contract that would result in construction of a refinery of fuel that produces more greenhouse gas pollution than conventional petroleum fuel. this exact amendment, introduced by mr. boren of oklahoma last year, passed the house by voice vote, unfortunately not ato wanted by the senate. this language preserves the intent of section 526 without tying the hands of federal agencies that need to procure fuel. without using carbon capture and sequestration, it produces twice as much greenhouse gas emission as conventional petroleum fuel and fuel from tar sands. generates 14% to 42% more greenhouse gas emissions. section 526 is successfully protected taxpayers from costly and destructive subsidies of highly polluting fuel production. the reality is that fuel derived from tar sands comprise a small portion consumers

purchase. mr. chairman, this amendment simply clarifies that the hands of the federal government are not tied and federal agencies can in fact procure commercially available fuel that is available to them. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: i rise to claim this time but i'm not in on stoigs mr. connolly's amendment. though i do support his amendment to clarify the purported intent of section 526 of the energy independence and security act of 2007, i believe it does not do enough. the department is aggressively seeking alternative sources for their vehicles and section 526 poses a serious barrier for these efforts.

we need to instruct them to continue this work. i reserve think him -- my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i yield one minute to mr. grayson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grayson: the purpose is to identify for the contracting agencies the correct tradeoff between cost and price and technical factors. as it stands right now, our scheme for defense procurement does not identify what the -- what it should be. in the hopes of saving money, we are saying they must allow cost or price to be 50% of the evaluation scheme or explain why not. that's the purpose of the amendment. i anticipate we'll save a great deal of money for the taxpayers and troops.

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i'm happy to yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gingrey: mr. chairman, thank you, i thank the gentleman for yielding. rise -- i rise in support of representative connolly's amendment. but this amendment does not go nearly far enough. let me try to explain in the limited time i have, the energy security and independence act of 2007 has in it a section 526. which does not allow any agency of the federal government to use a fuel source that has one scintilla increased amount of carbon dioxide footprint other than bubble up petroleum. the department of defense uses about 350,000 barrels of

refined petroleum products every day. most of that by the air force and the use of jet fuel. and in this country, we have so much domestic source of nonconventional bubble up petroleum, i'm talking about things like shale in particular and the liquefy case of coal liquefication of coal. we probably have a 150 year supply of coal and can't touch that even though the department of defense has done research on the clean liquefication of coal, the clean mining of shale, shale is a rock. that's just soaked, it's like a sponge, soaked with petroleum. there are hundreds of millions of barrels of petroleum within that shale. yet because of this section 526 in the energy independence and security act of 2007, we can not use it.

we cannot use that at all. so what we have found, otching, is that most of -- of course, is that most of the petroleum we import from foreign countries is not coming from opec, it's coming from canada. what's the problem? that oil we get from canada comes from tar sand. it's got a little sand in it. it causes a little increase of production of carbon dioxide a footprint that's more than conventional petroleum. that's all the amendment does, the gentleman from virginia, i support the amendment, but what we need to do is eliminate section 526 and i have an amendment that i signed on with the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, the gentleman -- the other gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, that's what we should have done that amendment should have been made in order. we need to eliminate section 526 and take the handcuffs off the department of defense. we're b duck -- we're talking about big bucks here.

i yield back and do support the amendment. mr. connolly: i thank the support of my friend but i would clarify that we already have tar sand oil, about 6% of the gasoline supply of the united states already has it. we already have the liquefication of coal used in the united states in the bill i hope we'll pass tomorrow or saturday. i yield one minute to the chairman of the committee, mr. skelton. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. skeleton: i stand in support of the connolly amendment, which provides an exception for certain generally available fuels while retaining the greenhouse gas emissions standard that 526 sets for new alternative fuels. let me, mr. chairman, say a word. of thanks.

