khalid sheikh mohammed another snooker the u.s. were a child the security costs would be

outlandish. in new york city, ramses said the blind sheik, a number of other folks in those costs are not prohibited. number two, collegiate mohammed and the other military commission are not going to be taken out of the military commission. that is where they'll be tried. that security threat is not going to be an issue. i understand the political argument has been made. we can't have that here because they're so dangerous. it does not bear scrutiny when you consider we have to hold in this country no matter what thinner superbikes facility. the fact it's an international eyesore argues for it to be closed and it can't be closed if we don't have the option of bringing inmates to the u.s. we still have tough questions. what we do with them in terms of which once returned to their home country, which once we try,

those are difficult questions, but those questions exist in guantánamo just as much as they would exist in the united states, but at least a bold statement that our values and constitutional principles are going to be appellate that we will close the prison. let's give the president the option of coming up with a plan that i know several of his committee and asked them to come up with. i yield back. >> you yield that? [laughter] >> mr. thornberry, gentleman from texas for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the president does have the option because this ban is not permanent law we have a vote on it every year. and so, if the president comes up with a plan that can gain the

support of the american people and representatives in congress, the ban could go away. so far the american people have it their views clear as have representatives in congress. yesterday we had a thought on prohibiting funds be news to bring people here, to house people brought here from guantánamo in 254 of us in the house voted not to bring them. even in the president's speech last week said these are difficult questions. what you do with them? that's the point. you've got to figure that out before you bring them here or let them go back to gammon and hope they are going to be safeguarded. you have a little plan first in the president president can do that and convince the american people unless that is a good lamp, this thing goes away. it has to be renewed every year. until it does that, it's hard to see a better option than

guantánamo as long as the war against terrorists continues. i oppose the amendment and recommend the members do as well. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia for two minutes. >> tonight is a seachange because on may 28, 2010, we'd approach into recommit on the floor where we set our government is better off to keep off u.s. soil rather than bring them here. we pointed out at the time is that the prosecutions can with the one of the best against terrorists. if all prosecution team mate 56 notions, countless series, almost two years of litigation and the president stopped all that and a story to tell so we had to start all over again. on that day we made this motion and we said we're not going to bring these people back to the

united states. and then the chairman of this committee, ike skelton, stood up on the floor and said we have to do with these issues strongly in the committee. the status of this particular issues and we're in a position to accept this motion. he said i wish to point out there's no difference between democrats and republicans when it comes to fighting terrorism. we are changing course tonight and there's a huge difference. no one is arguing this committee we can pull terrorists in prison. never get on this site. what we've said is that they say target on every school, every business, because that's where the terrorists are going to go. we're not worried with or keep them with or keep them in the jail. the second thing is the moment her feet touch u.s. soil, they will pick up new constitutional rights and nobody in here can tell us what those rights are. because of that, mr. chairman, i was a ike skelton was right.

we read in may 20, 2010 and we are right to make sure we stated the american people will not bring terrorists to the united states. hope we defeat this amendment. with that, i yield that, mr. chairman. >> i seek to speak in opposition. i served it the largest detention facility in iraq for one year and that kind of taken some of what we call guantánamo and eyesore because it then there and i also think the prisoners are treated in a way that americans can be proud of how we are handling. the other thing about guantánamo as is well established. we spent millions of dollars building a courtroom he was not completed any trials. as far as hunger strikes, we have that in a humane fashion as well. it is a safe place. i don't many people in cuba trying to free the people held at guantánamo whereas in iraq or

here that may be the case. additionally was mentioned a lockup or criminals were not many americans try to free those people to release them back to our society, but that it would exist here as we've seen with the violence taking place from al qaeda within our country still are those affiliated with it. is the most humane option of a house. are conduct a very well entrance for people to the united states but all of us had a greater risk than i oppose this and yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. any further discussion on this amendment? >> mr. chairman. >> by sanchez for two minutes. >> mr. chairman, i've probably been one of the few democrats who has continued to believe there is a reason to have

guantánamo bay continue to be open. but i'm reading what is in the mark and that mr. smith wants to strike what is on the mark. on this particular issue, i will be supporting mr. smith. i believe a baked alaska may question to make sure because in your tax, mr. chairman, says no funds are to be used to transferred release or assist in the transfer. see i've always thought it was important to the military commission and our regular federal system with respect to being able to use those systems to try those who would hurt us in our country. where would make sense, we might

decide they want to try people under the federal system that we have versus the military commission system. i know a lot of people have not wanted to have that. i think there should be flexibility to be able to try these people wherever we deem it necessary. and so i would ask, mr. smith because traditionally, the ranking member has wanted to honestly, i think, shut down gitmo. so my question is to you -- >> your time is rapidly trying to a close. >> my question would be, is your intent and eliminating two -- >> her time is eliminated. >> the lady's time has expired.

mr. barber. >> yes, mr. chairman, i share concerns raised about gitmo, but i would like to yield. >> the gentleman for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i share many concerns raised, but inevitably this country has to get the job done. i'd like i'd like to get the bounce of my time to mr. smith to enumerate the steps that make sense that we can move his agenda forward. i yield the balance of my time to mr. smith. >> this is just but one step. mr. ordinary spray. we only do this every year we just do it every year as long as it's until you can't transfer the amount of guantánamo back to the u.s. cannot think any of us want to just let them go. we want to lock them up, a fair number of them. some have been deemed safe enough to transferred, but prohibition of blacks transferring back to their country as well.

the amendment is very straightforward. it does not require the guantánamo bay inmates be transferred to the u.s. it merely allows what we've done congressionally by mr. forbes is absolutely right, he got the votes. that's where the majority opinion is. certainly in the house. make no mistake it is the united states house of representatives making sure guantánamo bay stays open. if this amendment were to pass, there would at least be an option to bring them to the u.s. because there's no other place are going to set up a present of all the people we need to hold. as long as the dns and the legislation, saying the president needs to have a plan that the president has laid out a variety of plans for how to deal with it and and is likely go, legislatively. the first steps towards getting to that happy place described as

listing that ban, giving the president the opportunity. it's pretty straightforward. it does not close guantánamo. it creates the possibility of doing it. and then we have to see what the plan was to assign secret transfer them out of there, discussions over at that point. >> the channel a/d from glamis recognize her two minutes minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to make a point of clarification here to be very clear when we're talking about guantánamo and transferring them to the united states. please let aside u.s. territories because we don't want to be there. [laughter]

>> i didn't hear what she said. >> to answer your question, it's in the mark. >> its territories or possessions. that doesn't hurt to have it. answered. >> mr. garamendi is recognized for two minutes. >> a question of you, mr. chairman s. earmarked. if your intent to prohibit the release of prisoners to places other than the united states? the release or transfer of the prisoners to places other than the united states. and its territories and so forth. >> there is a separate provision and we've covered that. we have given the president the

ability if he can transfer, meet certain criteria, he has applied for using it. >> some of these prisoners, those on hunger strike were scheduled to release some more in the, but have not yet been released. looking at the language you have here, i think it may prohibit a release to anywhere. >> while the gentleman yield quite >> section 1034, page 24. >> john, will you yield? there's two separate sections. the only section that focuses on here is the ban on transfer to the u.s. a separate section on transfer to other countries does not ban it, but places restrictions. you basically have to guarantee the country you send them to will make sure that the person never re-offense. secretary gates said that they

guarantee that i cannot give and don't feel comfortable making the certification because there are no guarantees in that regard. effectively, yemen is one of the countries where there's a fairly large number and obviously yemen is not the most stable place in the world and there's concern about transferring back there whether they might reenter the battlefield is one of the restrictions. other countries are restricted as well. >> anyone else? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i have the honor of having my district tonight some interesting constituents who care about, but we do not want the guantánamo terrorists or detainees to be a colorado.

