scarce out there. i do not think any americans would stand for rationing anything. there are lots of small clinics out there were people can go and get checkups with a community doctor, if they want to do that. that would bring the price down. also, you know from being an insurance expert that the insurance industry is top heavy, with management and lawyers that do nothing more than manage the care that is being issued to people currently in the system. guest: quickly, kaiser, your insurance company, has an excellent record of making sure that the system is run well and that there is quality and value for the cost involved. it is a good plan. i do think that the record across the health insurance industry, however, is mixed. bottom line, they have not been very effective at managing this

extraordinary medical inflation, and they have found it cheaper to keep coverage away from those who need it than to manage the underlying costs. that is what the reasons why insurance reforms are such an important part of this bill, but they only work if you bring everyone into the system. there is no quick one speck of this bill. it is a complicated, enter related bill, and is producing so much discussion. host: thank you for being with us on our health care discussion. three hours of discussion, but much more ahead on this debate that affects everyone of us. thank you for watching today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] you may use anyone or anything to come to the aid of your people. at times you bring government or charitable organizations to assist your people. at other times family or

neighbors help as they are able. at other times you empower a person from within with greater imagination or intuition, with more education or the ability to change direction. sometimes all anyone can do is to pray. so today, we pray for all those who are overwhelmed by personal and social difficulties, we pray for those drowning in debt, those threatened by firestorms and foreclosures of their homes, by illness, by depression, unemployment or lack of faith. be faithful, lord, to your people even when they are unfaithful and help those most in need. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his

approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from illinois, congressman jackson. mr. jackson: please join me in the pledge of allegiance to our flag and to our nation. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the chair will entertain -- the clerk: h.r. 838, an act to have a conveyance of land held by the bureau of prison of the department of justice in miami-dade county, florida, to facilitate the construction of a new educational facility that includes a secure parking area for the bureau of prisons and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 10 requests for one-minute

speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. cohen: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. daniel webster reminds us on a daily basis in a plaque stone engraved above the speaker's rostrum during our time in congress we need to do something that's worth being remembered, something valuable. 44 years ago medicare was signed into law. that congress did something worthwhile. the congress that produced medicaid did something worthwhile. people said both of those programs were socialism. well, they were wrong, they were american. they were carrying programs for people that had sickness and get them healthy in an affordable manner. this congress can do something worthy of being remembered such as passing health care and making sure that we are no longer the civilized industrialized country in the world that doesn't have health care for all of its citizens.

it's time that we act and we do what daniel webster charges us to do and that is something being worthy of being remembered. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? mr. cao: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cao: mr. speaker, how much longer must we tolerate vietnam's outrageous and continuous violations of its people, religious freedom and human rights? just over a week ago the government assaulted, arrested and imprisoned dozens of catholicing for erecting a temporary place of worship on a church that was destroyed during the vietnam war. if this is not sufficiently egregious and reprehensible to draw our attention and condemnation, i do not what is. however, the sad reality is that this is just one of the many audacious and concerning violations perpetrated by the vietnamese government since it was removed from the list of

countries of particular concern in 2006. arrests of religious leaders and political activists, intimidation of worshipers and collusion in labor trafficking have become a common practice by the vietnamese government. we continue to tolerate unjust, inhumane and illegal practices. vietnam must be put back on the c.p.c. list, and i urge the state department to do so expediently. thank you. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of our troops and our military families and support of a provision in the manager's amendment to the defense appropriations bill which will help our military families. mr. speaker, injured military personnel and veterans, including many who live in my district, often have to travel far from home to receive specialized medical treatment, taking them away from their families during a difficult

time. the fischer house foundation is a public-private partnership which provides housing to allow military family members to be close to their loved ones during hospitalizations or medical treatment. each year the fischer house program serves about 10,000 families at no charge, enabling them to focus on their husbands and wives, parents, sons and daughters. this amendment includes a provision which i authored to give more support to the fischer house foundation to provide housing to more military families. mr. speaker, the troops i worked with in iraq and afghanistan were willing to put their lives on the line for our country, and we should do everything in our power to ease the burden on our wounded warriors and their families. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this valuable program and in supporting our military families and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, here

are a few thoughts on the democrat health tax bill by democrats. this bill does not strike the balance between preserving what works in our system and fixing what does not work. another, to try to pay for health care reform on the backs of small businesses, i can't support that. finally, the house bill presented with a poorly defined public option is a trojan horse leading to government control of health care and it's not in the best interest of the public. these are the words and concerns of some of our democratic colleagues. the democratic plan raises taxes and mandates on small businesses killing jobs. it creates a government takeover of health care that will knock millions of americans, including senior citizens on medicare, off their current plans. there's a better way for americans to afford health care and it starts by empowering the people, not big government. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new hampshire rise? ms. shea-porter: to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. shea-porter: mr. speaker, here's the problems americans are facing today. no money, no insurance, get sick, disaster. pre-existing condition, no insurance, get sick, disaster. laid off, no insurance, get sick, disaster. employer drops coverage, no insurance, get sick, disaster. this is what the democrats are trying to fix, this is what the public option exchange will fix. it will cover those who do not have insurance. the republican health care plan very simply is just don't get sick. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wolf: as a strong supporter of the voting rights act, i've been troubled about the dismissal of important voter

intimidation case in philadelphia where i grew up and my dad was a policeman. in 1981 i was the only member, republican or democrat, of the virginia delegation in the house who voted for the voting rights act and was criticized by the richmond times dispatch. and when i supported its re-authorization in 2006 i was criticized by editorial pages. i have grave concerns that the department's dismissal of this case, congress must use oversight to maintain the integrity of the voting system. oversight is needed now more than ever given the disclosure today in "the washington times" that the department's case against the new black panther party was dismissed over the objections of career attorneys on the trial team as well as the chief of the departments of appe -- appellate division. the congress ought to get to the bottom of this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the

gentlelady from minnesota rise? ms. mccollum: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. mccollum: mr. speaker, reforming our nation's health care system is an urgent national priority. ensuring high quality, affordable access to health care to all americans is our task here in congress. yet, upon its reform are working -- opponents are working to kill the bill. other than help insurance companies profit. democrats are working for real reform that empowers patients and their doctors to make the right choices for you. democrats want health insurance for all americans with a focus on saving and investing and prevention for our children. democrats want to make prescription drugs affordable and guarantee that pre-existing conditions will be treated and not denied by insurance companies. democrats want a system where patient receives quality care that's a standard. my state of minnesota has proven that high-quality,

low-cost health care is a possibility here in the united states and it should be the standard for all americans. the time for action is now. we need to pass real health care reform. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, when government runs health care, senior citizens sometimes are refused to treatment because of their age. in sweden an 83-year-old woman was refused medical surgery by the government-run hospital. they said she was just too old for treatment. mariannea had pain in her legs for five years. she waited more than a year to get back surgery to cure the problem. she was rejected by the government. without the operation she would be living in incredible turmoil. she said, what kind of life is that? despite her long wait, marianne was told her ailment was treatable but too old for surgery. the government-run hospital said since she had previous heart surgery they were denying

the back surgery. they told her just to take some pain pills. when the pabe pills didn't help, the government -- pain pills didn't help, the government still didn't give her the surgery. she is now pain free. government-run health care let's bureaucrats decides who receives rationed care and who doesn't, who lives and who just dies. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. kaptur: mr. speaker, america faces a vital decision to improve health care for all. both as quality and affordability. but follow the money. ask yourself, who's making the big bucks off the current arrangement? aren't you tired of all those expensive medicine ads on tv? if you weren't sick before you watched them you are sick after you watch them. the pharmaceutical company doesn't manufacture most of those medicines here anymore. they outsource them long ago. and their c.e.o.'s grab

millions of dollars of year-end salaries and bonuses. the insurance companies, they're raking in your health insurance dollars too. they don't deliver an ounce of care but they become the ninth most profitable company in our country. who owns the highest buildings in the capitals? the insurance companies. that says it all. america needs quality, affordable health care, not insurance and pharmaceutical kingdoms. i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burton: mr. speaker, i have a lot of friends on the democrat side of the aisle, and we as republicans really care about your future. and so i like for you to know that one of the largest voting blocks in the country are the senior citizens. and when they read this and find out about it, and we're going to make sure they do, they're going to really hold

you accountable. so when you go home, listen to your seniors because they're going to know what's in this bill and i don't want you guys to lose. i really don't. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. matsui: not in six decades have we been this close to the task of reforming our health system. our colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim this legislation amounts to a government takeover of health care and americans will be stripped of their choices of doctors and plans. but the reality is that everybody in this country will lose if they don't have health care reform. people like mary smith a 45-year-old with diabetes who just lost her job. she will no longer have to worry about whether she can get

insurance again. certainly in my district, everybody will benefit. the 155,000 who lack health care coverage but also the majority of my constituents who are insured. they will have stability, security, and peace of mind in having health care that they can count on, no matter what happens. you will always have options for coverage, even if you change or lose your job. you will never be denied coverage if you get sick. doing nothing is not an option. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, as a doctor, one of the main reasons i came to congress was to push for health care reform, that is, common sense reform, not nonsense reform, as proposed by democrat colleagues. that's why i'm proud to be a co-spon or of the empowering patients first act, the

republican bill for reform this contains all the essential elements of health care reform, including private insurance to all americans who want it, removing pre-existing illness, access to excellent primary and specialty care and of course lawsuit reform. all of this is accomplished without a government takeover, gutting medicare, long lines, bureaucrats interfering in the sacred doctor-patient relationship and it is budget neutral. it is obvious that private insurance no matter who pays for it, is the gold standard asms we return to our districts, i believe we'll find that americans truly want private insurance options, not government takeover of health care with soviet-style central planning of our economy. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i've come to

the floor this week to dispel the assertion by the republicans that the recovery act is not creating jobs. that's not accurate. i'd like to talk to you about four construction jobs under way in my district, oregon 22 that connects the valley to the oregon coast. these projects make sure freight and tourists can keep our economy going. 20 employers are are being put to work replacing concrete barriers on interstate 5, our major valley thoroughfare, making the highways safe. 100 workers are at work repairing highway 101. that's 261 jobs under way in my district alone at this early stage of the recovery and there are more in the works. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady if north carolina rise ms. foxx tok permission to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: in december of 2007, our economy slipped into a recession and since then it's only gotten worse. president obama and democrats in congress said this would bring, yet, relief. two million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was signed into law. just when you thought it was clear we can't spend, borrow and tax our way to a growing economy, democrats propose a government takeover of health care that will lead to higher taxes, more government spending, and even further job losses. the american people deserve a real plan for a real recovery, not another excuse to increase spending, raise taxes, and grow government.

the republican economic recovery plan brings fiscal discipline back to washington and puts money back into the hands of the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objeion. mrs. maloney: president obama inherited a labor market in free fall. when president bush left office in january, job losses peaked as employers slashed a stunning 741,000 jobs. congress worked quickly with the new administration to restore financial stability and pass a recovery package that is beginning to take hold. the pace of job losses has eased from its decline at the end of the bush administration. last week, federal reserve chairman ben bernanke testified that the unemployment rate would be higher right now without the legislation congress enacted.

by restoring financial stability and implementing measures and a responsible budget, we'll make the investments necessary to lay the foundation for economic recovery that will put americans back to work now and create jobs of the future. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. -- thank you, mr. chairman. when the house ways and means committee considered the health care overhaul proposal, i asked for an amendment that said if members of the public must join the public plan, so should members of congress. the democrats rejected this amendment. i ask today if the government run plan is great enough for the american people, why isn't it good enough for the members of congress.