we have thanked the saff and the leadership, they've done so very, very well. and we've thanked the members, bud mckee -- buck mckeon and the ranking members, all made their excellent statements. one group we need to give a special thanks to, that's the young men and young women in uniform as well as the civilian employees of the department of defense. they are very special and we are appreciative and grateful for their efforts. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: one and a half minutes. mr. mckeon: i yield the

gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the chair: he doesn't want -- mr. mckeon: i would like to second what the gentleman was saying and thank all those men and women in uniform. he was sincerely wanting to thank them. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i yield 30 seconds to my colleague from california, mr. schiff. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schiff: i thank the chairman and i want to talk about the program to have nasa participate in d.o.d. programs. it represents a valuable source of expertise to d.o.d. they have performed research for d.o.d. for decades. this closely parallels an amendment to assure the same function for the department of energy.

we have made sure that this does not interfere with nasa's most important job to build spacecraft for nasa. the chair: the gentleman from california. the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the yes on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the chair: i ask -- mr. connolly: i ask for a recorded vote on this matter. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume

on those amendments in which further proceeding with -- proceedings were postponed in the following order. earment number three by mr. mcgovern of massachusetts. amendment number four by mr. mcgovern of massachusetts. amendment number nine by mr. franks of arizona. amendment number 15 bhi bimr. akin of missouri. amendment number 34 by mr. holt of new jersey. amendment number 20 by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

plan for the beginning, middle, and end of u.s. military operations in afghanistan. for over eight long years, our uniformed men and women have done all that we have asked

them to do in afghanistan. we are now asking them to do more. of and we are giving them more resources and more boots on the ground to accomplish their mission. what we have not told them is how to tell when their contribution to the political solution is done. and they can begin to transition outs of afghanistan. mr. chairman, i want president obama to succeed in afghanistan. i stand by our commitment to provide the necessary resources to help the afghan people take charge of their own future. as congress authorizes and appropriates billions and billions of dollars for a new strategy in afghanistan, is it too much to ask how we will know when our troops can finally come home to their families? certainly we need to hold the governments of afghanistan and pakistan accountable for governing their own nations, but it is incumbent upon us in congress to hold ourselves accountable. before we can even do that, the administration must clearly articulate and outline how it envisions completing its military operations in

afghanistan. 11 months into its term is not too soon for that outline to be provided. we are asking the congress be a proper check and balance. we are asking for congress to do its job. the people of this country want clarity. they are tired of endless wars. please support the mcgovern-jones-pingree-lee amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, chairman skelton and i agree this amendment does more harm than good. this amendment sends the wrong signal at the wrong time for the government and people of afghanistan, our military men and women deployed and deploying to afghanistan, our nato and nonnato allies. and the enemy. focusing on an exit versus a strategy is irresponsible and fails to recognize that our

efforts in afghanistan are vital to preventing future terrorist attacks on the american people and our allies. in march of 2009, the president rightly outlined a strategy for afghanistan and pakistan focused on disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al qaeda and its affiliated networks and safe havens. while we debate this amendment, our military men and women are deploying to the afghan theater as part of an additional 21,000 force being sent to fight the insurgency in the south and train the afghan national security forces. instead of focusing on an exit as the amendment calls for, congress needs to provide the funding and resources required to support the president's strategy and allow our military commanders to succeed. as the commander of u.s. sebtral -- central command, general petraeus has consistently stated it will take sustained, substantial resources to implement our

counterinsurgency strategy in afghanistan and give our troops and the government of afghanistan the opportunity to succeed. lastly, the department of defense opposes the amendment and i also oppose the amendment. reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. mcgovern: a military strategy that has no exit as is no strategy at all. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, the co-sponsor of this amendment, mr. jones. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. jones: i rise in strong support of mcgovern amendment. when the previous administration was in office, many times members on both sides of the aisle kept saying, why isn't there an end point to the war in iraq? now after eight years in afghanistan, the current administration must clearly articulate the benchmarks for success and the end point to its war strategy. in my years in congress, i have many opportunities to speak to military leaders.