these people have flooded the geneva convention. they do not have u.s. constitutional rights. the president has admitted they are too dangerous to be released and we don't want to compromise our intelligence sources and methods by revealing that in open court. so something has to be detained eventually. the president has no solution. many of us say the solution is what we are doing right now. they run territory we control outside the u.s. in guantánamo cuba. so let's keep it that way and turned on the cement. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> if there's no further discussion on the amendment, the question is on the adoption offered that mr. smith number 244. so many us are in favor will say

aye. those opposed no. the no's habit. the recorded vote is requested. next amendment is offered by mr. andrews, numbers zero to two r1. while the clerk please pass up that amendment? without objection, reading will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the explanation presentation of the cement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. another set of issues surrounding guantánamo has to do with the cost to the american taxpayer the continuing situation and the purpose of

my -- my amendment is to not compound the mistake has dirty been made. guantánamo was deliberately created as a netherlands in august and are subject to the geneva convention or the u.s. constitution so we can make up the rules as we went along. a lot of people know a lot more about this than us have concluded that was not a very good idea. general petraeus, admiral mullen, general petraeus at guantánamo had become a recruiting device for extremists around the world. we just had a stimulating debate about what to do next the people detained there that is something they have to decide. we have to decide whether we want to continue to bear a cost that some have estimated as much as 50 times the cost of

incarcerating people in a maximum security prison. cost of incarceration in a federal maximum security prison is in the neighborhood of $34,000 a year. the cost of guantánamo is $1.6 million a year. $1.6 million a year. the president asked for $186 million for capital accounts in the market is $247 million. my amendment starts a striking $61 million or so and continues by saying let's not build more permanent facilities there. was think about this in terms of the american taxpayer. 34,000 bucks a year versus 1 million weeks a year. this is a decision i have to make. >> anyone wishes to become the

amendment? >> gentleman from virginia for two minutes. >> mr. chairman, as an amendment at the desk as i keep sent. >> we will pass that out. that is number 273, perfect in the amendment. while the clerk please distribute the? >> without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the gentleman is recognized for two minutes to explain the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment restores the dollars back into the construction project necessary, especially things like the barracks project. more than such we want to make sure we have a permanent facility there. we want to make sure that the barracks there aren't deep

permanent. we need to get information on the cost and get a briefing on that. this amendment allows the briefing to stay there, but my amendment to would reverse the prohibition on construction. that to occur concurrently. we have to get the information will continue to pursue the construction. i want to make sure it happens. i also want to make sure as we understand that we get information from the president. this amendment says we want to make sure we understand what his plan is going forward with those detainees. i want to make sure we understand that time and time again the president says they can't do what i want to do because congress passed and allowed me do that. he's never reached out to this committee with the plan. my amendment would require the president to submit a plan, including the location where he

seeks to transfer detainees identified as too dangerous to release everyone to get his proposal regarding transfer and also what is going to do with the purpose captures and also his proposal for disposition of high-value detainees currently held in afghanistan. those detainees had to go somewhere, too. this amendment brings us together, keep the projects on track while to get information, but also require the president to provide congress information about what he plans to do with detainees in the issues surrounding guantánamo. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> in a discussion on the amendment? >> thank you very much. first of all, paper is my my friend from virginia that we want to personnel to have good

places to live. there's still $1869 for that. it gets rid of the extra 60 that would create a permanent presence there. i don't think we want a permanent presence at this place. the other point here is this idea to make information is not make sense to me. i agree with the amendment saying we should get a cost accounting of what's going on and a plan for what happens in the future. i think the fact that it says let's build first, let's spend first does not make sense to me. that's how it got to the point where we spend by some estimates $1.6 million per inmate per year when it would cause $34,000 per inmate per year and a maximum

prison cited in the united states. i certainly agree with in the amendment. i disagree with the fact we got the rest of it and we go forward with my own. >> mr. lamborn, the gentleman from colorado for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. are they to briefly speak in favor of the amendment. there are permanent missions there that the marines would have besides watching detainees. there's a need to watch the entire property to make sure there's no invasion of the property. we have other seed-based missions done there as well. i would say that's a reason to consider and support the amendment. for the remainder of my time if they to yield to the gentleman from virginia. >> i thank the gentleman from colorado. there are indeed other missions,

not just detainees, but in that particular area defending the border with the country of cuba and remember, two of them make that investment, we need to look at long-term viability. if for doing this in the recent during mission, which there is, we make sure the marines to make sure we spend in a wise way, not lasting less than 10 years. let's make sure make the investment. just having been the basic school where we put in barracks i want to make sure we are indeed keeping first in line the needs of our marines may have been most dollars in there for permanent facilities and that is barracks and other areas they are, but the main album and, the main cost of this is the upgrade

of the barracks making permanent civilities we need to keep in mind and that's why it's important to understand the full $247 million in the mark. with that i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the lady from new hampshire, ms. tsongas is recognized. massachusetts. >> massachusetts, please. >> it's all up in the northeast, right? it's a long way from california wherever it is. the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i speak in opposition to the support of mr. andrews amendment. i believe we should not build permanent saudis to support detention operations at guantánamo. figure $561 million in the

department of defense plan to spend on replacing existing temporary infrastructure to construct permanent facilities at guantánamo at a time when our country safe in the negative effects of sequestration, we should work to close unnecessary facility rather than additional fun to make it permanent. at a minimum, prior to proceeding construction of replacing facilities at guantánamo bay, member should have a full accounting of the cost required to keep guantánamo bay opened, including operations and future infrastructure investments. thank you and i yield back. >> gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. two brief points. number one, we need to have the barracks, medical facilities, et cetera regardless of whether there are detainees. we need appropriate facilities for folks.

secondly, i don't think one can say this is how much it costs for a person federal prison versus this is how much it costs in guantánamo. for example, i have before me copy of the letter from the mayor of new york sent to the young one b., sanest testament would be $260 million the first tier and $206 million in subsequent years. other cities wouldn't be as extensive as here, but but the point is whether its detainee movements the u.s. marshals service would perform, fbi in the federal system, if you compare the comparison needs to be made and not for mr. whitman's trying to get out. look at the whole gamut of costs if you're going to get to what caused it in various situations. i support the amendment a beginning step to evaluate

apples versus apples. i yield back. >> mr. barber from arizona for two minutes. >> i'm speaking in favor of mr. andrews amendment seems to me than a tiny make decisions about funding a program or project, we have to know what it costs. when making decisions based upon facts. down to the detail in guantánamo we need to know that. seems to me we work across purposes. on the one hand we want to develop a plan that deals with the issues that relate to the release however they are released or prosecuted or imprisoned and at the same time we want to continue guantánamo building a bother asking the president to come up with a plan. we can't have it both ways. i want to make sure the

president presents to the congress a detailed plan of how he addresses the issues raised today and overtime about gitmo and i don't want to see us continue to build up gitmo. so i will vote against the amendment in favor of the amendment submitted by mr. andrews. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. forbes for two minutes. >> i first of all want to go for congressman whitman thornberry has said. we are going to have a permanent facility there. we are comparing apples to oranges. the third thing we've not talked about here is the tragedy we've had to the american people by not bringing people to justice that this particular point in time. we have had five of the worst heresy of this country 9/11. with the best prosecutorial

team. we talk to the prosecutor and would've had guilty verdicts on all decide individuals in this administration came in and shut it all down. all the emotions come everything they had was only when we came and told them they're going to try these cases and keep guantánamo bay if they decided they would restart cases and start to prosecute them. part of what we've had assisted industry should not knowing what they want to do. we encourage members to go see it. through it before the president out about it or the attorney general did what we found out as they were doing a good job. they were maintaining their raids. they were secured on there, but also rebuilt the facilities and he taught us he can't get those facilities in the united states.

we spent all those dollars fare. i hope will continue to do this. it's time for the administration to continue to prosecute the cases and keep these individuals that of the united states. that's what mr. whitman's offender will do them pass an amendment and continue provisions. with that i yield back. >> mr. conaway for two minutes. >> very quickly, the only permanent facilities would be the barracks. this of course would be used for a lot of things. whatever the plan comes up with is not likely he can guarantee or even mr. smith united states that would not let these guys go that we can try.

so until somebody can show me there's absolutely no possible way they can simply keep guantánamo makes the most sense. the worst of the worst, the bush administration of frustration let go of her when they could. the scars the worst. the worst of this group and anyone else. i find it interesting for arguing the cost of these things of biofuels and others are wasted and didn't seem to bother my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. we need to keep the skies in guantánamo and i yield back. >> thank you very much. i would encourage any members that haven't been there yet to go down there and see it. most of us have been there at least once. but if you haven't been, please avail yourself of the

opportunity coach to go down there. .. in one day and see firsthand exactly what is happening. it gives you a better picture of what's going on. there's no further question, the question is on the adoption of the would've been perfect in amendment many to the andrews amendment. so many us in favor will say aye. those opposed no. the ayes have it in the amendment is agreed to. the question is now on the adoption of the adoption by mr. andrews says the men it by mr. whitman. submenus are eager will say aye. those opposed to no. the ayes have it and the amendment as amended is agreed to. the next thing we have is the amendment of mr. smith number