americans deserve the freedom to choose their health care. this plan doesn't give them that choice. it will force americans into a plan that supporters of the bill simply don't want. we need to work together to protect and strengthen the health care of every american, not take away choice and drive up costs. i urge my colleagues to reject this bill, work together on a plan to lower costs, while maintaining the freedoms of americans to choose their health care, and that's just some straight shooting from the sheriff. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from maryland rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. edwards: it's time to speak truth to power to the powerful interble interests and insurance companies that are willing to spread misinformation and scaring people. they rise deductibles, co-pay,

drop people with pre-existing conditions, limit coverage and reap billions in excessive salaries, profits and bonuses. united health earned $2.9 billion, wellpoint, $2.5 billion. and c.e.o. pay, united health care's stephen helmsley made $9.2 million. former united health group c.e.o. left his job in 2006 and still took home $1.1 billion. that's a lot of zeros. who are we kidding, mr. speaker? this is all about money. campaign contribution, c.e.o. salaries, millions in advertising to kill reform and billions in profits. that's what's at stake here. it's time to stop this nonsense and enact real reform that includes a public insurance option based on medicare rates and with a network of providers to lower cost and provide quality care. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one

minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, this year we lost a comedian of some note named george car lynn. one of the marks of his career was when he challenged the f.c.c. with the seven dirty words. we're now engaged in a debate on health care and we've been told that there are a number of phrase this is a we can't use because we're attempting to speak truth to power. power being the democratic leadership here in the house. what are these dirty words or phrases we can't use to describe the health care proposal? can't call it government run, even though that's what it's going to be. can't call it single payer, even though that's where they're going. we can't call it socialized medicine. i don't know why not, but we can't. we can't call it obamacare, can't call it rationed care,

even though rationing is an absolutely essential element to their plan. ken't -- we can't call it government mandate care, the word shall appears, i believe, 100 times in the bill. shall means must means a mandate. you can't call it keep your change care, because frankly there won't be any change for you to keep the seven dirty words we can't use. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to speak to the urgency of health care reform. i want to share the story of holly who has fought and won two bouts with breast cansier -- breast cancer. thankfully, her costs were largely covered by insurance. while she praises the care and treatment she received, she is rightly worried about the future. due to her history of recurring

cancer, she will be uninsureable if she ever loses her job, and with it her employer-based health insurance plan. holly and thousands of people across himy district know that the status quo will leave millions more uninsured, in some cases fighting for their lives. we must push forward with overhauling our health care system, not only for the 47 million uninsured but for millions more who will be added to these roles unless we act. now is not the time for fear mongering. now is not the time for political posturing or narcissistic behave yomple we must be representatives of the true sense of the word and act on behalf of the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, i rise in honor of the 150th anniversary of st. ann's roman catholic church in new jersey.

it was officially established in 1859 and father claud roland of france was named its first resident pastor. throughout its history, st. ann's has fulfilled its mission while establishing eight other catholic churches in huntington and warren counties. in 2003, the church was designated by new jersey as a site of historical note. today, st. ann's parish is destroy -- is enjoying a period of significant growth under its current pastor. i congratulate st. ann's church for its service of the community and as a pillar of faith. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> pursuant to clause 2a1 of rule 9, i hereby notify the

house of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privilege os they have house. the form of my resolution is as follows. resolution, raising a question of the privileges of the house. whereas the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, submitted an amendment to the committee on rules to h.r. 3326, the department of defense appropriations act of 2010, whereas that gentleman's amendment would have required that none of the funds made available in this act be used to standardize the design of future ground combat uniforms across the military branches, whereas defense appropriations have typically been used to provide funding for various types of equipment, such as uniforms, whereas the gentleman's amendment complied with all applicable rules of the house for amendments to appropriations measures and would have been in order under an open amendment process, but regrettably the house

democratic leadership has dramatically and historically reduced the opportunity for open debate on this floor, and whereas the speaker, ms. pelosi, the democratic leadership, and the chairman of the committee on appropriations, mr. obey, prevented the house from voting on the amendment by excluding it from the list of amendments made in order you should the -- under the rule for the bill, now, therefore be it resolved that h.res. 685, the rule to accompany h.r. 3326 be amended to allow the gentleman from georgia's amendment to be considered and voted on in the house. the speaker pro tempore: under rule 9 a resolution offered from the floor by a member other than the majority leader or the minority leader as a question of the privileges of the house has immediate precedence only at a time designated by the chair within two legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed. pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentleman from georgia

will appear in the record at this point. the chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege that determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution. mr. broun: thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the house resolution 685 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 3326. with the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 3326, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: union calendar number 128, h.r. 3326, a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for the

fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on wednesday, july 29, 2009, all time for general debate had expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read for amendment under the five-minute rule and the bill shall be considered as read through page 147, line 4. no amendment shall be in order except the amendments printed in house report 111-233. each amendment in part a in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, not to exceed eight of the amendments printed in part b of the report if offered by representative flake or his designee, shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled

by the proponent and an enopponent. and en bloc amendment if offered by mr. flake or his designee consisted of all of the amendments printed in part b of the report shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. and not to exceed two of the amendments printed in part c of the report if offered by mr. campbell and shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their designees may each offer one pro forma amendment to the bill for the purpose of debate which shall be controlled by the proponent. the amendments specified in the first section of house resolution 685 shall not be subject for a demand of the division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in

part a of house report 111-233. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. murtha: amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 111-233 offered by mr. murtha. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 685, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murtha, and a member opposed, will each control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murtha: this bill will have $2 million additional funding for the fischer house for a total of $12 million for redirecting $800,000 for advance procurement of f-22 air parts. let me explain the money from the defense health program and some chemical agents and so

forth. in other words, some amendments we couldn't get to on the floor. the major difference is that i had advanced funding for the f-22 in the bill. and obviously the senate in its wisdom defeated the possibility of the f-22 passing. so what i've done is say, ok, if we're not going to have an f-22, let's at least fund the original 187 airplanes at the fullest robust level. and that's the only difference, actually, that we have between myself and mr. young. so with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california -- florida. florida. >> mr. chairman, i claim the time in opposition to the manager's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: mr. chairman, as chairman murtha suggested, we basically support this manager's amendment. we have no opposition and in

fact support it except for the one item that has to do with the air superiority aircraft, the f-22. we support the original position that sharme murtha offered to the subcommittee and the subcommittee agreed to. -- chairman murtha offered to the subcommittee and the subcommittee agreed to. and that is keep the construction line open for the f-22. we're just really concerned that the 187 aircraft just cannot guarantee that we will control the air over the battlefield if that situation develops. and i would ask unanimous consent to include a chart that i discussed yesterday in general debate on the number of aircraft, fighter aircraft that we have bought over the years d how many of them we have lost through attrition, through accidents and through actual combat. and 187 -- thank you, mr. chairman. and 187 just doesn't really, in

my opinion, doesn't guarantee that we will have what we need. hopefully we'll never need them but we don't know if they need them. and if we need them and don't have them, where are we, and where is the soldier on the ground if we need them and don't have them? somebody else's airplane may be over that battlefield. and so it would have been better if we could have a straight up or down vote on the f-22 issue. and i requested of the rules committee to make such an amendment in order, and they chose not to do so. so i will vote against this manager's amendment, again, not because we are opposed to the manager's amendment but that we are threatening the future security of air control and air superiority over the battlefield. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman's request for provision of

extraneous materials in the record needs to be made in the whole house. mr. young: thank you. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murtha: i yield myself a couple minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. murtha: i certainly agree with what the gentleman said. i have a great concern about air superiority. but the problem is we need 292 votes in the house. the president's hard over on this issue. we need 66 votes in the senate. and there's no chance of us getting that kind of a vote. so what i'm trying to do is make sure that this is robustly funded, that the ones that are there because of the very thing that mr. young mentioned, the fact that these airplanes have high maintenance, they cost about $50,000 an hour to maintain and it's a very expensive and very burdensome. i want to make sure they have the spare parts they need, the engines they need in order to -- the ones we have have what

they need. and with that i yield -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: i yield to mr. frelinghuysen for -- mr. frelinghuysen: three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the amendment authored by our charm. -- chairman. he's absolutely right on in most regards. but, mr. chairman, i ask my colleagues to remember one date, april 15, 1953. on that date is the last time the u.s. soldier, sailor or marine was killed by an attack from the air. it's nearly 60 years ago during the korean war. air dominance has been a game changer that's allowed our ground troops to execute their mission. we have air dominance today. our job here is to make sure we have it tomorrow and the

committee is going to make sure it does that. air dominance could diminish quickly. the chinese are apparently working to reverse engineer some of those advanced fighters for their own use. and we know certain countries are producing and selling sophisticated, very sophisticated air defense systems, more accurate, more lethal, more mobile, more difficult to neutralize any systems our air force have faced. hence the need for the f-22. if the air force has 187 f-22 raptors it does not have 187 for combat deployment. we'd like that to be the case. about 130 or so are ready, what we call combat coded, with the full package. and they're ready for those missions. approximately 60 are maintained, as i understand, for training and testing

purposes. and a question, of course, arises, and i support the f-25 joint strike fighter. it's on its way. but when and how soon? the joint strike fighter, as we know, is not the raptor, doesn't have those capabilities. i think we need to keep the f-22 assembly line alive and warm. once it's shut down there's no prospect we can bring it back again. you can't flip the switch and bring the raptor back in production. i rise in opposition to the amendment, respect the chairman's desire to sort of keep the line open, have spare parts. but i do oppose the amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murtha: mr. young, i'm prepared to yield back whenever you're ready. mr. young: mr. chairman, i'd advise the chairman that we

have several other members of the subcommittee who would like to be heard. we'll expedite. i yield now -- the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. mr. young: the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston, for -- a member of the subcommittee, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman from florida and the gentleman from pennsylvania. and i want to speak about the f-22 issue, because as we know the senate has cut off funding for it. but i do have some concerns about our fighter fleet. currently the military inventory is 3,500 fighter aircraft. that's 2,400 for the air force, 1,100 for the navy and the marine corps. most of these aircrafts were purchased at high annual rates during the 1980's. these aircrafts will reach the end of their service in the next 10 years. so what we're talking about is something that maybe could be more important in the next decade or within the next decade than, you know, might be

to people today. but the aircraft -- the air force will replace the a-10, the f-16 and the f-15 with the f-22 and the f-35 joint strike fighter. to give you the idea of some of these ages, there are 350 a-10's with an average age of 28 years. 470 f-15's with aaverage of 26 years. 220 f-15's with an average of 17 years. 1,200 f-16 s' with an average of 20 years. we have roughly 140 raptors to replace the fleet and have no f-35 is' s and will not have them -- f-35 s's and will not have them in 10 years. that's the navy. the air force will replace the

harriers with superhornets. and the f-35 j's joint strike fighters. the reason they're doing this, we have 125 harriers with an average age of 14 years each. 16 hornets with an average age of 20 years. and of the superhornets to replace the aging aircraft with no f -- could i have two more minutes? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. young: i yield the gentleman one additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kingston: and what i'll do, and i thank the gentleman, i'll submit some of these statistics for the record. but i guess the bottom line is that we're very concerned about the need to replace the aging fleet in the navy and in the air force. and i believe keeping the f-22 line open resolves some of this. the defense committee has worked very hard on this. there's been a lot of good bipartisan dialogue. i know both sides care for it

whether you're for or against this amendment. but i think that at this time we need to go on this very cautiously and very slowly. i appreciate the chairman and the ranking member's leadership on this issue and look forward to continue working with you. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murtha: i just want to reiterate what i said, the political climate has changed substantially. we're in a situation where the president's hard over and we're doing the best we can to make sure that we have robust funding for the fleet. that's what i intend to do or i hope when this amendment passes that's what we will have done. so with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: mr. chairman, i yield one minute now to the distinguished gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for one minute. mr. bishop: thank you. i appreciate the difficulty we're in, but once again to have air superiority will require two things. technical superiority, which

the f-22 provides, as well as numerical superiority, which originally we were going to build 150. up to last year 330 is the minimum. everyone says 243 is the minimum. there is no data that says 187 is the correct number other than the secretary. if the russians are going to build a new generation and sell 200 to 300 at the same time we cut 250 legacy planes from our air force, at the same time we stop the f-22, at the same time the f-35 is not going to be available until 2014, at the earliest and still has problems, we may find ourselves on the wrong side of history if we do not stand up for the f-22. if we can spend $5 billion on acorn but explain about $2 billion for 18,000 jobs to continue on a plane that we need, there is something in our prioritization that needs to be reviewed. i appreciate the position of the gentleman from pennsylvania, but here is the time we need to make a statement that the future is essential.

thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murtha: i say to the gentleman as i said before, we're doing the best we can with what we have. politically, it's change sod dramatically, we have no alternative, to make sure what we have is robustly funded. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. young: can i inquire how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from florida has two minutes remain, the gentleman from pennsylvania has seven minutes remaining hsm mr. young: mr. chairman, i yield -- excuse me. i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: i want to make sure that members understand, i know that mr. murtha is not opposed to the f- 2, he supports it, it was in his original mark he presented to the subcommittee. i understand the change of the political mode that we have experienced, but you know from

the time that i came here, we were fighting about the f-14. there were those who didn't want to do the f-14, which was an importanterer -- aircraft for fleet protection. most of our new aircraft have been opposed by certain quarters in the country. the m-1 tank, by far the world's best tank, was opposed by certain groups of people. we cannot afford to allow an enemy to control the air over our troops. it's as simple as that. we have never sent our soldier into battle with only 187 fighter aircraft in our inventory that have the capability to control the air over the battlefield. so yeah, this is expensive, but freedom doesn't come free. i'm not really opposed to this amendment, but i'm going to vote against it because of the f- 2 issue. i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murtha: i yield back the balance of my time and ask for an aye vote. the chair: the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. to mr. young: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed ogs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise 1234 mr. conaway: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: it's now in order to consider amendment number two printed in house report 111-223. mr. conaway: i only have one amendment, amendment number two. mr. murtha: we're willing to accept the amendment. the chair: the gentleman offered the amendment.

chelerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part a, printed in house report number 22, offered by mr. conaway of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: mr. chairman, thank you for accepting the amendment. mr. murtha: we're very happy, we support this amendment and are happy to accept it. mr. conaway: on the surface, it looks like an in and out, with no real issue. bill quick. it allows me to talk about financial management and clean audits at the department of management. this is a priority set by the secretary of defense himself. it's not up to the appropriations committee to find the funds. yesterday or the day before, the secretary announced a $60 billion savings search for the

department of defense he can't find that money without good, internal controls. the authorization committee said this is a priority. we've accelerated the movement from -- by four years. the point at which the department of defense needs to have clean, audited financial statement. sarbanes-oxley made that a priority when that was passed. it was difficult, it was painful, and it was expensive. but most of those plikely held companies will tell you, after they put the new controls in place, their financial statements are better, their decisions are bert. the same would apply to the department of defense if they were to make this a priority. it has to be a priority of the secretary of defense, the authorization committee. mr. murtha: can the gentleman take yes for an answer? mr. mr. conaway: i did. why did you turn the microphone off? i did take yes for an answer, thank you very much. the importance of financial

statement auditing is important and i yield back. the chair: does any member seek time in opposition? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now now in order to consider amendment number three, printed in part a of house report 111-32 -- 111-233. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment designated amendment number 596. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: house report

111-233, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i want to say that i support the part of the manager's amendment that mr. murtha offered with regard to the f-22 prasm i'm glad we're doing what we're doing there and i commend the committee for sticking with what the president wanted there and i think we've done the right thing. this amendment would remove $160 million in funding for the u.s.-made first responder radios for use by mexico's police force. this is not classified as an earmark, it's programmatic funding. it was featured in a story in "the washington post." 12 member of congress requested this funding to be used for radios with certain specifications. they say while no specific company is named in the bill, motorola, which makes the radios that fits the parameter,

and is based in illinois, home to seven of the requesting members, appeared on the intended beneficiary. at the same time, they say because it is not considered an earmark, members who requested it are not priored -- required to publicly report it. typically they have to sign a certification and say they have no financial interest in the earmark, and that was not the case here. mr. chairman, if it looks like an earmark, sounds like an earmark, i think it's an earmark and ought to be disclosed under house rules and it isn't here. even if we accept that funding directed to a nameless company based on a certain set of requirement this is a only one company could provide is not an earmark, then we have a problem. why bother to make the earmark process more open and transparent when it would be just as easy to request funding, funding that is several times more expensive, by calling the beneficiary a

program and tailoring its needs suit one company. it's bad enough this bill includes over 500 earmarks directed at private companies. the sponsors of those earmarks are required to disclose those requests on their website and certify they have no financial interest but not the case here. they write letters, but it doesn't show up as an earmark. the "post" article quotes a senior fellow at the sunlight foundation as saying, it makes a mockery of the disclosure requirements we have. they will disclose little things, the $1 million project but when you have big ticket items you don't have members willing to take responsibility for those. i agree with the assessment if we want to drain the swamp and make the earmark process more transparent, we can't allow

private companies to be funded outside the house rules. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman -- mr. murtha: i rise knopp sigs and reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes and the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i would inquire of the gentleman on the subcommittee if he believes that this is an earmark, and if it is, why members aren't required to certify that they have no financial interest if they're requesting money for it. i yield him time to respond. mr. murtha: i have my own time, i'll use my own time. mr. flake: i may i inquire as to the time remaining. the chair: the gentleman from arizona has a minute and a half remaining. mr. flake: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves.

the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murtha: i'd like to close, i reserve think time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: we have a process here that i think over the years has been abused severely. we see that whenever we pick up the paper. we see examples of earmarks that have gone out of this place in prior years with no notice at all. last year we didn't even have any opportunity to offer any amendments. the appropriations committee didn't even mark up the defense bill. we see story after story from prior years of what happens when we don't have adequate disclosure and transparency. and i would submit that that's what we're continuing here. we have a programmatic request that 12 members signed a letter, seven of those members represent the state in which the recipient of the earmark clearly will receive a huge

contract and yet we don't have to file the disclosure requirements we do for regular earmarks. so i would submit that we should not fund this programmatic request, which is really a stealth earmark and get back to the process that we at least pretend to follow here. where we have disclosure and accountability. so i would urge support of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murtha: i rise in opposition to the amendment. i'm trying to figure out what the gentleman is trying to do. this is -- this was in the table from the white house from the administration, the defense department. this would delete $160 million in drug interdiction and counterdrug activity this is a go to mexico, afghanistan and colombia. the defense department has the authority to train and equip

foreign governments for counterdrug activities since congress enacted the national defense act. this will enable us to provide digital communication equipment to our allies to fight the drug trade at the discretion of the department of defense. i mean -- i can't imagine anything that's more important to us and our troops in afghanistan than the amount of money we're putting in for anti-drug intersixth. so i would urge the members to vote against this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time is expyred. the question son the amendment offered by this gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed. to in pl flake: i ask for a

recorded vote, mr. chairman. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number four printed in house report 111-233. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part a, amendment number four, printed in house report 111-233 offered by mr. sgses -- sessions of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 685, the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. sessions: thank you very much. i appreciate the opportunity for you to recognize me. mr. young: would the gentleman yield? we are very familiar with theament and know of the great

work that mr. sessions has done relative to the hyperbaric chambers for treatment of all types of wounds and diseases and we are very pleased to accept this amendment. mr. sessions: i thank the gentleman and appreciate his help. mr. murtha: i agree with the amendment. mr. sessions: i thank the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, mr. murtha. i would just like to say that this committee, as well as the rules committee, has been very open to receiving information about the current status of hyperbaric oxygen treatment as an opportunity for us to learn more about how we will help our returning veterans and those who have been injured in conflicts around the globe. this body has worked very closely with not only secretary gates, general casey, the chief staff of the united states army, but also with their designee, general lori sutton, who is working very closely with the congress to make sure

that we pay attention to the head trauma injuries from our soldiers as they engage in trying to help the united states win the war on terror. and i want to personally thank not only the gentleman, mr. young, the gentleman, mr. murtha, but also the appropriators, mr. wamp and mr. edwards. i'd also like to thank the chairwoman of the rules committee, ms. slaughter, for not only making this amendment in order but also the words of support that have been expressed on behalf of the armed services committee but also the rules committee. and i thank both these gentlemen for accepting my amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. anyone seek time in opposition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 5 printed in part a of house report 111-233. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. tierney: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part a, amendment number 5 printed in house report 111-233 offered by mr. tierney of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 685, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. tierney, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i thank the chair and i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tierney: mr. chairman, my colleague, congressman holt and i, are striking $80 million that's in the bill for the kinetic energy interceptor program. mr. holt and i believe that the kinetic energy inseptemberor program no longer warrants congress' support and we are not alone in that assessment. the bush administration made the initial assessment to terminate the k.e.i. program

last fall. then president obama did not include funding for it in his budget proposal, and both the house armed services committee and the senate armed services committee did not specify funding for it in their respective authorization bills. secretary gates has testified that the missile is 38 or 39 feet long, it weighs 12 tons. there's nothing we can put it on and have to design a new ship. the head of the missile defense agency, lieutenant general o'riley, has said that the k.e.i. program is being terminated because the capability is inconsistent with the missile defense system to counter rogue nation threats. the program was intended to be a five-year development program that is now a 16-year development program. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. who seeks time? mr. murtha: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes, and the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from

massachusetts. mr. tierney: mr. chairman, i would just like to say that the majority leader is fond of saying that it's never too late to do the right thing and here is our opportunity to do the right thing. we have to at some point in time start looking at all of our budgets and that includes the defense budget to make sure we're not putting money out that needs to be put towards other priorities. here you have the missile defense agency's director itself saying the program should be terminated. you have the secretary of defense and two administrations saying the program should be terminated. you have from what i can hear from people and the silence on those who say they are against this amendment, not arguing that in fact this is a program that should move forward, and with that, mr. chairman, i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pelve. -- pennsylvania. continues to reserve. mr. tierney: i'll yield a minute to my colleague from new jersey, mr. holt. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. holt: mr. chairman, i thank my friend from massachusetts.

almost no one believes that the kinetic energy inseptemberor program is necessary or that -- -- interceptor program is necessary. the defense secretary and the president have called for termination of the program. house and senate armed services committee have supported that position. i understand the desire of the chairman of the subcommittee to get something of value from all the money that has been already spent. but stringing this program along is not the answer. even after the removal of this money, there will be plenty of funding to learn from the mistakes of the program. mr. chairman, even if the k.e.i. were successful it will never work well enough to change our strategy, missile defense systems must be perfect to achieve their professed goals, and we can never get that perfection. the fact that we don't need them against our friends and that they will only encourage our enemies to build more offensive systems to get around this, this so-called shield,

are the arguments against them. the best this flawed system can provide us is a provocative yet per meeble defense. i urge -- permeanable defense. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i think the desire to have the final word is somewhat indicative of the strength of the argument. that's the gentleman's choice. i'd note that the administration urges the congress to support the president's initiative to terminate or reduce programs that dube i will indicate existing programs -- duplicate existing programs. and it mentions the kinetic energy interceptor program. we can redirect funds. that is in the statement of administrative policy with respect to this bill. let me if i can, mr. chairman, just read what the director of the missile defense agency says about this. and he said this on may 21,

2009. the original k.e.i. mission grew from a boost phase mission to a boost and mid course mission. it grew from 5 1/2 years to 12 to 14 years. the program cost grew from $4.6 billion to $8.9 billion. and it cost from $12 million to $25 million per interceptor. technical difficulties delayed for over a year. given the above the 15% of the $8.9 billion on the contract until 2018 has been accomplished. the k.e.i. program was terminated. and further, you have the secretary of defense, mr. gates, indicating that this is one decision that he didn't have to make or take credit for. the missile defense agency itself under the bush administration essentially eliminated the kinetic energy interceptor or thought they had. this has been a five-year development program that looks like to be a 16-year

developmental program. there's not been a single flight test. there's been little work on the third stage of the kill vehicle. a big part of the program is it needs to be close to the launch site to be effective. but the size of the 38 or 39 foot size of the instrument and the weight of 12 tons means we don't have a ship to get close enough. it will be virtually eliminated and no use against iran or russia or the chinese. it is limited capability. this is not a productive way to proceed on this matter. there may be some argument by some here, and we'll never know until after we're finished talking, of course, we want to keep some of this money in for research purposes. let me suggest to my colleagues that there is a significant amount of money in research, development and testing within the entire department of defense budget as well as within the budget for the missile defense program. i urge my colleagues to support this motion and thank the chairman for the time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murtha: i rise in opposition to the amendment. it would strike $80 million out of the kinetic energy interceptor program. and in my statementation, what i've said -- and in my estimation, what i've said to the department of defense over and over again, all these years of no oversight in the defense department, they get nothing from the program. we have the same thing of the presidential helicopter. we have the same thing in many of these other programs. what i'm trying to convince them, they have to have oversight earlier in a research program. now, the undersecretary tells me that in a new research program, he's going to try to have a cost cap or some kind of effectiveness so that they measure it, benchmarks of some sort so they can measure these earlier. we may have to adjust this in committee -- in conference if this amendment doesn't pass. but i ask that members vote no on this amendment and we'll see what we can work out. the program's already spent $1

billion, and we ought to get something out of it. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. tierney: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendments printed in part b of house report 111-233. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk designated as amendment number 1 in part b. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 1 printed in house report 111-233 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed, will each

control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from flake. mr. flake: since the gentleman wouldn't yield time at the end of the statement for me to ask, with the last earmark amendment i had, the only information we have from the committee says that the money is to go to mexico for a program in mexico for radios for mexico. afghanistan was never mentioned. we -- if it is covered, we don't know that. but when the appropriations committee takes 18 minutes to mark up the bill and then brings it to the floor and then the chairman of the committee won't answer a question -- the chairman of the subcommittee won't answer a question about it, to say, well, it's for afghanistan as well, that doesn't -- doesn't help with this process at all. and i think that will be the pattern today where simply reserve time and not have any so we won't have any colloquy to see what is at the heart of these earmarks or what these are really for. i hope that changes. i hope we'll have a real discussion here because we didn't get it in the appropriations committee. remember, 18 minutes to approve a bill unanimously with more

than 1,000 earmarks in it that nobody in the full body had seen. and we only got a couple of days before the bill came out. 18 minutes. anyway, this amendment would prohibit $5 million from going to fund enhanced navy shore readiness integration. the earmark is going to concurrent technologies. now, most people who have been following this process will know that name and know it well because concurrent has drawn considerable attention due to its proclivity for earmarks. according to taxpayers for common sense, concurrent received more than $200 million in earmarks between 2001 and 2006. concurrent technically is a nonprofit organization with revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars. and it's receiving earmark after earmark after earmark after earmark, although questions are raised all over the place. according to the center for responsive politics, concurrent technologies employees have donated more than $13,000 to current members of the house defense appropriations committee since 1998.