time after time, time after time i heard this. to have a successful war strategy you must have an end point. an end point is an understanding of what has to be achieved. general petraeus recently said, and i quote, afghanistan has been known over the years as the graveyard of empires. we cannot take that history lightly, end ever quote. another voice who brings credibility to this position is a retired army colonel nell, vietnam and gulf war veteran, military historian, and father after son who died in iraq in 2007. he has written that embarking on a protracted war with no foreseeable end to the u.s. commitment, lacking clearly defined and achievable objectives, risks forfeiting public support. thereby courting disaster. this amendment does not set a

date for leaving afghanistan. it simply asks the secretary of defense to present a plan for success to congress by the end of the year. i would hope that the members of congress will look at this and let's not repeat vietnam. our men and women in uniform vice president given and given and given. and it's time now to say we have a definition of victory. that's all a mr. mcgovern's amendment is asking. with that, mr. speaker, i will yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield at this time to the gentleman from california, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, mr. berman, one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. berman: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend for yielding. i have tremendous respect for my friend and colleague from massachusetts. i know he always has the best interest of the nation and our armed services at heart. but i must oppose the amendment. as much as all of us would like

to have our brave men and women home again reunited with their loved ones, we don't have a choice but to keep the troops on the ground in afghanistan for some period of time. the only way we can succeed in afghanistan is to create an environment conducive to development and good governance. our u.s. military is an essential component of that. requiring president obama to develop an exit strategy only a few months after he increased the number of u.s. troops in afghanistan and launched a new strategy would raise questions about our commitment to the afghan people and complicate our efforts to help them create a stable and secure nation in a way that would supersede whatever benefits we could get from the passage of this amendment. i would ask my colleagues to give the president's plan a chance to work. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself 30

seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: president obama on a recent "60 minutes" interview said he favors an exit strategy. this shouldn't be controversial. we are told there is a political solution ultimately to be had in afghanistan. all we are asking is when our military -- when does our military contribution t that political solution come to an end so that we know when we can think about bringing our troops back home? that's all this amendment does. this should not be controversial at all. what we are asking is simply a clearly defined mission and nothing more. at this point, mr. chairman, aid like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california a. co-sponsor of this amendment, ms. barbara lee. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of this amendment. let me commend my colleague from massachusetts for his consistent and bold leadership. this amendment does not call for the redeployment of u.s. armed forces out of afghanistan. it does not call for an end of the funding requested by the

administration for military operations. it does not tie the hands of the president, commanders in the field, or our troops on the ground. it does not provide aid or comfort to those who would harm us or wish us well. instead this amendment will provide a vital contingency plan for withdrawing united states military forces from afghanistan. mr. chairman, most recognize there is no military solution to the quagmire in afghanistan. i remain convinced that the united states must develop an exit strategy in afghanistan before further committing the united states' limited resources and military personnel deeper into afghanistan in pursuit of an objective that may be unattainable, unrealistic, or too costly. unfortunately we are digging ourselves deeper in a hole. in 2001 i voted against the authorization to use force because i feared that giving a blank check to wage war i really worried that this would be for an unspecified period of time, really for an unspecified

mission. this blank check continues today. my worse fears have been realized. so what mr. mcgovern is doing makes a lot of sense. we need an exit strategy for afghanistan now. i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. otherwise this blank check is going to continue. this does not enhance the national security of the united states of america, the longer we are there, the worse things get for our troops. our troops deserve to be able to know at least what our plans are, what they are going to entail, and when in fact they will come out of afghanistan. the people of afghanistan deserve to know this. i commend our president for trying to develop a new direction in our policy, but i have to tell you putting more troops in harm's way is not going to help us begin to develop an exit strategy. thank you, mr. mcgovern. and thank all of the co-sponsors for making sure we at least have an opportunity to say no more blank checks. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. -- the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield at this time to the gentlelady from florida, the hamm on the foreign affairs committee, ms. ros-lehtinen, two minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the chairman and thank you so much, the gentleman from california. i rise in strong opposition to the amendment on afghanistan offered by the gentleman from massachusetts, my friend, mr. mcgovern. in late march of this year, the president announced his comprehensive outline for afghanistan and pakistan. highlighting the threat to critical u.s. security interests that would arise should al qaeda and the taliban reclaim or establish safe havens in those countries. the president clearly outlined our goals. to disrupt, to dismantle, and to defeat al qaeda. i agree with him on those goals. but success requires a sustained commitment and sustained support for both the mission and tra