246. while the clerk please pass out that amendment. without objection, the reading will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the explanation and offering of the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i plan to withdraw this is a sequential referral issue. we debated this on the floor, so much he the last year that has to do with the power of the objection to detain the person if they are determined to be an enemy combatant and it is my contention within the united states any person arrested should not be subject to indefinite detention. they should be subject to the due process constitutional

system. article precourt have worked repeatedly. i think it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 trust the fight against terrorist u.s. it has worked successfully. 300 of them through that process is an extraordinary amount of power to give the president the ability outside of 230 years of due process designates an enemy combatant strip tavares and indefinitely detain them. fortunately, this is a power nonexercise except in a couple temporary situations quite some years ago. it's obvious both president bush and president obama have been successfully boot to protect us and prosecute those who threaten us through the article precourt and department of justice system. to do this power of the books is

an enormous amount of power of government over individuals yet i appeal to conservatives in the sense you don't want government having power for your health care. you should want them to have power over your basic freedom. that's the power the president has to indefinitely detain people in the u.s. i do not believe in the citizens who need to militarize this way. overseas i support the drones, going after folks aggressively in that regard, but domestically we proven they are sufficient. we will renew or restart this debate on the floor next week. >> mr. chairman. the gentleman asks unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment. no objections toward her. did i hear somebody --

>> mr. chairman, strike the last word. >> the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a matter of conscience. i agree with the ranking member here having file for the bill of rights. i see this as a different main language. this is something we've had on the flurry couple of years. now is a good time to do that. i look forward to working with all my colleagues going forward. i yield back. >> pajama manuals but. it is now june 6th. it is john child ellensburg day.

[applause] >> i am not done. army ranger, battery and on our committee does a fantastic job and we really appreciate him. i am going to teach the democrats a birthday song that is our speakers birthday song, john bonners. the republicans know it, the democrats can learn it. it's not too difficult. ♪ this is your birth day saw. be smacked happy birthday. [applause] now moving right along, the next

amendment is that of mr. schuster number 256 of the clerk will please pass out that amendment. without objection, reading will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering an exciting his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. since you pointed out june 6 i find it appropriate to wish happy birthday to my mother whose birthday has just occurred. i'm sure she is now watching us here, but i will call her first thing in the morning. thank you for reminding me of

that. restocked steep explanation of the cap for contractors and many are concerned that there may be tempted to make sure the taxpayer is not getting the bill for the salaries of the executives and i support the mark and thank the chairman and ranking member for the time and effort they spend trying to understand the nuances of the situation. concern to create a situation for the defense industry has to play by different rules. i collect from washington, mr. larsen and i let the panel and doing business as dod heard time and again to bureaucracy is difficult to deal with, but much wears when contracting dod and other agencies in the federal government. my amendment would fix that and apply what is done to the old government. i believe there's there is bipartisan support of this committee. there's much support across congress that demonstrate that

the committee on oversight and government forum and the small business committee of weeks there were rate to sequester referral. there's not much strong support in this committee but across the entire house. i urge of my colleagues who support the amendment and i yield back. >> any discussion on the gentleman's amendment? if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered to mr. schuster is so many us aren't bigger will say nine. those opposed, no. the amendment is agreed to. the next amendment is mr. garamendi's amendment number 225 r2. the clerk will pass up the

amendment. without objection, the reading will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. those of us watching the situation in africa, particularly mali and other see how countries probably no violent extremist organizations in that area, some of which are associated with al qaeda often finance operations through the killing and extract diener harvesting body parts of various wildlife, specifically elephants and rhinoceros for their tusks and horns. this has led to violent extremist organizations to not only create environmental havoc, but also finance themselves in

cause social economic damage of countries. said the cement its purpose is to determine exactly what authority the department of defense may have been assisting governments in those areas in dealing with the problems they have. it does not provide any new authority that may not yet exist but rather calls upon the department of defense to determine if there is authority where the authority might arise and if not, what authority they might need to assist those countries that have problems with these violent extremist organizations. that's it. doesn't provide any new authority that may not exist. this is a step in attempting to deal with a very serious problem, but even more so a military problem. i would ask for a aye does so

this can proceed. >> the gentleman from texas for two minutes. >> i just suggest you make two points of concern on this amendment. number one is this is the sort of thing handled best with a phone call in a briefing about the authority that may access rather than another report. number two, the specific funds targeted here at 1206 and the global security contingency fund are already stretched focusing on existing counterterrorism operations cannot release the gentleman is trying to make a connection when he talks about these terrorist groups use to fund their activities. the concern i would have is if

the department we are pushing them towards greater involvement and came in for a snack, that will stretch these funds further they can be stretched and threaten existing enforcement. i understand the point the gentleman is making, but the very limited funds in those two accounts can only go so far and where they are used right now is for the core counterterrorism and i was certainly not one the department to did we want them to expand in other areas and reduce effectiveness in those areas. i think there's a number of government agencies that help these countries that game and wildlife enforcement perhaps it would be best to look to them to do that. i yield back. >> anyone else wishing to speak

on the amendment? if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. garamendi as so many are in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. no's habit and the amendment is not agreed to. the next amendment is mr. garamendi's number 261. with the clerk please pass up that amendment. without objection, the reading will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of explaining his or her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. given my success today, i'll ask my cosponsors, mr. kaufman and gibson to present us. >> strike glasswork,

mr. chairman. >> i yield my remaining time to mr. gibson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this is due at 1251 language in the bill with regard to syria. the chairman can correct me if i am wrong, but the intent of the language was to show support for friends and allies in the region with regard to securing weapons of mass destruction, specifically chemical and biological weapons in the event we need to move in that direction. when you take a look at the language here, we've done more than that. i have concerns with the language. i want to thank the chairman. you have addressed the most concerning port that nothing in

this bill authorizes the use of military force, sought to express my appreciation to the chairman for doing that. if you look at .8 in 1251, should they employ assets, president should write a sensible budget. be supportive of the budget if their action. my issue is that only implies the decision to make and that's our to make. thank you for having the clarifying language. other aspects concern me. sub paragraph on says president obama should consider courses of action from power to meet that juxtaposition of words appears we move towards regime change there, which i don't think is what we mean to say here. subparagraph three tax planning and operational preparation

given my background that concerns me the lack of definition is that paragraph 5 talks about continue to support syrian opposition forces is not legally. this is something i'm not comfortable with because i don't think we've done that. we should strike is language in the back to the original and 10 of the chairman and without i yield back. >> i have 17 seconds, so mr. kaufman would like to take that and then perhaps his own time. >> i also rise in support of the amendment. there's intervening months before the nba is finally adopted. the situation could genetically change in syria and its best the administration come back to the congress asked for the war powers act to make the case should they decide to intervene.