let me just use a chart here. this chart kind of explains the if he none none that we'll see -- phenomenon that we'll see over and over and over again. this pattern exists where members of congress will earmark dollars, the earmark spending goes to the earmark recipient, the earmark recipient will then turn around and lobbying firms representing the earmark recipient, pacts there, executives from the lobbying firm, executives from the company itself contribute handsomely to members of congress and it recycles again and again and again. circular fundraising, that's what we're talking about. now, i should point out -- i will point out that when members of congress request an earmark, they're forced to sign a certification letter saying they have no financial interest. this kind of circular

fundraising is not illegal and that's not what i'm alleging at all but is it right and should we members of congress tolerate it again and again and again when these companies like concurrent technologies is in the news having problems explaining what they've done with the earmark money that they've received again and again? and here we go saying now we have transparency and accountability and we've changed the earmark process, and yet here we are again appropriating more money through an earmark to concurrent technologies. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. who seeks time in opposition? mr. murtha: i rise in opposition and reserve the balance of my time.ú the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes and the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: when we were discussing earmarks, one member defending his earmarks came to the floor and said -- he was

getting an earmark for a university -- he said, this school doesn't have a lobbyist, my knowledge the school has never receive an earmark of any sort from the federal government prior to this. i would ask the gentleman if he can make the same statement to this earmark have moneys come back from the recipient of the earmark? i yield him time to do so. mr. murtha -- mr. to dicks: i'll answer on my own time. mr. flake: let me step back a bit. sunlight foundation noted that concurrent technologies played p.m.a. $3,000 in lobbying fees in 2008 and received $14 million in earmarks including

the spon or of this earmark. this is a 4,463% return on this investment. no wond they are circle of fundraising continues. "roll call" noted that p.m.a. has been the largest source of campaign contributions since 2001 and p.m.a. and its client have provided the sponsor of this earmark with campaign contributions since 2001, 116,000 of which -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. flake: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment by mr. flake. i want to audiocassette about what the funds are directed to. several years ago, the navy adopted an approach to managing its installations on u.s. soil. the command over navy

installations command operates an $8 billion enterprise for the nation. now you can imagine that when making changes in such a vast enterprise, its leaders want to exple innovative options, but need to carefully evaluate ideas to find the best ones. they also need to test out ideas as pilot projects. that's what happened here. this concurrent technology corporation is a nonprofit. in fact they just had a competitive bid which they won a few months ago. they do great work for the united states navy. the navy often matches the money that congress puts up because the work is of such high quality. this company is located in bremerton, washington, one of its branch offices. they do great work for navy region northwest. i don't have anything named after me, my family has no

interest in this any way, shape, or form. this is a good, solid amendment. this company this year has no one representing it. it doesn't have a lobbying firm. the gentleman wants to make shares insinuations. i still funded it because it was quality work. it was work that is herer tos you. and congress has the right to -- meritorious. congress has the right to do. congress also has the right to review national programs. national programs should be considered by congress. we can either increase the funding for them or decrease the funding for them. we have the right to do that. congress has the power of the purse. we can't give it away because it's in the constitution. this is an important issue. now, you know, all i can tell my colleagues here is that this is a good operation in bremerton. they're doing fine work for the

united states navy and i yield back the balance of my time and urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired. the question son the amendment baferede the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chairs, the noes have it and the amendment is not adopted. mr. flake: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further pceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk designated as number 258 in part bmbing. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the chair: amendment number 258 in part b, designated by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: before i get sos tub sans of -- substance of the

amendment if people want to know why members of the appropriations committee and particularly the defense subcommittee are loath to talk about these earmarks and particularly the process and why the markup in the full committee took 18 minutes, this might explain it. if you look to the left of this chart, 33% of the dollar value of the earmarks in the defense appropriations bill go to just under 4% of the members of this body. 1/25 of the members in this body take home 33% of the earmark dollars in this appropriations bill. i don't blame them for wanting to get through this quickly, having an 18 minute markup where nobody talks about anything around it's a unanimous vote. if you want to know why, here it is. but this congress, the rest of the body, the rank and file

member, members who aren't on that committee, ought to be concerned. particularly when over and over again, there are press stories that are unflattering about what happens when earmarks go in this fashion. "the washington post" top story above the fold today is another one, talking about how members are loath to get rid of these projects in the bill or these rmarks. i would submit that if anybody out there is wondering why this process goes so quickly and members are so uninclined to debite, why not? if you can do it, do it. if 4% of the members of this body can take home 24% of the earmarks, that's a pretty good gig. but to the rest of us, we ought to be concerned and i think the country is concerned and certainly the press is reporting there's an issue there. this amendment would remove $5 million for funding for rereduced manning situational

awareness program. according to the sponsor, this is a command and control system with smart senors, video analytics and band width management. i'm not here to argue the merits of the program, i don't have much knowledge in that area. what we see again is an earmark going to a private company. sometimes members will say, i'm just working for my district, i'm just getting earmarks because that's economic development in my district. in this case, the company is not even located in the sponsor's district. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves who seeks time in opposition. >> mr. chairman, i claim the time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: i'm not going to talk about the amendment because the gentleman conceded the program that it would fund is essential to enforce protection. that is the case. but i think the case that i

want to make is, and there's been a lot of misleading information suggested here, not necessarily intentionally, and i don't think with any attempt to besmirch anyone's character, we have heard on the cap and trade bill, read the bill. we have heard on the health bill if we ever see one, read the bill. and i agree with all of that. we ought to be reading the bills. i don't think my friend from arizona has read this bill. it is not nearly as big as the cap and trade bill was or the health bill will bfment b had he read the bill, he would have found on page 113, section 115a , it says, those which are

considered congressional earmarks for purposes of rule 21 of the house of representatives, when awarded to a for-profit entity, shall be awarded under full and open competition. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: may i inquire as to the time remaining. the chair: the gentleman from arizona has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. flake: i'm glad the gentleman brought up the phrase in the bill, should be open to full competition. the reason to earmark is to get around competition. we all know that. now we can have language in the bill that require that but i had a meeting with some defense department procurement officials and i asked the defense department officials, what is your process with these earmarks. they said, we subject them to full competition, basically,

when we don't. i said, can you do a random sample of earmarks in the 2008 defense bill and let me know how many went to the earmark -- the intended recipient for the earmark. they came back, their initial -- >> the gentleman obviously hasn't read the bill because the bill -- the bill states that you have to compete these. congress has passed a law saying you have to compete these. the gentleman is wrong in so many ways. on this one you're really wrong. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for trying to clarify that, but i would submit that's the process the defense department says they physical e-- follow now they take this language and say, that's what we do already, except when whp we don't. when they dent subject it to full competition they subject it it to a j & a and that's why that was not subject to

competition. i asked for months and months and i'm still waiting for some of these j&a's. these earmarks end up with the intended recipient. putting language in here, which my guess is it will be taken out of the senate, though it doesn't mean much in the first place, will not likely survive the senate, but if it does, the defense department will say we do that anyway. if it's subject to full competition, the gentleman mentioned with concurrent technologies, they had won in open competition for another pot of money. well, great, if they're so good, why earmark money for them? why don't we say, compete on your own like everybody else? that is the pup of these earmarks to get around competition. that is the purpose of it. so to say, well, we've inserted language in, that will solve it all, it dun. because the defense department knows who butters their bread. they know that they need to follow with uncanny precision

the intended recipient. i should mention, a couple of years ago, president bush said, well, we're going to make sure these -- i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment from -- offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed. to mr. flake: on that, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. are you offering number 315? in pl flake: that's correct. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, number 315,

offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 685, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: let me finish the thought i had before. president bush a couple of years ago said earmark this is a end up in the report language, not the bill itself, like these, he would instruct the federal agencies to ignore them and simply openly compete contracts out there. this appropriations committee inserted language after the president did that and said, that the president or federal agencies should have to follow the language in the report, even though it wasn't legislative language. if we're all keen on competition here, why in the world, until the public started to focus on it, did we instruct the federal agencies and say,

you have to take the language in the reports as if it were law. so anyway, let's get to this amendment. this would remove $2.2 million in funding for body armor, improved ballistic protection. i've not come here to debate the her rates of the -- merits of the earmark. i'm not an expert. but i should say again, i think people in our a military are and our military is. they should probably make this decision rather than a single member of congress. as reported by roll call earlier this week, k.d.h. defense has received millions in earmarks to produce underwater swimmer protection to protect docks and ships. their specialty is in making bulletproof vests but this was the first project to be deliveredy k.k.d.h. electronic

systems. after several years and botched contracts with subcontractors, they have yet to deliver this product. based on statements made by the president of the company, it doesn't appear as though they ever will. yet we are here today, again, ready to provide k.d.h. with millions more in taxpayer dollars. i would ask why are we doing this when we already have information that some of the individuals or company this is a will be associated with this earmark haven't exactly done well in the past. haven't produced what they said they would. in some cases have little expertise in the area that they say they do in order to get the earmark. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves who seeks time in opposition? mr. murtha: i rise in opposition and reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes and reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: again here, we have the same pattern of circular fundraising.

again, i'm not alleging any illegal activity here. this is legal. it's unfortunate but it's legal for members to sign a certification that they have no financial interest in the earmark but our same ethics committee says campaign contributions do not necessarily reflect or constitute financial interest. and that i would submit, mr. chairman, is the wrong approach and we're going to continue to see story after story after story where earmark recipients simply don't have the capability or the inclination to deliver on the product that they said they would deliver on. and yet they still continue even in this environment with investigations swirling around all over to receive these same earmarks. by now, my colleagues are familiar with the p.m.a. scandal that's plagued this body for months. there's an investigation, at least they're looking into it, we're told, by our own ethics

committee here. i am unconvinced that the p.m.a. scandal will be the last scandal we see in this body. i'm convinced that there will be earmarks that we approve today that later investigation will determine were not above board, that these companies receiving these earmarks simply weren't delivering because we've seen that again and again and again. and yet we go through this same process as if nothing were missed. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania continues to reserve. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: an editorial in "the new york times" entitled "political animal 101" referred to the relationship of campaign dollars and the customized appropriations they are fed by grateful lawmakers. as, quote, the ultimate in cynical influence trading.

that's "the new york times." there have been editorials in "the washington post, in "roll call," just about everywhere else. the mainstream media has done a great job investigating this and shows is that this process -- shows that this process is yet to be desired. members of this body should stand up and say this house ought to have a higher standard here. whether we can survive an investigation going on by the justice department right now, that we ought to leave some confidence with the public that we're doing things right here. and i would submit that when you have more than 1,000 earmarks, more than 500 of which represent no-bid contracts to private companies like this one, then we have a problem. i urge support of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murtha: let me read again

to the gentleman from arizona. with respect to the list of specific programs, projects and activities contained in the tables entitled explanation of project level adjustment. in report of the committee on the appropriations of the house of representatives, those that were considered earmarks when awarded for a profit entity shall be awarded under full and open competition. now, let me tell you. you talk about old awards. k.d.h. was awarded on the 14th of july, 2009, a competitive $39.4 million contract for 65,000 vests for the army and air force. they musting doing a good job or else they wouldn't have been given that award. i went to iraq. would the gentleman -- i know his staff has a lot of information for him, but i'd like him to listen to what i'm saying. i went to iraq and i found the first division 44,000 shortage of armor. the biggest complaint i get

from the troops in the field, i don't know how often you visit the field, mr. flake, i don't know how often you come to the people that to this work. when i go into factories their sons and daughters are working in this place. they love the work that they do. they know they're doing work that is under very specific guidelines set by the gentleman. the chair: the chair would remind members to address their comments to the chair. mr. murtha: absolutely right. sorry, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i want you to know that when i go to visit these plants and i see these people working whose sons and daughters are fighting, they know how important these vests are, they know how important their work is for the defense department. i remember 20 years ago when i brought defense companies into my districts and i had 24% unemployment, and we didn't have the specification, we didn't have any small business that could do the work. we didn't get any awards. once we learned it and able to perfect it, once we were able

to compete, the people in my district are hard working. we got the unemployment down below the national level, a diversified economy. all i could do was bring people in. i can't direct them where to do the business of the defense department. they do it on their own. they are the ones that awards the contracts. and i visit those plants and i see those hardworking people. i see what they do for this great country. not only the troops serving in iraq and afghanistan, but the public who's working in these defense organizations do everything they can to help this great country. we put money into the budget. we have an obligation to take care of our district. we have an obligation to take care of this great country. and the people working in my district work hard. i visit these plants and these bases all the time. i visit the troops and i ask them, what's your biggest problem? the biggest problem is employment, mr. chairman. the biggest problem is the fact that the vests are too heavy for afghanistan. they're working on trying to get vests that aren't so heavy.

i just went out to the hospital the other day. i don't know how often mr. flake goes to the hospital. every week he probably goes to the hospital. i tell you, i go to the hospital and i saw fellows wounded two years ago. his organs were outside his body for 10 days. he had a bag for about six months. he got rid of the bag. they did another operation. this goes on continually. no one has done more work for the medical profession, putting earmarks in for breast cancer, ovarian cancer, all those things because we feel so strongly about it. we want a great defense in this country, and the people working in the defense do a great job. we don't appropriate this money for anybody except the people who do the work. and if they do the work they get awarded the contracts and they're competitive contracts. and it's very clear in our bill and it doesn't come out of the bill. it's been in title 10 of the bill ever since i can remember. they got to be competitive if they are pro-profit. and with that i yield back the

balance of my time. i ask for a no vote on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk designated as number 389 in part b. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 389 printed in house report 111-233 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 685, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the chairman. i would respond a little to what the gentleman, the chairman of the defense subcommittee said. he mentioned some of the horrible things happening in iraq and afghanistan.

i attended funerals by individuals who were killed by an i.e.d. or some other measure out there that they need greater protection from. but that's not what we're talking about here. the reason we're here and the reason i offered the last amendment is it was going to affirm that according to press reports doesn't have the expertise to do what the -- they intend to do. and in the past have not delivered on the promises that were made before. we see stories again and again and again on that same theme. that earmarks go to companies. in fact, there's a trial going on i believe right now in florida where an earmark recipient has plead guilty, i believe, to distributing earmark money to contractors who had no intention of following through and delivering on the contract. that's why we're here. and so we can talk all we want about the needs of our troops in the field. and that's why i'm offering

these because this money should be going to our troops in the field. instead, it's being bled off in some cases, according to press reports, to companies who don't know enough about what they're doing to receive the earmark. but they're getting an earmark and getting around competition despite the language in this year's bill, which claims that these will be subject to free and open competition. this particular amendment, mr. chairman, would remove $3 million from funding for a gulf range mobile instrumentation capability project. again, i'm here not knowing specifics of the technology here, but i would submit that there are people in the defense department perhaps might know better than some members. in this case, i'd think that the chairman of the defense subcommittee would concede that we shouldn't be giving money to companies that have been implicated -- at least it's been alleged that they're under

investigation. "the wall street journal" revealed records pro logic, the recipient of this earmark, pro logic pays the c.e.o. monthly rent that's higher than prevailing rates. they were subpoenaed in a broader federal investigation into earmarks going to west virginia where prologic is headquartered. four of prologic's six facilities were in districts in senior members of the house subcommittee. prologic has spent more than $88 o,000 lobbying and has contributed more than $400,000 to congressional campaigns. i should note that this company has denied allegations of wrongdoing. status of this investigation is currently unknown. but here we have a company that press reports say is either under investigation or cooperating with an investigation and we're still giving it an earmark, a no-bid contract, despite what is said that this will be open to free

and open competition. we're giving them an earmark and saying this company at this address should get this money. and i just don't see where this connects with the speech about the needs of our men and women in the military. again, i will stipulate, we need to make sure that our men and women are armed, that they have force protection, that they have the arms and everything else they need. and that's why i'm so against this process that we have here because we bleed off money that should be going to our military and to companies through no-bid contracts who in too many cases simply aren't doing the work that they were contracted to do. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. who seeks time in opposition? mr. murtha: mr. chairman -- mr. young: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition.

the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: i don't even know the company, but i know the issue and i know the needs for the range, for the range the air force and the navy use the eastern part of the gulf of mexico for just tremendous amounts of training. and if members will recall, during the debates over oil drilling and drilling for natural gas and doing other kind of commercial activities in the eastern gulf of mexico, we always protected the eastern -- the gulf of mexico east of the military mission line because it was so critical to training for our national defense to train those pilots and those people who are on seaborne missions to train them that if they go into harm's way they have the proper training. this is for range censors to help with the training of those

military training programs, air force and navy. and if you recall, the debate was very, very aggressive on that issue. and the congress on numerous occasions agreed we had to protect the eastern gulf of mexico so that we were free to use those -- free to use those areas for training. now, i'm not going to vote for this amendment because i think what we need -- you know, the interesting thing here is, and i think if mr. flake were a member of the armed services committee or the appropriations committee he would have a better knowledge of how that works. and he may never have even heard of what we call unfunded requirements. he may never have heard of witnesses coming to testify before these committees on the issue of the request by the administration for appropriations and then giving

you and giving the members of the committees a list of unfunded requirements. things that they need that were not included by o.m.b. in the budget request. and they are for the members that have been here for a while might remember that when i first became chairman of this subcommittee i identified every unfunded requirement that i could. i put it on a scroll and rolled it across the front of the chamber, so members could see what the military said they needed but didn't have in the budget request. i will give you one example. in talking about bombers, at a particular hearing some years ago, an air force officer said to me, you know, these bombers are really important but you guys aren't paying attention to something else really important. i said, well, tell us about it.

what are you talking about? he said, do you know the tug this is a we use to pull the bombers out of the hangars to take them out to the runway, we don't have enough. if we have a large mission, we have bombers and aircraft waiting in line to get a tug to pull them out. well, that's an unfunded requirement. the committee tries to take care of those unfunded requirements. the defense department, under the language that i read earlier, must compete no matter what the bill says no matter what the report says, about where the committee thinks the work ought to go, the defense department has to compete in it. i don't know how much more transparency we can give to mr. flake if the projects aren't competed.

i agree with him, if someone, some company, is not doing the job properly they ought to be investigated and taken off the list of contractors. in fact, in my own district, i had a request for an earmark in this year's bill and the -- the inspector general decided to pay the company a visit to see something about. -- to see about something. i'm not sure what it was about. i pulled the request for that earmark until we find out what happened here, what went wrong? what are they investigating? i think we ought to do that and i don't think we ought to be providing contracts to anyone who hasn't treated the public trust properly. so mr. flake and i aren't totally in disagreement, but we're in disagreement on this amendment because that eastern gulf of mexico range that is so important to training air force and navy pilots especially and

sea borne weeks is so important and those sensors are part of that training. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: the gentleman -- may i inquire from the time remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. flake: i think we're in total agreement. cbs is reporting that prologic is under investigation by the f.b.i. should we be giving it an earmark? the gentleman mentioned that he doesn't know the company. but this we do know, this company, it's reported by cbs, and by others that it is under investigation. we're giving it an earmark when the gentleman says he thinks we are in agreementing, -- in agreement, we shouldn't give earmarks to companies where there's alleged

impropriety going on, that's what we have here. according to the press, unless we know completely that they're clean and doing good work we shouldn't give them an earmark, we should instead say, you decide. the gentleman said he doesn't know the company. does he know if these are -- if this is the only company that can provide the services outlined? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. flake: i yield back. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment baferede the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. flake: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk designated as

number 432 in part b. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 432 in part b of house report 111-223. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: in reference to the last amendment, let me finish my thought. here we have, the ranking minority member of the subcommittee agrees we shouldn't be giving an earmark to a company if there are allegations they're not doing the job they're supposed to do, or there's some cloud hanging over them. yet that's what this earmark is for. all i heard were noes. when my amendment was offered. i would hope when it comes time to vote that members will say, you know, regardless of everything else, perhaps if it's reported that a company is

under investigation, perhaps we shouldn't be giving it an earmark until that's cleared up system of i would hope that that is remembered when it comes time to vote late they are day. this amendment would strike $1.5 million from the ultra low profile e.r.s. gunshot localization system. funding for this localization will produce a completely covert detection system to enhance situational awareness for our military. this sounds like a worth while project, even though the military didn't request it, it may be something we benefit from. but why are we ear das marking funds for a company -- earmarking funds for a company that doesn't have to compete for funds? planning systems incorporated will be the recipient of these

funds. what's not included is justification for use of taxpayer dollars to an entity -- receiving entity of the funds was a client of new defunct p.m.a. group. we're all too familiar with the p.m.a. group. the p.: m.a. group and the companies it represented donated more than $270,000 to the sponsor of this earmark in the 2008 cycle alone. collectively employees of the p.m.a. group and its clients have contributed $1 million to the sponsor since 1998. according to the center for responsive politic, earmark sponsor was the third highest recipient of cricks from p.m.a. since 1998. that's not all. the recipient of the earmark has cribbletted more than $35,000 to the campaign of the sponsor of this earmark, again according to the center for responsive politics. again, there is nothing in our house rule this is a prohibit this. i'm not alleges there are.

i'm saying that we have to stop this process of circular fundraising. it just looks too bad outside of this body when we have a process where members of congress will earmark spending to an earmark recipient that recipient, through its employees, through a p.a.c., through its lobbyists or executives will contribute very handsomely back to the member of congress' campaign committee. there's no other way to look at this outside of this body, i would say, on that say we shouldn't be doing that. particularly in a process where we're told that there are more than 1,000 earmarks in the bill days before the bill comes to the floor and we know that 552 of those earmarks are no-bid contracts to private companies like this one. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves.

who seeks time in opposition. >> i do. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: i thank the gentleman from arizona, our friend, for his conscientious cruteny, particularly of the appropriations process. i trust someday he'll look at the tax process. the tax code which many of your colleagues is very much aware has far more earmarks of greater amount but the -- in deference to the gentleman's concern, again, i would underscore the fact that in this appropriations bill, we make clear in legislation that when there is an earmark awarded to a for-profit entity, it shall be awarded under full and open competition. that's legislative language. it's not intent or anything else. that's the law. i appreciate the fact that the

gentleman has raised this earmark because otherwise, and i'd preesht the gentleman's attention, because he seems to be the only one interested in it, but i am as well. because otherwise no attention would be given to it since it represents about 1/1,000th of one percent of the entire bill, very small amount, normally it would go without notice. few fortunately, the gentleman has raised it. it gives me an opportunity t explain what it does. it is quite true that mr. allen freedman's firm who is a terrific person, c.e.o., and scientist, was represented by p.m.a., which, in fact, is located in my congressional district. i'm proud to have their support, frankly, because they, tooing were conscientious in making sure were fully

investigated, vetted and competitively bid. in fact, for the last three straight years, this system was competitively bid and won. what this system is is called the swat system. it is very strongly supported by our military because it saves lives. what it does is to enable people who would -- special operations primarily or intelligence assets -- that are in denied territory, and i don't know need to go any further than that, find out exactly where gunshots are coming from, how far away, and how many snipers there are. it's worked exceptionally well. what mr. freedman does with this small amount of money is to address one problem with the system. which is that it's bulky. it's very visible. it has radars.