>> i yield back my time, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields that. mr. conway, the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is clear from the previously adopted en bloc amendment that this is not any permission to go to war with syria. the president has stated over and over the use of chemical weapons in public reporting from britain and france is the facts weapons have been used in syria. we know what that means and our allies to what it means. the folks in syria don't know what that means either. i don't see anything in here because the way any power from congress to decide what we ought to optimally do and i find the arguments unpersuasive we should strike those section to a sense of congress that these things had to go down and provide a

planning tool that would be used to look at the options. when the president of the united states plus it doesn't do anything. when he doesn't back those things out, that harms our reputation in the world for a variety of reasons and i think there's no harm in leaving the session and i was speak again strike in the session. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. smith, the children from washington is recognized for two minutes. >> to speak in opposition as well, not necessarily the same reason as mr. conaway. i don't think the language is quite as strong as he defined. the majority were closely to soften the language to basically say this is basic etiquette problem in syria. the president should look at all

possible options for how we improve it. it's not something we should work, but nothing in here s. or pushes us in the direction of further military action and i think the staff were having were to make sure they got that language calm down so it doesn't do that. i have in the past been concerned about for bellicose language about other countries and situations that we all know from past experience in iraq the dangers of calling for regime change in strong military action without understanding the specifics. this does not do that. we work hard to make sure the language acknowledges the problem in the fact that the u.s. can help it should look for options and this is sufficiently neutral to the benign manner

without doing any damage and i oppose the amendment to strike at. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott is recognized. >> i would like to remind everybody that it is military assets without coming before congress prior to do that and i would suggest that mr. chairman is to go forward and should decide to employ asset to provide a budget request to congress prior to taking any such action as we go forward. i hope we as a country don't get suckered into the conflict in that country. with that i oppose the amendment would hope is to go forward to put to stronger language in there. thank you. i yield back. >> the gentlelady from illinois

illinois -- indiana. try to move you, too. >> it's okay. it's a hoosier state. under speed quickly in opposition as well. section 1251 cause for a policy that supports israel. not only poses a threat, but is also terribly serious crusty red line and we should support those in congress are in 1251 defeat the amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> general video that. mr. massey of new york. >> mr. chairman, would like to speak and behavior of the amendment and not so much i disagree up everything in this section, but i'm not sure if this is the proper venue. i don't want to see what is a general and important authorization bill become a place where we discuss or debate

the merits of anything in syria. that said, i complement the chairman and ranking member for developing language that is fairly innocuous on the last it would be better to be in a different vehicle. i yield back. >> any further discussion of the amendment? ms. davis recognized for two minutes. >> we all know how extremely difficult this issue is that i wanted to yield to mr. garamendi for additional comment since he yielded to his counterparts. i appreciate the bipartisan effort as well. >> thank you. the reason i took this step was to cause us to think seriously about what i come about as a result not only of the language

but a result of this serious problem happening in syria. we need to exercise authority about going to war. ..

to withdraw his amendment. no objection, so ordered. >> next i ask unanimous consent to call up package number two consisting of amendments approved by the minority side. without objection, so ordered. will the clerk pass out the amendment, in the ploch package number two -- end block package number two. this is amendment 0017 by mr. andrews to strike

section 1036 of the underlying bill. amendment number 036 by mr. larsen to designate a dov senior official for the management transfer of individuals the team that u.s. naval station guantanamo bay cuba to the amendment 051 by ms. sanchez to require the dod to share information on planning guidance and contingency plans. amendment number 080 by mr. frank's to expend the sense of congress of the military will evaluate possible engagement with the burmese military as u.s. policy rebalanced word asia. amendment number 117 to require the dod to provide a briefing to the congress the telling the scope of the people's liberation army participation. how this participation is consistent restrictions on the

fiscal year to require that the chief defense counsel and the chief prosecutor serving at the same length. amendment number 139 to require a report on the capability of the government to detain the rehabilitating prosecuting individual at guantanamo who are transferred to yemen. amendment number one to require the secretary defense to withhold the dod assistance to afghanistan. an amount equal to 100% of all taxes assessed by afghanistan at the extent such taxes are not reimbursed by afghanistan would grant the secretary waiver. amendment number 167 to request a report on the attachment of any constitutional or immigration read right to the individual detained at

guantanamo if such individual were transferred to the u.s. and amendment 179 by mr. conaway to require the secretary defense to provide congress with a report on the individuals held at the the guantanamo naval station who have been released and become leaders in the foreign terrorist group. amendment to 62 to express a sense of congress maintaining the united states base is critical to meeting the national security requirements among other things. without objection, the and block the amendment is before the members. is there any discussion on this package? >> if there is a discussion on the in the block amendment, the question is on the passage of the amendment offered by the end. so many in favor will say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. next we have an amendment by mr. smith. number 136 if the clerk will please pass that amendment out. without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with the chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. on the phrase i know i'm going to lose, but that's probably not the best approach. this has to do with the amphibious vehicles that for two years now the department of defense has tried to mothball and we have insisted that they keep them operational.

it is the department of defense argument that the money can be better spent elsewhere on upgrading destroy years and perhaps even having the funds to send the battle groups out had they not been able to spend. in an ideal world we would keep them functioning but we are not in an ideal world we are in a sequestration world and will spare you the argument, and i would even put aside the argument but mr. forbes whose fault it may be we are where we are but we are. sequestration is going to happen they tie their hand in this manner and undermine their ability on the strategic places. the net effect from last year when we prohibited them off all of these seven cruisers they are not doing anything with them

because it is the opinion for them to be useful they would have to be modified and they don't have the money to modify them. so to have them set on the money more wisely to build more ships. the battle group where it would be useful and they wouldn't see them decommissioned but the budget is tough choice and the dod made the right trace on this and we shouldn't be reversing it on support for the amendment. >> the german yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. >> there are many things the united us yesterday and this morning, but this is one that will not. first of all the ranking member mentioned these were going to be mothballed and dismantled and

destroyed. second we had to put the money and for modernization and it is not accurate. it's the navy hadn't been that money because they made a unilateral decision not to do it the the second thing we need to realize is the independent study says we need 346 ships in the needy. we have morals that testify we need 400 ships in the needy. they said we need it won't be completed until 2037. the president of the united states would be 60-years-old at that time and according to his plan he is a 4 billion-dollar deficit for every year for the next 40 years and they have no idea how they are going to make it up. let me talk that the capacity. first of all in 2007 we met 90% of the combat commanders mean last year we will meet 50 percent. when you look at the capacity here's why.

these ships, the cruisers represent twice the capability of the entire british navy. we are tearing them apart. and they have a ten to 15 year useful life on them. it's cheaper to modernize the capabilities and keep the ships and the fleet because we need to keep the peace to tear them up and rebuild them. with that mr. trump and we have to reject this amendment and support the mark that we have losers in and with that on your back. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to get something straight. these are being deployed and will continue to be kidding if you look at where the needs are for this nation and the number of ships we need buy any measure it is over 300. if we allow them to be retired,

the fleet goes down to wondered 70 ships. let me tell you to of those nine are amphibious ships. and the marine corps says it leads the league needs at least 34 amphibious ships. with the to be tiring of the fleet goes down to 26. they cannot meet their requirement of landing to marine corps expeditionary brigades. what we are saying is when we ask them to go somewhere we aren't going to have them necessary to deliver them and to support them and make sure the sealift capability is there. i can tell you if we don't stand and make sure they have a commitment to keep as many chips as we can they have ten years of life and continued down the road and retire the ships that early and then believe somehow what little bit we might save from that in the short term and i

argue it's only very short-term because we don't get the full service life out that we paid full price for but we will not have the ships at hand to think about it. we don't have the capability. when it comes time for building new ships. the ships are supposed to have 40 years setting this pattern of retiring them early. the of two under the 70 ships by fy 15 by any measure that is unacceptable. with that i yield back. >> the chairman now recognizes the gentleman from connecticut in the northeast. unlike the debate we had yesterday i'm actually going to support the ranking member in

this amendment and i think as he planned out all of our preference if we had our others would be to keep the ships and modernize and extend. on march 4th we had the sequester going to effect and we had the uss harry s. truman sitting in virginia rather than the middle east because it is the account that is basically subject to this chainsaw that is going for the navy's budget. we can sort of find somewhere, the money to extend these cruisers and also meet the real mission requirements were out there right now. it's just not there. mr. forbes is correct $2.4 million was put into last year's budget to keep these ships operational. but the problem is the navy needs even more than that. and they've told us that at the sea power committee repeatedly. 2.8 billion more dollars to meet

the operational requirements to get the ships modernized and moving and we don't have that capacity right now. it's just not there. and there's higher priorities as the ranking member of that we should make sure the middle east is covered because right now what's not and the deployment has been canceled because of sequestration. we have six to 800,000 dod employees who are losing furlough days because we have been incapable of responding to what is obviously affecting military readiness in this country and it's time for us to start facing reality rebalance their budget and we have a 15 cruisers that will still be in the fleet that can accompany the carrier strike force and do the important job they do, so i applaud the amendment.

>> the gentleman's time is expired. from florida mr. miller is recognized. >> i think we need to continue this discussion and i will yield my time to mr. forbes. >> mr. chairman, just to again, that the record, we did put in the budget last year and in the authorization of the money necessary to do the modernization and operate these vessels were to in years. the question comes down to very simply this, what size needy do you want to meet these needs? the statistic that ought to steer you in the eye is the fact that in 2007 we met 90% of the combat commanders requirement. this year we will need 50%. and as mr. wittman pointed out, if you want and need to continue on the line that we are going, then vote for this amendment and we will take that out. but if we need them down the road, somebody's going to come back to this night and say why did we make such a foolish

mistake as to the tearing apart and dismantle ships that had ten to 15 years of life left within them. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the gentleman yields back. when the pay, commander was here testifying before the committee, in discussing the switch and strategy where the president says he wants to switch to a specific strategy, the admiral pointed out if you take the geography of the pacific ocean, you can fit all the land masses in the earth on side that and have room left over for africa and australia. there is a pretty vague area. we are talking about shifting to that kind of a strategy with the smaller navy. i just think that is something that when we talk about facing reality, it's something we ought

to be paying attention to. any more discussion on that? gentlemen? if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. smith. so many as are in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. next we have an amendment from ms. tsongas of massachusetts. >> you got it right. thank you. >> number 164. if the clerk will please pass that amendment out. without objection the reading will be dispensed with. the chair recognizes the gentlelady for the purpose of offering and explaining her

amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. i intend to withdraw this amendment i would like to take a moment to discuss it because it addresses an important issue. i offered this amendment because a serious loophole in the acquisition process that is costing us american manufacturing jobs while limiting the ability of u.s. military personnel to train and american maid southwick footwear. the purpose of my amendment was to close the loophole and ensure the men and women in the dress armed forces are provided american made athletic shoes upon their arrival at the basic training. as you may know congress passed an amendment in 1941 to ensure american soldiers trained and operated in the greatest extent possible with american need uniforms and equipment. when they first enter service to our men and women are provided with dress uniforms, combat uniforms and physical training

uniforms to get these items are uniform standard items determined by the dod, and for decades that the apparel and footwear for each of these uniforms was american made as required by law. however, since 2002, the dod circumvented the policy by issuing cash allowances to the new recruit for the training shoes. by understand past concerns were raised about the availability of domestic sourcing. however, there is now a 100% very compliant on the market at a price of $60, $6 left in the current army allowance of $74 that requires no waivers and there is also at least one other company that currently provide 100% of the afflictions. however i also understand there are concerns about the adequacy of domestic sourcing at this exact moment in time and addressing the concerns and language is technically challenging particularly given

the late hour. i greatly appreciate the willingness of your staff to work with me on this mr. chairman, and i hope i can count on your continuing to support as we prepare for the consideration next week. i ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. >> we ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. no objection, so ordered. next we have the turner amendment number 099 if the clerk will pass the amendment out. without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from ohio for the purpose of offering in explaining his amendment to

read as you know this is an on controversial amendment that was originally to be included on the long block amendments because both had agreed that was not controversial. however, he is individually objected to being quoted and we are going to have to review it and vote on it. this is an amendment that states what we all know is the importance of our forward basing of troops in europe. we all know of their functions in support of our operations in africa, afghanistan, the least, the essential nature of the forces are doing. this amendment doesn't specify the structure, it acknowledges the operations going. there are many that are fond of running the floor and saying there are no use for the troops in europe because the soviet union doesn't exist and all of the troops are just merely waiting for it in decades of the troops to come that aren't the

don't even exist anymore. that has everyone on the committee knows isn't the case there's an insult troops in europe because we all know that they are actively engaged in the central for the overall national security. this amendment states the essential nature of those operations and certainly should have the full support of the entire committee as it had won a was included by the chairman and the ranking member kiri >> anyone wish to speak on the amendment? >> the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. >> my concern is certainly not about our participation in the north atlantic treaty organization come and not about type of presence in europe. it's the nature of the type we

have come i was there as a soldier myself. i was their leader on as a marine officer that the notion of not using a rotational forces of having to establish a permanent type of presence when we have a up larger footprint that is necessary where we are supporting the housing and supporting the medical facilities for dependence which are not necessary i think marine corps has a better model than the u.s. army where the accused rotational forces to deploy and then come back, when we talk

about having excess capacity for the bases here in the united states it seems ridiculous to maintain the type of presence that we have, and so i would like to yield the balance of my time to mr. gibson. >> i appreciate the opportunity to be i will tell you i'm not sure i see the need for the amendment. i happen to disagree with that as well but i'm not sure that i see the point of it. i certainly can envision other ways we can go on about advancing our national security interest rather than a permanent forward base. mr. chairman, i request to strike the last word and continue to speak. >> we will put you in line.

mr. wittman is recognized for two minutes. >> i would like to speak in favor of the amendment. as we all know, the need for our forces in europe is dictated not just by the relationship we have with nato, but it's also demand by the combatant commands. by the africom command, and having traveled there to see what that need is common and listening to the centcom commanders and the africom commanders. we'll understand it's more than just that support of nato and it isn't the presence that's there in the old sense, the cold war sense where we need to be there in case of threats by the russians. we see that the structure has changed. the number of bases has dwindled down to be very small. we see the base consolidations to see the footprint shrinks significantly. we've gone from 300,000 troops now down to 73,000 in 2013 with a continual evaluation of what is the need in europe and we

ought to continue to look at the need to read but i think that to say somehow the meat isn't there isn't looking at the issue that we have before us. remember, too, there are needs in that region. when we have a call to help defend the folks that are part of this nation's presence wherever it may be. whether it's in this he's like libya, where do we call if the call goes there to the europeans. if the call goes to conis, guess what? it isn't hours response, it is days response bigot we want to make sure we are just reiterating that, making sure that it's properly size, that it's properly focused come should be part of it. but to say that this amendment isn't necessary to restate the importance of it i think misses the mark and with that mr. chairman i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york,

mr. gibson, for two minutes. >> thanks, mr. chairman. i think it is a fact that when you go back to the origins of nato and the pledges that were made in terms of commitment and gdp words national security that the european countries have not lived up to what they said they were going to commit to their national security. we essentially picked that up recognizing it was in our interest to do so. but i am just saying that i think there are other ways to think about how we advance of a national security and i certainly respect that i don't share the same view as mr. turner. i would hope he will say the same in return to it i don't see the need for the same. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah mr. bishop. >> thank you mr. chairman. having dealt with several allies especially germany before coming

to congress and being a part of the nato assembly, sometimes i've learned a great deal and one of which is we underestimate the threat this nation actually has and sometimes oversimplify. and with that, mr. chairman i would like to deal with the remainder of my time to mr. turner. >> i think if you look at the amendment it's clear that this doesn't specify any force structure. it simply mirrors the importance of the presence that we have their and our current operations and everyone of us line certain has been to europe and has been with our troops in europe and at the spaces and the understand the importance to every one of the operations that goes right to the heart of the national defense authorization act and capability that we expect the department of defense to be able to deliver a around the world coming and we know from that the importance of the facilities and assets we have in your not.

>> with the gentleman yield? >> who's asking? i'm sorry. mr. kaufman, yes. >> can you tell me the significance of having a brigade combat team in europe, which is not an expeditionary unit? >> reclaiming my time. this amendment doesn't deal with any of the issues to what the force structure is. but i can tell you why don't think anybody on this entire committee regardless of the service or experience is that has the background and expertise to be able to inspect with a force structure of europe should be. and we shouldn't be doing that in the debates on the house floor. but we should be acknowledging with the troops are doing on the house floor and how essentials tiahrt the current operations and that is what this will allow us to do.

the gentleman yields back. i think they can get a pretty concise answer to the question that mr. kaufman asked. i think it has been mentioned also that we know we are at war. we know we have troops going outside the white your everyday in afghanistan and when they are wounded seamlessly -- seriously. they are brought there until they are able to be brought home. we have an airbase and some pretty important bases and people that are there for a quicker response and were able to meet. we had a lot of talk about benghazi and why we were not able to respond quicker. we were not in the response time we are now. we would be all of lot further

away if we brought everyone home to southern california, which i think i would be a great place to bring them all but it doesn't make sense when we are facing the things we are around the world. any further discussion on the amendment? the gentleman from virginia. >> i would like to speak in support of the amendment. mr. turner made a good point. this is something that brings us together when you were talking about democrats and republicans in the heritage foundation. the problem with this argument that we should pull out of gear up is if you buy into the 112th sound bite that this is just about protecting europe or it's going to save the cost, then it takes a while to explain that the bottom line is heritage foundation points out it's going to embolden the adversaries if we do that and seconded reduces our ability and stability not the protection of europe and the

cost savings are deceptive because we don't factor in the additional infrastructure in the cost of rotating units. but the other thing we need to remember is this is a strategic for us in europe. it gets us faster where we are. when you look at the first response is they came out of europe and the base is there. first responses come out of your up when we, are there. that's why it's important. i appreciate the fact mr. turner would bring this up because we do have to have this discussion but i think we need to realize it is vitally important to our interest, not your up, that we have the troops and facilities and i hope that we will support this amendment. with that i yield back. >> any further discussion on the amendment? if not the question is on the adoption offered by mr. turner to get so many of them in favor will say aye.