and so it's too easily detected by the enemy. so to some extent, the enemy can be a target as a result. what dth does is to make the system virtually invisible. for $1.5 million it's going to save hundreds of lives in our expectation. that's why we are more than confident that when it is competitively bid, which is required by this legislation, it will win this bid. now, again, the gentleman has raised important issues, but i think if he was actually to look at this system, h even, would vote to include the money in this bill to ensure this system is available for our military and some of the roughest, most dangerous terrain, so as to save their lives. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

arizona. mr. flake: may i inquire as to the time remaining. the chair: the gentleman from arizona has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. flake: i would simply ask, maybe when he has his time back, to explain why, if it was open to competition in the last three year, why we had to earmark it this year. mr. mo rab: i'll tell the gentleman. mr. flake: i just have a minute left. mr. moran: i'll use my own time. mr. flake: the gentleman made the point that's been made again that these have to be subject to fair and open competition. let me say again, the defense department has said that all along, for years they've said the same thing. we subject these earmarks to full and open competition that doesn't stop members of congress, as soon as this bill is passed today, there will be a flurry of press releases, i guarantee it, where members will say, i was successful in securing funding for this particular program. if you -- if it's open to

competition, how do you know you've secured funding? let me read from a couple of press releases in the past. i was pleased to secure funding for prince georges county that will benefit our neigh's military. that was somebody who knows the process pretty well, the majority leader. he didn't wait for the competition that supposedly comes when the project gets to the defense department. like i said, tomorrow you'll see a round of those same press releases i was able to secure funds, because members know with uncanny precision the defense department will follow these earmarks. i would say again, with is particular earmark, it sounds like a great program. the sponsor of the earmark indicated this was open to competition in the last couple of years. that's great. why do we have to earmark it this year? i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

virginia. mr. moran: may i inquire how much time i have? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes. mr. moran: i thank the chairman. again, in case it wasn't fully understood, i know you were conversing with the ranking member at the time and this may resolve the gentleman's concern, in the legislation it says, again, that all earmarks, when awarded to a for-profit entity, shall be awarded under full and open competition. can't stress that enough. to address the gentleman's concern, first of all, i never made a press announcement about this. in fact, truth be known, i haven't talked to mr. freedman for probably a year. i certainly didn't even let him know this earmark was in because it was in because we checked with military personnel, vetted it, and found that this was a system that was a substantial improvement over

what the current -- what the military is currently using, called the smart system. this is the ear system, they're acronyms, but this, as i explained, will be a much safer, less visible system that will protect lives. now, mr. freedman is no longer represented by p.m.a. i haven't had contact with him and the fact is, at least in quite some time, the fact is this is in here because of the merit of the project. it's only $1357b9 million, but it is highly herer tos you. that's why it is in. i grant you, i know about it because it takes place, the work is done in my congressional district. it also represents jobs. but they're not simply jobbers in sake of keeping people employed, they're jobs to protect our military and civilian personnel in the most

dangerous terrain and the most dangerous places on the planet. that's what this does. and for a billion and a half dollars -- again, i have enormous respect for the people in the pentagon, but they don't always move with blazing speed when they are making a change from one system to another. -on-times you go with the status quo. even though there are deficiencies, it's the easiest thing. what this does, and the reason we put many of these earmarks in, is because it adds a new level of technology to do a better job of accomplishing its underlying purpose. with that i again thank the gentleman for raising the position and trust it will be approved and made part of the bill. the chair: just. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. flake: mr. chairman, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk designated as number 439 in part b. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 439 printed in house report 111-233 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 685, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. murtha: did i hear a unanimous consent request? mr. flake: no. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: mr. chairman, this amendment would prohibit $2.5

billion from being submitted to aargm counterdefense future capabilities. according to the website, aargm is a supersonic medium-ranged air launched tactical missile. the certification letter says that funds directed will enable a.t.k. will designate improvements to aargm, particularly in longer ranges. now, i'm not here again to merit this project. i am not an aero space engineer. i would suggest that nobody in this body knows that this is the best one, not even the sponsor of the bill -- the amendment -- i'm sorry, of the earmark. we don't know that because there are are no way that the appropriations committee vetted the 1,102 earmark projects in this bill during its 18-minute

markup. we don't know that because members of congress in general don't have the kind of expertise required to make that determination. in cases like these, when we're determining the kind of missiles that best work for our armed services, it seems to me that decision is best made by experts at the department of defense. when set of determination is -- once the determination is made, the contract to make these missiles ought to be competitively bid through the d.o.d. but as is the case with nearly 550 of these earmarks, we have a hand picked private company being handed federal funds for a project based solely on the discretion of one member of congress. this is a no-bid contract. that alone should be troubling enough. but there's an additional facet . i mentioned the problem with circular fundraising that's been detailed by so many media organizations out there. it's getting tiring reading the stories every day. the associated press reported

an ongoing f.b.i. investigation is highlighting the close ties between special interest group provisions known as earmarks and the raising of campaign cash. as i mentioned in every one of the individual earmarks that we're discussing today, there is -- there are examples of funding going to the earmark recipient and then executives from the company, their lobbyists and the pacts contributing large amounts of campaign dollars back to the sponsors of the earmark. that simply doesn't look right. it may be legal, it is, our ethics committee has said you can get campaign contributions in close proximity to earmarks. but members of this body, i would think would want to have a higher standard here. we ought to say, you know, maybe we don't know exactly the kind of missile systems we ought to be used. we ought to leave that to those with a little more expertise instead of giving a no-bid contract to a private company

that happens to be in the district or doesn't but simply is willing to provide a lot of campaign contributions. so i would say, mr. chairman, we have to stop this process. we have to say we can no longer afford to award no-bid contracts to private companies as we have done in the past regardless of the language that is inserted that says these have to be subject to competition. we know how it works in the defense department because they say now over the past several years these have to be subject to competition. and yet time and time again when you look, there's an uncanny alignment between the earmark recipient designated by the sponsor of the earmark and the company that eventually gets the dollars. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves --

the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. murtha: i rise in opposition and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the chairman. again, i would say we can no longer continue to give no-bid contracts to private companies. and i would say as i mentioned that for those who say we have language now in the bill, i would hope and i would certainly yield time to the gentleman, the chairman of the subcommittee on defense, if he will agree that if they really believe in this language that if the senate knocks the language out that we will not agree to a conference report that has these no-bid contracts in it. if that is the case, if we're so willing to believe that this language actually has any force, i don't believe it does because the defense department already says that they subject these earmarks to full competition, but those who are

placing so much stock in this language, i would assume that they agree so strongly and they say these are going to be subject to competition, if the senate strikes that language out, i'd like to hear from those here that the house will also nullify those no-bid contracts. because we have designated who those recipients should be. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. flake: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murtha: let me read to the gentleman, mr. chairman, with respect to list of specific programs, projects and activities contained in the tables entitled explanation of project level adjustments and report of the committee of appropriations of the house of representatives those which are considered congressional earmarks for purpose of rule 21 of the rules of the house of representatives when afforded for-profit entity should be awarded in full and open competition. this amendment would prohibit $2.5 million for aargm

counterdefense future capabilities. now, i know that members of congress represent their district. i know that arizona gets $9.7 billion in defense. i'm sure that this member is not worried about the fact that some of this money may go someplace else. i know that's not his reason for this. $9.7 billion is fifth in a number of defense industries throughout the country. but let me tell the chair a story. when i first took over the committee in 1989, i looked at one of the projects that the navy was working on. they made consoles for all the ships in the navy. and they were paid $850,000 for those consoles. we said you got to compete them. we had probably 25, 30 hearings that year.

we had 51 trips that we sent the troops on. same as we did this year. we had 38 hearings this year. and hundreds and hundreds of meetings. but this one particular program was called the q-70. we forced them to compete it, and it's a very interesting thing. the navy went to the air force and said, look, we want you to buy this particular program and we'll buy it from you so they wouldn't have to compete it. well, the staff found out about it and in the end, that didn't work and they competed. that particular console now costs $125,000 per unit. we saved over $1 billion. they happen to make that in my district. and some people would say, that was an earmark. we saved over $1 billion in one contract. on another submarine torpedo contract we saved over half a billion dollars. so small businesses, the

backbone of industry in this country, all the growth has been in small business. these folks are working diligently. they pay taxes. they go home every day and they know how important it is to do good work. they meet superspecifications from the military. they complain all the time the specifications are too tough, the competition is too tough. the first time i brought defense companies to my contract i had 24% unemployment. and we couldn't get any business out of them because none of my companies knew how to do defense work. now, in arizona they obviously know how to do defense work. they have $9.7 billion worth of business in arizona. pennsylvania is not even on the list for the amount of defense work. that's embarrassing with all the troops that we send. we sent more national guard members to iraq and afghanistan than any other national guard unit in the district. -- in the country. i've lost 19 people in my congressional district.

so i feel very strongly about this. small businesses are the backbone. the people that i visit are working hard. they know how tough it is. they know that they meet the specifications. and they bid on these contracts and they win these contracts and i'm proud to represent them. with that i ask for a no vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. flake: mr. chairman, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk designated as number 449 in part b. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 449 printed in house report 111-233 offered by the

gentleman from arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 685, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and the gentleman from opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: argue gone is health quartered in fair fox, virginia. the certification -- fairfax, virginia. the certificate if i sayings says it will upgrade -- certification says it will upgrade torpedos. this isn't the first time that this company has received funding or federal funding for a project. this project itself received two earmarks totaling $8.7 million in 2007, $7.75 million were also allocated to such a system in 2006. f.e.c. records indicate that since 2006, employees of the earmark recipient, aragon s.t. designated $47,000 in campaign contributions to the sponsor of the earmark. according to the center for

responsive politics, they made $23,000 in donations to the sponsor's campaign and his leadership pact to the -- in the 2008 election cycle. according to the f.e.c., this represented more than a third of all donations at aragon's pack during the election cycle. during the 2006 cycle they reported to be the second highest contributor to the earmark sponsor's pact. the funding for this earmark may very well be vital to the national defense or it may not be. we just don't know here, i would suggest. but the earmarking system is so opaque that the purposes and justifications for more than 1,100 earmarks in this bill are a mystery to just about everyone. again, the committee took a whole 18 minutes to send this bill onto the floor with the unanimous vote. . had this earmark been examined it would have revealed the

recient required coherent systems. they know face charges for getting kickbacks. srgon s.t. is facing in the investigation. in the ache of the bay bram who have -- abramoff scandal, i would ask whether congress should be requiring no-bid contracts. i would submit it should not. there are more than $2.7 billion in earmark spending in this bill. we had less than two weeks to go over more than 1,100 earmarks that comprise this spending. we simply can't continue to do this. i know the member will stand up and say these have to be competed out. i would again ask the member, and i'll actually yield him the rest of my time, if he will stand and say that if the senate removes this language that requires open competition, if then we will then remove these no-bid contracts. i will yield to the gentleman for that.