those opposed will say attend. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. >> next amendment is that of mr. gerimendi. please distribute the amendment giving it >> without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california to explain his amendment. >> in february of this year the department of defense issued a contract for about half a billion dollars for the purchase of some 20 aircraft for the

afghanistan military. those aircraft are of brazillian manufactured planning with some work done in the united states. those of us the interested in enhancing the american manufacturing sector should be aware that if this is a record contract of record, then the likelihood is there are going to be many other aircraft manufacturers overseas perhaps finished here in the united states. so the amendment is very simple and it simply says that the contract that was awarded under the ability program does not establish a record of program. that would then require the military to go back if they wanted to purchase more of these for american troops or the military to go back in the process and hopefully by the

american made planes. i know there's controversy about this come about the question of where are we going to manufacture the combat aircraft is most going to be done overseas in this case brazil. it's a program of record issued this amendment would simply say that this contract does not establish a program of record. with that, oddly yield back. >> does anyone wish to address the amendment? >> the gentleman from nevada is recognized for two minutes to the islamic art and there are important myths that need to be dispelled. first-come of the 829 aircraft is the brazillian design just like a losing was a swift base this line. however the program award was to find a contractor in the corporation which is a u.s. corporation and the aircraft will be built in florida also by

the ear holding a u.s. corporation. it creates zero new jobs outside of the country. the program now twice does not result in any of shelling and in fact the program creates new businesses in the united states bringing high-tech jobs home and a global market space where aircraft is precisely what is needed. las aircraft is supported by 1400 american aerospace workers and suppliers across the united states. at the bottom line is unlike the many victims who offshore jobs to mexico, sierra nevada corporation and of bringing jobs to the united states to defeat the amendment i yield back. >> anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? >> on adoption of the amendment those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no.

thus the eight have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> the next amendment is that of number 226. will the clerk please distribute that amendment? reading of the amendment will be dispensed with and the chair recognizes the gentleman from california to explain his amendment. the united states is trying to figure out what to do with the gun used 36 metric concept plutonium weapons-grade plutonium that we have stored. the program was developed in

south carolina to do that issue. unfortunately, it hasn't proven to be in a cost-effective or even completed. recently the administration has decided to downsize the appropriation from this plant. i will give you time to do next. the plant is way over budget and continuing to escalate in cost. with this amendment does is request the nuclear security agency provide a complete study on how to proceed. that bill determines it adds a couple of additional things to be studied, to change what is

already happening but rather provide greater opportunity for solutions to very serious problems. that is the appropriate disposal of this weapons-grade plutonium. so i would ask that this amendment be adopted so that we would have a more complete understanding of the options that are available to us including continuing on the path we are on as expensive and as it has been. it might think the objection is not to be the baseline pledge your in addition i will let mr. wilson take that up. >> the gentleman from south carolina is recognized.

>> i seek time and opposition. frequently facilities are 60% completed to the extensive studies have been carried out and another one would simply drive up the cost by delaying the construction further. the project fulfills international obligations we have with the russian federation for nonproliferation and nuclear cleanup, environmental cleanup. i asked the officials on numerous occasions what method other than the fuel they would pursue. the reason is there hasn't been an alternative study since last alternative was studied back by the of original national academy of sciences report in the 1990's

the weapons-grade plutonium happens in the facility there or through a mobilization. therefore the study would be a waste of time because there are no new technologies to this disposable plutonium. the country's weapons grade plutonium we need to connect to finding efficiencies and savings within the program and we need finished the facility. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment and yield the balance of my time. >> the question is offered on the adoption. so many in favor will say aye. huffpost, no. the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to.

mr. johnson, number 217. will the clerk please distribute the amendment. without objection reading the amendment will be dispensed with and the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you. i intend to withdraw my amendment and hope we will consider the possibility of the further examination. my amendment seeks to promote military readiness in the gulf region the viability of the u.s. navy's fleet. this amendment simply direct the defense department to develop and report on contingency planning options. such planning is imperative to become severe enough to jeopardize personnel.

the political situation in bahrain has remained deeply tenuous. repression and ongoing serious human rights violations in the country continue to protest which pulled the potential to escalate and severely undermined given the absence of meaningful reforms, the possibility for violent civil unrest is very real and could endanger the u.s. military and diplomatic personnel. in the military preparedness the bottom line is clear the gradual political environment in bahrain with that i would ask for

unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. >> the gentleman yields back his time and ask again must consent to withdraw his amendment. the next amendment is that of number 223. the clerk will pass out that amendment. without objection the reading will be dispensed with and recognize the gentleman from california for the purpose of explaining his amendment. i will withdraw the amendment given what happened but somebody suggested when i took this offer some three years ago that i carry around one of these things called the united states constitution which has been

handy to carry around in my pocket and this was the third or fourth point i had. in the land or the naval forces in the militia. amendment number six all criminal prosecutions accused shall enjoy the right to expedient public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district in the crime committed. unfortunately come in the current law, and in this national defense authorization act there are clauses that ask for the indefinite detention of a person arrested in the united states and held indefinitely without trial. so, for those of you -- and i think we started out the session. it was the last session, and we

started this session in the constitution, but we didn't get to the bill of rights. had we got into the bill of rights somebody would have read the fifth and sixth amendment. inherent in the bill but we are going to pass tonight is a direct contribution to the united states constitution, the bill of rights. so i will withdraw my amendment and ask for unanimous consent to do so. and so i will. >> the gentleman yields back his time and ask for unanimous consent to withdraw. with no objection, so ordered. next amendment is that of number 220. will the clerk please pass that amendment out?

>> without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with and the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for purpose of exploiting his amendment. >> there's probably no other committee that has already to spend so much money or at least authorized the expenditure as much money as this committee. in this bill, we are proposing to spend a whole lot of money on the afghanistan security force in their army. in fact it is supposed to be spent on equipment to be delivered from somewhere to some place in afghanistan. i don't know how much corruption we need before we begin to blow the whistle and say timeout. so this amendment would withhold 2.6 billion of the $7.7 billion,

which is 51% increase from year to year in funding for the afghanistan national security forces. the money to be spent on stuff, airplanes, equipment, purchased from unknown places perhaps places like russia or pakistan. i don't know, we don't know where the money is coming from and we certainly don't know how the afghanistan army is going to maintain these airplanes. where are they going to maintain them and even to service them service withholds the $2.6 billion until such time as we are given clarity on how, where and who is going to make them available and how it is going to be maintained to be a kind of be curious about the potential corruption associated

with another $2.6 billion being spent on equipment for the afghanistan army or maybe it's for the political leaders in that country. so that's the amendment. if the gentlemen and ladies of the committee would like to blow another $2.6 billion, then oppose this amendment. i asked for a aye vote and yelled back my time. >> any other discussion of the amendment? >> i want to speak in favor of the amendment. we've been investing so much

including infrastructure and schools and roads and now other kinds of things. i don't know there is no sense of when it will end. we need all those things here unfortunately. and so, i would like to note we could use that money for some of the things maybe we've been talking about a we haven't been able to afford for a bag united states, so i strongly support the amendment of the gentleman from california. and i would also note it doesn't say we won't do any of those it simply requires a report to document exactly how these are going to be used, and i would hope to explain why it is essential to our national defense that we continue this. i think it's a very modest amendment, but it does bring up these more important points and i will yield back the balance of my time.