he doesn't have to take my time. he can take his own. again what i'm asking is if the senate removes the language that members put i think too much stock in, because the defense department says they already subject these contracts to fl and open competition. if the senate should remove that language, will the members of this body remove the no-bid contracts, 552 of them, i believe, from the bill. i yield for an answer. and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. murtha: let me read -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. murtha: this is our bill with respect to the list of specific program projects and activities contained in tables and title explanation of projects, level adjustments and reported the committee on appropriation house of representatives, those which are considered congressional earmarks for purpose of rule 21 of the house of representatives

when awarded to a for-profit entity shall be awarded under full and open competition. in this particular case this company's doing very well. reuters gave them a very high rating, but we -- what we look at is the people that work in those places. the awarding of these contracts. the fact that the defense department has such high levels of specification that they insist on, when you go to defense company, they have all kinds of things that are added that are not true in most places. small business is the best you can get at doing this kind of work. during world war ii we produced 83,000 airplanes in one year during 1943. 30,000 tanks. there were some abuses, i'm sure. today we don't have that capacity. what we worry about if we don't

have small business doing this it's going to go overseas f it goes overseas, we are going to lose those business, we'll lose the ability. we continually put buy american in our provisions. and it turns out that it still goes overseas. much of the airplane parts are built overseas now. much of parts if we weren't careful some of the body armor would be built overseas because some of the companies would be cheaper. we insist it be built in this country. americans do it, those americans are so proud of the work they do. american flags there, pictures of the troops, letters from the troops about how proud of the work they are doing. and the government checks continually to make sure they are doing that kind of work and they meet those specifications. i ask for a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of thimes. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. so many as are in favor say aye, those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have t the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk designated number 5 53. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 555, printed in house report number 111-233, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 685, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: let me note before i start this amendment that again i ask the chairman if he would accept if the senate nullified the language requiring free and open competition, the house would say ok, we will remove these no-bid contracts. i didn't hear an answer to that. i would suggest that we know full well the senate will remove that language. i think we put too much stock in the language anyway. but the senate will certainly remove it because not to remove it might for some senators think they might be not be able to secure the funding for their

earmark. we all know that's not going to happen. if we were serious about this language, if we were serious about free and open competition, we wouldn't be earmarking in this fashion. full stop. mr. chairman, i would ask unanimous consent that this amendment be modified in the form i placed at the desk. mr. murtha: i object. the chair: objection is heard. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. flake: this amendment would prohibit nearly 200 million from more than 70 earmarks intended from former clients of p.n.a. group. we are now familiar with the p.m.a. scandal, i think is in the beginning stages and certainly not the end. p.m.a. group was a prominent lobbying firm that specialized in obtaining defense earmarks for its clients whose offices were recently raided by the f.b.i. according to the hill as part of the federal investigation into politically corrupt poe -- foningsly corrupt political contributions. the lob yg i -- lobbying firm

shuttered its operations but not before leaving a detailed blueprint of how political -- how the political money churn works in congress. p.m.a. is emplem matic of the -- emblematic of the circular fundraising that's become part of the process. "c.q. today" has noted the firm has charged $107 million in lobbying fee from 2000 to 2008. it's safe to say the group was associated with showering members of congress with campaign cash. according to center for responsive politics, quote, since 1998 the firm and its clients have given 40.3 million total to the canada committees and leadership pacts of 514 lawmakers, nearly every member of the current congress. the center also reported members of the defense appropriations subcommittee have collected nearly $million in campaign cash since 1993 from p.m.a. employees and the firm's pact. if you include contributions from employees and pacts of the

parent companies and subsidiaries, the total jumps to nearly $8 million over the last decade. in review of the 2008 p.m.a. earmarks, the sunlight foundation noted that 40 organizations whose sole lobbyist was p.m.a. had an average return on their lobbying fee investment of more than 2,700%. clients of the firm received at least $300 million in earmarks in appropriations legislation, including several that were approved even after news that the fib raided the firm's offices and the justice department investigation into the firm was well-known. that was earlier this year. the omnibus spending bill we approved in january had money for p.m.a. clients in there just weeks after it was revealed that p.m.a.'s offices had been raided. we still didn't scrub them out. i would submit if we are not going to do it then, when will we do it? there are i believe there are 70

earmarks in this bill for former clients of p.m.a. i think -- we have had several privileged resolutions of which i think one count 29 members of the majority party and nearly all members of the -- 29 pems.members of the minority party and nearly all members -- campaign dollars that have come to this congress. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. murtha: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves his time. mr. flake: may i inquire as to the time remaining? the chair: one minute. mr. flake: i yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from illinois. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kirk: i rise in support of this amendment. coming from illinois we know the pace and timing of a federal investigation. i think it's fairly clear that p.m.a. and several principles will now be indicted. to project this house and to

protect the appropriations committee, i think having a strategic pause in the spending of this money is necessary. it's clear that p.m.a. and its key folks with so many federal resources now dedicated to this investigation, are going to face federal criminal prosecution. so to protect this house, this is a wise amendment to put forward to make sure that we can be beyond reproach. as someone who comes from governor blagojevich's state and already knows how federal prosecutions and -- work goes forward, so many resources have put forward on this case already that it's clear that an indictment is coming forward. and to protect this house i think we should adopt the amendment. i yield back to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murtha: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. murtha: let me read to the

house again the one member keeps mentioning over and over again the same thing. i want to mention with respect to lists of specific program projects and activities contained in tables and title explanation of project level adjustments reported in the committee appropriations of the house of representatives those which are considered congressional earmarks for purpose of rule 21 of the house of representatives when awarded to a for-profit entity shall be awarded under full and open competition. as i mentioned i hope that there's no member trying to protect their own defense money, $9.7 million in arizona. this is not reason there is opposition. i don't say that under any circumstances. one thing i say is we put money in for projects. we don't put it in because any one representative -- last year -- this p.m.a. is defunct. this year we put the projects in that we thought were worthwhile. not because of a representative.

because they don't represent them anymore. those projects are in the budget because members themselves thought they were good projects. with that i ask a no on the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. flake: on this i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: mr. speaker, i have an en bloc amendment made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendments en bloc consisting of all the amendments printed in part b of house report number 111-233, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 685, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the chairman. as my colleagues are aware i

submitted 553 amendments to the rules committee. each seeking to strike an earmark. that was listed by the sponsor, the sponsoring member as going to a private for-profit earmark. 553 amendments. nearly half of these -- there are 1,102 earmarks representing $2.7 billion. this is not chump change. this is a lot of money going out the door. 552 of these are listed as going -- i said 553, i was off by one, 552 are listed to go to for-profit companies. if the dollar amount as attached to these earmarks, it's $1.3 billion comprising nearly half of the earmarked dollars in the bill. i simply do not believe and i think the country agrees that we should be doing no-bid contracts for private companies. as much as the members on the other side of the aisle and this side of the aisle, as much as the members of the

appropriations subcommittee on defense will say that these are going to be competed out, we know that they won't be. we had testimony from the comptroller general's office in the government reform committee. he said there is no automated database that provides insight into the extent of competition achieved on congressional earmarks. direct quote. i have been trying for literally months to get some insight into this process. and we are told as i mentioned, we are told we do committee these out. but then when i ask them to do a random sample of earmarks in a prior bill they came back and confessed that with uncanny precision these earmarks find their way to the intended recipients. this process will not change because language has been submitted in this bill just saying they must now be competed. if members really believe that statement, then they would agree that if the senate nullifies that language, that they would strike these no-bid contracts. and say that the defense

department should simply make them all open to competition. but we know they are not going to do that because the members here know the senate isn't going to agree to that language. even if they did, the defense department confesses here, there's no way to really track these, but with uncanny precision even though they had a process that they claim subjects these earmarks to open competition, they aren't subjected to open competition. they know that unless they follow the guidelines in these -- conference reports, that they may not get funding the next year. . briefly for 15 seconds. >> if we do wind up competing these projects, which is the intent of the committee, wouldn't the gentleman say that's a major step forward in correcting his concern, if they were in fact competed? mr. flake: if they were competed, we wouldn't need to

earmark them. that's the point. an earmark is a way around competition. we've seen it in other appropriations bills and it's no difference in defense. you earmark dollars because you want that company either in your district or out to be sure to receive that funding, that's why in the certification letters, member says, this earmark is to go to this recipient at this address. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield on that point? mr. flake: i will. mr. dicks: again, the gentleman may not understand the process. it's because that is the company that's made the request of the member of congress. the member of congress now realizes that it is going to be competed, that it isn't going to necessarily go to that company. i think that is a good reform. i supported it in the appropriations committee. we also, by the way, for the gentleman's knowledge -- 10 seconds. we have all of these earmarks, every single earmark was vetted with the department of defense before the committee, staff and

the members considered those amendments. they were looked at by the department of defense. mr. flake: regaining my time. i would submit that if it's going to be subject to competition, there's no reason to name the recipient organization it is to get the earmark. mr. dicks: there are the ones that -- the chair: the gentleman from arizona controls the time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: may i inquire as to the time remaining? the chair: the gentleman from arizona has 45 seconds remaining. mr. flake: as i mention, i have very little time. i say if we believe in that language, then we would agree that if the senate nullifies it then we would take out these no-bid contracts. would the gentleman agree to that? mr. dicks: i think we ought to fight for that language in conference and do the very best we can to prevail to keep that language. mr. flake: i would submit that the gentleman knows full well that the senate will not retain that language. that that bill will come back

to the house without that language and that we, unless we take a stand here and we can with this amendment and simply strike funding for those, if these companies are great, some of them are i'm sure, then they'll win these contracts. if they're not, then they won't. but the member won't be earmarking and saying, this money needs to go to this company at this address. that is a no-bid contract. that's what the member is seeking, and that, unfortunately, is what happens when it gets to the defense department. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: mr. chairman, i claim the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, i know that the gentleman from arizona, who is my friend, listened to the comments made when i read from the bill earlier and when others have read from the bill, but i don't think he heard. he listened, but he didn't hear. the intent of this legislation is that any money provided here

will be competitively bid. now, i've gone to the senate in conference many, many times and have returned so frustrated many, many times. i don't know what the senate will do on this language or anything else in this bill, but i know if i were a senator and i was being accused on the floor today, i'd be really offended by the fact that he's suggesting that the senate doesn't want competition. i'm not prepared to say that. i think the senators believe in competition just like the house . listen to this debate one might know -- i won't. if i have time i might. but right now i don't have time. if as we listen to this debate, anyone listening might think that congress is all a bunch of crooks and that american free

enterprise is sneaking in the back door to make money and that the congress and the department of defense are at odds all the time. but that's not true. the congress is full of good people. the defense department is a very good -- and they secure or nation. but they don't have all of the knowledge, and they don't have all of the wisdom. neither does the administration, neither does the congress. that's why we work together. i think that's why the drafters of the constitution included article 1, section 9 to say how appropriations should be handled. now, maybe you don't like the way the appropriations are handled. people can make that decision in the house every two years. article 1, section 9 says very simply no money shall be drawn

from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. now, what that means is congress appropriates the people's money. the constitution, read it thoroughly, does not say that congress can only appropriate money requested by the administration, nor does it say that the administration can only -- it does say that the administration can only spend money that has been appropriated by the congress. now, if you don't like that, offer a constitutional amendment. amend the constitution. but somebody's got to be responsible. and the constitution makes congress responsible. now i said that the pentagon is not the knowledge -- is not the fountain of all knowledge. i want to give a couple of examples of where congress has insisted over objection on the part of the pentagon for

certain types of appropriations . with the leadership of jerry lewis, who is the chairman of the subcommittee at the time, this subcommittee and the congress insisted that we buy and produce and deploy unmanned aerial vehicles. we call it the predator. and next to the american soldier on the ground, al qaeda fears that predator more than any other weapon that we have. pentagon didn't want it. it was not in any budget request. congress insisted, and it has become one of the most effective weapons that we have in the war against terror in iraq and in afghanistan. and on another side of it. not taking out the enemy but saving our own people. congress created without any support from the administration , congress created something we refer to it as the bone marrow

transplant program. it is a life-saving program that has saved the lives of thousands of people. the administration didn't like it. they thought we were wastingure time trying to do it, -- wasting our time trying to do. we did it anyway. they said probably 50,000 people were willing to donate their bone marrow to save the life of another human being. but we prevailed. today there are over seven million people in the registry that re-created an earmark and are saving lives every day, not only in america but in many countries around the world. we have relationships with 13 other countries where we exchange patients and exchange bone marrow over the oceans to save people's lives, to give them a chance for life. that was a congressional earmark. am i out of time, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from arizona. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. flake: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona les postponed. -- arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendments printed in part c of house report 111-233. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. campbell: mr. chairman, i rise -- i have at the desk campbell amendment number 1. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part c, amendment number 1 printed in house report 111-233 offered by mr. campbell of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 685, the gentleman from california, mr. campbell, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. campbell: i thank the chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment

would strike the $3 million earmark for the rapid deemployable shelter project -- deployable shelter project for $3 approximately which money would go to johnson outdoors, inc. and, mr. chairman, during the debate on the previous earmark, there was a number of -- there's been a lot of discussion in all the previous earmarks about how the earmarks say that they are to be competitively bid. i guess the question that i would have is if in fact the earmarks are to be competitively bid, why did the author, sponsor of this earmark send in his certification letter to the ranking member and the chairman of the appropriations committee say, and i quote, the entity to receive funding for this project is johnson outdoors, inc., 625, compton road, binghamton, new york, 13902? so i would ask the question of

the sponsor if these are to be competitively bid, why -- how do you reconcile that with the statement that the entity to receive funding for this project is, and i would yield? i'd yield to the gentleman, the sponsor of the earmark. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield to me? mr. campbell: i yield to the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: it's the company that made the question. but that doesn't mean when there's a competitive competition that that's going to necessarily go to that company. but you want the -- if you want the people to certify they don't have a financial interest, you got to put down the name of the company that made the request. mr. campbell: if i could reclaim my time and the gentleman from washington and i have discussed this. frankly someday i hope -- this is the last appropriations bill -- we can sit down and figure something out here. because it just -- this says the entity to receive the funding for the project is.