>> the intent is very laudable, however the committee as i mentioned at the beginning of the markup has a longstanding tradition requiring other committees to waive the sequential referral and this is done so we can proceed directly to the house after we pass here to the committee, however that has not been done on this amendment. so i must rule your well intentioned amendment out of order. >> may i ask the german question? >> since you have ruled this out of order we are going to then pass a bill that allows for the expenditure of $2.6 billion for airplanes related equipment to be spent this year, this coming year in afghanistan? is that the meaning of your ruling whacks

>> we are complying with the president's request for the afghan security forces. the reason your amendment out of order is because you haven't gotten the waiver from the foreign affairs committee which has jurisdiction over this. >> this has the sequential referral -- >> the next amendment -- that of mr. johnson, number 236. will the clerk please pass out the amendment. without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from

georgia for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment at the provision that should have been included in the finest place. we should be absolutely clear that the u.s. policy in afghanistan and iraq has never included permanent bases and will never include permanent basis. that is why my amendment says no funding under the bill can be used to establish any permanent installation on the base in afghanistan. before i go on i would like to acknowledge the longstanding leadership that my colleague has provided over the years on this issue. this amendment is critical in fighting the perception in afghanistan that we are an occupying army. that perception fuels the insurgents and the taliban and makes our troops more vulnerable we need to make it perfectly clear that there will be no permanent u.s. military presence

in afghanistan. my amendment will please this bill clearly in line with no permanent bases, proficient historical incorporated into the defense authorizations and defense appropriations measures. this provision has been signed into law on numerous occasions by both president bush and president obama and i would like also to highlight that these same provisions were most recently included in h.r. 1473 that passed by the house and it was passed and signed by president obama on april 15th of 2011. the white intend to withdraw my amendment to to the regional issue, i look forward to a vote before the full house. thank you. i ask for your unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

>> we ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. without objection, so ordered. next is that of mr. johnson, number 235 p and it will the clerk please pass out that amendment. >> without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with and the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia for the purpose of operating in explaining his amendment for two minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i intend to withdraw this amendment as well but i hope that my colleagues will consider the possibility of further examination on this issue. this is a simple amendment and it states that nothing in this bill can be construed as an authorization for the use of military force against iran. this is necessary because of the talk about iran in the chamber and in this town that is growing

louder and louder. the decision to use military force must be made with the consent of the congress and the american people. by clarifying that this bill does not authorize the use of military force against iran we can make clear that the congress continues to prefer engagement and diplomacy over for us and that only the congress can make a final determination to use force. i urge my colleagues to consider this issue once again due to the referral issue. i want to thank you for considering this and i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the motion. will the clerk please pass out

that amendment. the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment for two minutes. >> with the amendment does is it gives the department authority in afghanistan to the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. right now they do not have the authority when they recognize the corrupt contractor or a contractor that even has relations with the taliban. so it takes right now an average of 333 days to go through the process when they refer an action to the department of defense. and so, the problem with this legislation is that it has to go to the committee on the

government on the oversight and government reform and so i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and i will be offering it as a sustainable bill. >> with no objection, so ordered number 271 will clark pass that bill out? the chair recognizes for two minutes the gentleman from tennessee for the purpose of offering in explaining his amendment. >> amendment to 75. if sequestration had been imposed by a foreign power, we would view it as an act of war. the first place should be to lift the cuts. we have the ability to do that if we have the guts.

but failing that we should at least give the pentagon the flexibility. every witness we have heard from this year has told us we are facing a hollow force he said he was already facing the chaos and he was not exaggerating. the secretary of defense have warned us about this and what have we done? 16 hours into this market up, we are finally facing the real issue before this committee. there's got to be positive action taken by the committee to but least give the troops the men and women uniform some flexibility. it couldn't be simpler amendment. it is just one sentence. it gives discretion in the

national interest to the cumulatively move $20 billion. the effect of sequestration is $40 billion plus this would allow him to alleviate half of that arbitrary stupidity because as you all know each navy ship is a activity. how can you cut each eight to 12% this is insanity and so far the committee hasn't done anything about it. this is a start and it couldn't be more completely bipartisan. and if this committee doesn't stand up to the armed services, hooley is going to do it? if others can suggest a better means, please let me know. in the meantime, this is all you are going to be allowed to vote on in this markup of 16 hours to save our troops. as you know deutsch to the

sequential rules amendments have to be crafted in a way that you can get an accession procedurally in this committee. and we will have to work with others in congress in both houses to get the job done. but let's begin the job tonight. let's not swallow the sequestration whole. let's not accept a hollow force. america deserves better than that. i've been complaining about this and hearing since february. this is our chance. this is our only chance to read if not now, when? and i am sorry it is 1:30 in the morning before we face of the elephant in the room. the serious question that this committee faces. how are you going to answer that reporter's question when i ask you some time over the next year or two because sequestration is

a nine year deal. how are you going to answer that question? what did you do to protect our military from sequestration? this is your answer please vote for this amendment. >> i have a question of the gentleman on the amendment. is this basically you are just reprogramming 20 billion to give them flexibility in the pentagon? >> to avoid the sequential referral there are ways that if you mention the budget control act you have to get the wafers from other committees. in the national interest give the power to move money around otherwise you're going to be faced with thousands of arbitrary and sometimes crippling stupidities that sequestration will put on our own military. and this committee will have done nothing to stop it.

>> thank you very much. mr. rogers is recognized. >> i will support the amendment and hope my colleagues will do the same. >> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> if i may, i certainly support the intent of the amendment. i guess my question would be wouldn't it make sense to give the authority to bring before the program a plan before they would actually spend that money and possibly let us approve what they brought before us on that plan? >> the would be the sensible thing but when the command has already testified to us he is already in chaos on these problems we don't have that large of time and i'm worried

unless we laid down a marker here tonight that we might be dominated for example by our own appropriators were white folks on the senate side that are not paying attention like this committee is trying to do because this is serious stuff and i wasn't exaggerating earlier this would be viewed as an act of war to be we shouldn't give america a hollow force and we are about to unless we give them flexibility. >> i certainly support the intent of the amendment. as a member of congress i would like to see what they intended to do with that money. with that i will deal with the remainder of my time. >> let me just encapsulate little bit of that. this gentleman presenting this amendment is a very serious member of congress, and i have the utmost respect for him and he is really trying to do something here to help this problem that we are confronting.

it doesn't really -- i wish it did solve the problem and would do this all in a very simple and straightforward matter we are dealing with 487 billion kutz so that's 50 billion that they are dealing with and the military said they could deal with it made on top of that we have another 50 billion of six or 500 billion of cuts which totally kutz indiscriminately every line-item and there was $50 billion this year. to give full discretion for 20 billion that really doesn't solve the problem. what we need to do is get rid of the sequestration.

when we passed the spending bill , it goes when we did pass that and the appropriators pass the bill, the defense appropriation bill, we did give the department latitude discretionary leeway in funding for the rest of this year, plus we told them if you will come back to us with a request for reprogramming we would be glad to work with you on that. and i think weren't we down at the white house -- it's been a couple months at least now and

he said he was good to be bringing the reprogramming within a week or two come and they really needed quickly because they were going to be short on cash. they were not able to get that back until a week and a half ago. and it's about $9 billion. i guess what i'm trying to say is this is a very complicated thing. they couldn't decide among themselves between them on what to ask for in that aid and a half billion dollars they brought up to that. there is a way to deal with programming.

you deal with 20 billion. >> reprogramming is limited to 3.5 billion accumulative for a year and 3.5 billion is just a drop in the bucket if you are worried about 20 billion being enough, we need to enlarge the number and that would give you and their ranking member -- >> we are already grappling with the eight and a half or the 9 billion that they have sent at this point that we are still struggling with. mr. turner the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> i want to go back to what mr. scott said and i agree wholeheartedly there is a danger in this. many of us oppose for the sequestration and they are now seeing the fact that it brings in these indiscriminate cuts but what needs to happen is it needs

to be set aside not in the department of defense to be given broad discretion, the money need to be put back not just moving within and to give the department of defense have the authority of this broad number many of the initiatives we put in the bill could suddenly go away and be stopped. things we think are important that we voted unanimously to have the department of defense do, they could step aside and say we have a $20 million of authority to undo and we have let's say sequestration is a remedy, this provision would remain in law and continue to pass sequestration being back filled and continue with the department of defense having a broad brush pan about without any connection or oversight from congress. i agree with the comment there are mechanisms the congress is

involved in reprogramming but we shouldn't give authority. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> on the appropriations money that we passed, didn't deal with sequestration. it gave the appropriations bill and then sequestration cut on top of it. it didn't get many flexibility so we are going through trying to figure out how to do with sequestration without any flexibility. second, and you can correct me if i'm wrong what you are doing here is expanding the reprogramming authority. that reprogramming authority still has to be approved by the four committees in congress, white house, senate and often rising. so we are not completely just throwing it open to them.