if that's not dispositive, i don't know what is? mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? we might want to change that language, we'll compete for the project. mr. campbell: then don't list the entity. if somebody listed the project and they are going to get it, then where is the competitive bidding? shouldn't we just simply say, here's the project, here's what it is, there's no name, there's no indication? let whoever wants to bid for this compete for it and require there be a minimum of three bidders or the earmark won't go out, because sometimes these things are written to a specific product that perhaps only one company makes. and i guess, you know, i understand the gentleman from washington's point on this. but i hope you understand mine. i mean, these earmarks -- mr. chairman, this is a stain on this house. i don't want to be doing this. we all got better things to do. there's -- you know, there

happens to be a little recession going on. a lot of people out of work. happens to be a big and legit mate debate how -- legitimate debate how health care should go in this country. there is a stain on this house. these earmarks particularly ones on private companies. now, i don't do earmarks and arguably if i were king i don't think we should do anything in this house at all. but i understand a legitimate argument for them, but i absolutely reject any thought or idea that earmarks that go to private entities like this with the direction to a private entity are anything but a stain in this house. mr. chairman, there are former members of this body in jail today because of earmarks to private entities. and i wish i could say there will never be any more, but i don't know that. but the way we won't have any more is if we stop this practice and we don't do this sort of thing again in the future. this is -- this really is about this house and the integrity of this house and the view of the integrity of this house to

other -- to the outside world, to the -- our constituents and to the people of the united states. and i would ask a couple more questions. i'm almost out of time. if the company -- does the company submit for defense procurement and were turned down, is that why you have this earmark, how would you determine the price that $3 million is the right price and would you, as other members have, commit you will not receive campaign contributions from company executives, employees, shareholders or lobbyists on this entity, other members on this floor have made that commitment? with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. chairman, i oppose the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yielded back his time. >> mr. chairman, we're dealing with a situation here that is critically important to military personnel both here

and the united states and in many places around the world. now, i'm sure that the sponsor of this amendment doesn't realize what it's like not to have a roof over your head, but if you were in the military and you're stationed out in places that are difficult and hazardous to deal with, it's important to have these tents. and the particular entity with which we are focusing attention in this particular amendment, this earmark, rather, to provide these tents is a company that has done so over and over again in the context of bidding and bidding successfully for it. the army and marine corps, just as an example, currently have unmet needs for shelters, and those unmet needs are growing. . this year they were informed by the marine corps of a need of 9,000 tents. unfortunately those real priorities are not resulting in

production orders and the main reason they are not resulting in production orders is due to the way in which the department of defense has focused on other things and not dealing with this particular aspect of the needs of military personnel. in a number of places, here and in a lot of other places which are damaging and dangerous and places around the world. iraq, afghanistan. places like that,or example. so without this stopgap funding for these shelter programs, our troops could literally be without that roof over their head. the defense logistics agency has stated that the tent and shelter industry is a critical part of the u.s. defense industrial base. and they did that in the context of a report to the congress. i'm not yielding, no. they did that in the context of a report to the congress.

so supporting this amendment by mr. campbell will leave the united states military with a smaller, less competitive, and potentially foreign source of this essential material which is needed by our military personnel. you're dealing with something this is fundamentally, essentially important. in the context of this particular situation, if we didn't deal with it with this particular way, perhaps these manufacturing operations would come from places outside the united states. there are a lot of people here, apparently, who are opposed to many of the things that we are doing who are not opposed to having manufacturing activities in other parts of the world and not here. this is what we are intended to do. to make sure that the military get the security, the safety that they need. and at the same time to ensure in every way that we can that the manufacturing process is done here in the united states

so that these jobs are going to be an important part of our dealing with this economic recession which was put forward over the course of the previous eight years and is now something that we are dealing with effectively. if you're opposed to this amendment, it really doesn't make -- if you are opposed to this earmark, rather, it doesn't make any sense. if you are opposed to the amendment, that makes perfect sense. that is exactly what we are doing. for all of the good reasons that i have stipulated and that's why this amendment should remain as an important part of this absolutely essential piece of legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from california. mr. campbell: mr. chairman, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. campbell: i have amendment number 8 at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: art c, amendment number 8, printsed in house report number 111-233, offered by mr. campbell of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 685, the gentleman from california, mr. cam many, and a member posed each will control five minutes of the the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. campbell: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, first before i discuss this amendment i'd like to make a comment relative to the gentleman from new york's defense of his earmark before. if in fact these shelters are necessary, and i'm not going to dispute that point with the gentleman, they may in fact be, then why do we not have a designation that the defense department should procure 9,000, 90,000, whatever it is items of shelter and they should procure them from a u.s.-based source and they should do it under competitive bidding and got -- get at least three bids and pick that which is the 450euest

quality and lowest cost. wouldn't that be an appropriate way to do this? that's what i am saying and i think the gentleman from arizona before me is saying. we are not here and certainly i am not here to say that it is not congress' right to appropriate funds. it is in fact the right as you have all pointed out that is enumerated in the constitution. however there is a right way to do that and a wrong way to do that. with these 5523 -- 552 no-bid going to private companies earmarks, amounting to $1.3 billion, which if the 18 minutes debate in the committee were spent enthrire on the earmarks means each earmark received two seconds of debate. this is not the proper way to do it. this particular earmark, mr. chairman, would strike $1.5 million designated for the green laboratories and clean rooms project and reduce the overall

funding of the bill by an equivalent amount. this money is intended to go to amethyst technologies. again as we have discussed if this is competitively bid why does the sponsor's letter which i have here of certification of this earmark say, and i quote, the contact name and address is ms. kimberly brown, president, amethyst technologies, 1450 south rolling road, sweet 2041, baltimore, maryland, 21227. mr. chairman, again i would ask -- i don't think i see the author of the earmark but let me ask someone over there, whoever is going to deal with this, why, again, is only one company listed if it's to be competitively bid? if there is no -- i yield -- if there is no response for that, then i guess i would ask did

this company submit this to the defense department for procurement? did they even try? did this company even try to go to the defense department and make their case with those in the military whose job it is to determine what is best for the military? i yield. mr. taylor: i want to thank the gentleman you ask a great question. the reason is in the six years he was secretaries of defense, don rumsfeld decimated the defense acquisition community. fired tens -- mr. campbell: reclaiming my time. mr. taylor: who would have put it out for bid. mr. campbell: mr. chairman. mr. taylor: we are trying to reconstitute -- the chair: the gentleman from california controls the time. mr. campbell: donald rumsfeld is no longer secretary of defense. has not been for some time. there is a different president. we are dealing with the -- with appropriations for a fiscal year that begins later this year and goes into 2010.

if you think -- this is necessary, just don't say it's for this company, it's $1.5 million. another question, i have -- i will in a second. how do you determine the $1.5 million is the right price? what are you getting for $1.5 million? how do you know you couldn't get the same thing somewhere else for half that? i yield. mr. taylor: you are exactly right. because of the lack of trained professionals, there really isn't anyone in the d.o.d. anymore who can say what something should cost. you don't learn that overnight. we are trying to restore that. we are trying -- second point -- mr. campbell: i'm happy to exchange. if there's nobody, then isn't that something the armed servicings committee should be dealing with? i yield. mr. taylor: we are dealing with it. the other part is on those major programs, starting with the big

ones, whenever we buy something here going forward, we are demanding that when we buy something we own the technical data package that we from now on will own the specifications so that if we think a contractor's not being fair with us we can put it out for bid with someone else. they don't have that right now. mr. campbell: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: 30 seconds. mr. campbell: i'm going to reserve the balance of my time. please continue your argument on your time. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- mr. murpta: i rise in opposition. reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. campbell: mr. chairman, one other question, one that didn't get answered on the last earmark and will i ask it again on this particular earmark, i understand the sponsor is not here, but will the sponsor commit as other people have done on this floor that he has not received and will not accept campaign contributions from the company, it's executives, stockholders, employees, or lobbyists, or other people who could benefit directly from the earmark?

because, mr. chairman, if people won't do that, then as the gentleman from arizona and others have suggested, that is where perhaps we can get in deeper trouble on these sorts of things in the future. i ask for an aye vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murtha: let me read the policy of the committee, the full committee just brought me the policy which answer's the gentleman's question. under the policy adopted, use of member earmarks awarded to for-profit entities is a functional identify quifflent of a no-bid contract is ended. in cases where the committee funds an earmark designated for a for-profit entity, the committee includes legislation language, requires the executive branch to nonetheless issue a request for proposal that gives other entities an opportunity to apply and requires the agent is to evaluate all kids received and make a decision based on merit. the language included in the bill requires full and open

competition. this gives the original designee an opportunity to be brought to the attention of the agency with the possibility an alternative entity may be selected. let me read to the gentleman, mr. chairman, with respect to list, specific programs, projects, and level adjustments in the report committeed on appropriations the house of representatives those which are considered congressional earmarks for the purpose of rule 21, this is in 113 of the bill, 21 of the house of representatives, when awarded to a for-profit entity shall be awarded under full and open competition. this in particular case it's $1.1 million from hospital maintenance, so for the. there is nobody, nobody, there is no committee in the congress, the authorizing committee works on different things, we work at making sure the medical facilities are clean, making sure they are taken care of. mr. bishop's offers an amendment

wants to make sure the funding would provide for development, renovation, maintenance, testing, environmental, sustainable laboratories and clean rooms. i ask for a no vote and -- mr. taylor: i remind the gentleman. mr. murtha: the gentleman makes a point. mr. taylor: we have had a new administration for six months. don rumsfeld, who said he knew the iraqis had weapons of mass destruction and knew they were going to use them decimated the acquisition force. unless you own the special, you can't put it out for competition. we are in the process of the armed services committee of getting the specifications of everything we buy from here on out, something rumsfeld never did, so we can have the kind of competition that the gentleman seeks. we are in the process of doing so. starting with combat ship f the gentleman has a question i'll be more than happyp to answer. mr. campbell: would the gentleman yield? do you see -- does the gentleman see a problem with doing these

in the future without a company name? mr. taylor: again, there will be times when someone who has invented something comes to congress and says i have something that's bigger, faster, smaller, whatever the deal is, and if that person says and by the way i own the unique rights to this, do you want to buy it from me or not? on to that first time it makes sense for the nation to buy it. it also makes sense for the nation to say from here on out, when we buy your product, we are buying those specifications with it so we can bid it to somebody else in the future. mr. campbell: would the gentleman yield? mr. murtha: i ask -- the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania controls the time and has yielded back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from california. mr. campbell: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 111-233 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 printed in part a by mr. murtha of pennsylvania. amendment number 3 printed in part a by mr. flake of arizona. amendment number 5 printed in part a by mr. tierney of massachusetts. amendment number 1 printed in part b by mr. flake of arizona. amendment number 258 printed in part b by mr. flake of arizona. amendment number 389 printed in part b by mr. flake of arizona. amendment number 432 printed in part b by mr. flake of arizona. amendment number 439 printed in part bafment by mr. flake of arizona. amendment number 449 printed in part b by mr. flake of arizona. amendment number 553 printed in part b by mr. flake of arizona. amendments en bloc by mr. flake of ars as. amendment number 1 printed in part c by mr. campbell of california. amendment number 8 printed in part c by mr. campbell of