i am sympathetic to the idea of the greater flexibility and i think you overstate slightly. both in terms of how important it is and the fact we have done a couple important things the past 16 hours its $20 million. it's helpful. it's not the be all and end all of solving the problem. they still have to cut the money and live within. it helps them a little bit. i don't think it helps as much as you stated. the other problem is the department of defense isn't the only one facing this problem. every other agency is on this box and we would be getting special treatment. we do what we can do. when we get to the floor we talk about doing it more broadly defined legitimately undecided about the amendment. i want to make sure that everyone understood when you are

doing here. it's not quite as broad or as a panacea that it might have been. we have to approve and the pentagon has to figure out what is as the chairman pointed out a relatively small amount of money in terms of this total sequestration number. >> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> a couple questions on sequestration the last 16 hours or so we have been doing important work specifically spending over $600,000,000,000.100 billion more than that if we recount of the expenditures in afghanistan and related things the what happened in the state department and the rest basically we have refused to make decisions, the

tough decisions about what money was actually available to us, and so we spend. i talk about 2.6 billion for the afghanistan air force which really doesn't exist, nuclear weapons here and there, anti-missile systems that don't work in places that are needed on and on and then we come back and say we have sequestration, yes we do. but we have managed to build quite an empire of expanding here well beyond what the administration wanted and we didn't spend one moment talking about the war in afghanistan in the eda billion dollars scheduled to be spent. you want $20 billion, why is it with 30,000 troops left afghanistan this coming year we are going to spend as much as we spent this year? >> not one discussion about that. anyway, i've lost a lot of votes

and i'm not going to put another motion on the bill. >> the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. >> we don't want to hear from one more person. on the air force base and their families, and the theologist demoralized by the way this congress has handled the military service support. if we can do anything to relieve that pressure and raise that morale, we should do it and even at this late hour we've done a lot of freeport work and we must send a message that we generally

most of not all of us agree with sequestration it was disgraceful, bad idea we can go on and on and describe it in any number of ways. i wasn't against it but i surely would have. this is not the way we need to decrease our spending and to deal with the deficit. so i rise in support and it is a message as much as a partial solution to the problem and i appreciate the gentleman bringing it to our attention tonight. i yield back. >> the gentleman has mentioned that he would have voted against the sequestration had he had the opportunity. those of us that had that opportunity, you know, most votes as you here for awhile with it isn't a simple yes or no, black and white. that vote was multifaceted giving it the first thing that it did was it raised the debt

ceiling limit. if we hadn't voted for that we would have basically shut down the government. so the first thing was to pass the debt ceiling and the second was to pass a super committee that was responsible to come up with savings of another $1.2 trillion out of mandatory spending over and above the 1 trillion that we took out of domestic spending. said it was a pretty broad thing. i think all of us have very strong concerns about sequestration. we were assured that would be so bad that the super committee would be forced to do its work. unfortunately, we find they were not able to do that so we still have this hanging over us. if everything were simple, we probably wouldn't be paid so much. it would be a different kind of

job. but we have to deal with life as it is and the bills as presented to us. i wish i could say every vote podcast in this house in the 20 plus years i've been here i feel really good about. some of them you take the bad with the good and unfortunately, there was good and bad in that bill. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> what you say about it not feasible to be perfect is one of the reasons we absolutely have to support this amendment. i like mr. barber was sent here to vote against this sequester which i don't even believe will end up saving money because the inefficient way they are being

implemented by necessity. at the very least need to stem the bleeding. i have men and women going to work every day in uniform and whether you approve or don't approve of the mission they are currently supporting the troops in the combat mission as we speak that because they are members of the national guard here subject to sequester even the next day under title ten flagging of a mission in afghanistan the next day they could be furloughed. this is of serve and i would like to make sure we have our oversight capability. mr. cooper offered there's a way to get the very least stop the bleeding i would like to get rid of the sequester on everything and i and members on my own side of the aisle and say we can't but i will get rid of local thing and a chip it away one piece at a time. we have to give enough

flexibility to at least deal with the worst parts of this. i appreciate very much when you said pity if i don't think this is simple at all. but certainly this relatively modest measure i think we have to take that step and i think you for the committee's indulgence of this. >> mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from utah is recognized for two minutes. >> i will handle my kennedy in the same clothes i have right now. sequestration was passed. the fact that i voted no on sequestration is nothing more than -- it gives me a great happiness and that fact and it also isn't a solution to what's happening.

it's a problem compounded what entire cuts taking place. everything worked together. but mr. cooper is presenting here is a wonderful and enthusiastic approach that is when you do at the beginning of our planning process. if we had taken this on as our goal at the end of the process and use that as the metric to go through it, we would be okay. you don't do that at the end of the process. we still have to deal with the end results of what sequestration has put upon us and that deals with our budget and appropriations as we go forward. the house budget took a good step towards restoring and solving that problem and we need to build from that. as much as i love with his emphasis in his and his fervor and passion is, this is not a motion that we can actually pass. at the end of the process all

laden this is raise more problems and concerns than it solves. i appreciate what he's doing but i have to raise my voice as well in saying this is not the right time and the right process for solving this problem. but there is a time and process and the committee must dedicate ourselves to following frear and achieving that process. i yield back. >> any further discussion on the amendment? >> ms. davis you are recognized for ten minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman i appreciate the comments of my colleagues now like the old room i think. we need to look forward to the next budget and we can't do that if we don't appoint conferees and if we have no knowledge that until we get the point of the conference that we are going to have the budget. that's something i think needs to be done.

and i would love to hear some enthusiastic voices suggesting that's the next step. yet if we care so much about the services which i believe we all do, we are devoted to that, and yet we also know that there are multiple programs that the men and women that served this country take part in the communities every single day. i see them out there and soccer coaches doing everything in the world and they can't -- they can't go out there and coached soccer when the parks and the grass is not taken care of, when the cities are not able to do that. that is all part of the community. that is where we live for is to have that association in our communities and really celebrate the people who are part of its. fighting we have to get busy and do that and the important step is appointing those conferees

and i would love to see us talk about that. but it's late and so life and what mr. cooper is talking about is important, but it's just something to get the job done and that is where we should be about. >> if there is no further discussion on the amendment, the question is on the adoption. so many in favor will say aye. opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> av roll call vote has been requested. the next amendment

>> we have one more amendment. number three consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved by the minority side. without objection so ordered. will the court please pass out number three has comprised of the following amendment, number 044 to express the sense of congress regarding the people's liberation army, modernization. amendment number 133 by mr. lamborn to amend section 1251 with the underlying bill by adding additional paragraphs to the sense of congress on syria to the amendment number 22 by the secretary of defense to submit to congress a report on the estimated u.s. force levels in

afghanistan each year from 2015 to 2020. estimated cost of the operations in afghanistan and support for the fiscal year 13 to fiscal year 20. amendment number 233 by mr. johnson's request to make certain unclassified reports online. amendment to 50 to provide the navy authority for the short-term extension for not more than four blocking vessels. amendment number 262 by mr. nugent to direct the secretary to report to congress on upgrades to the range communication building at the cape canaveral air force station. the amendment number 27 by mr. lobiondo, mr. andrews, mr. schuster to an end to 82 of the fiscal year regarding air transportation. by the government clarify the

conditions of the guaranteed exceptions in the waiver provided to the president. amendment to 71 by mr. nugent to remind secretary of navy to show that funding line and the building plan for the weapon system in the fiscal year dps including for the navy weapons system in the fy dps including 21822028 and amendment to 69 by mr. runyon and mr. andrews to direct psychiatry of defense to ensure the defense has military safe staffing standards as outlined in the emergency responders. without objection, the blog amendment. is there any discussion on the package? >> if there is no further discussion on the in block amendment, the question is on adoption of the amendment

offered. those in favor will say aye. those opposed, know. the amendment is agreed to. >> we are now going to vote on those amendment where the roll call vote was ordered. for their proceedings offered by mr. smith, number 244 regarding the transfer of detainees to the u.s.. the question now occurs on the amendment offered by mr. smith. 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] the [roll call] [roll call]