projects that have direct benefits for our forces, for our diplomats based on their charter. secondly, if we're going to zeroof out the u.s. institute for -- zero out the u.s. institute for peace because its nt worthy of a direct earmark, we'll peel the legislation that created it. there wasn't anything that created brookings or heritage, these were private organizations. u.s. institute of peace was created by both houses and wasn't dropped in but a piece of legislation that created that institute and what the appropriators do each year is decide which appropriation should come. they have already taken a whack out of the institute of peace because -- in some cases they

took a bigger whack out of programs i wish they hadn't done, but cut this. but come back with legislation to repeal the authorizing legislation and then there will be nothing to earmark for, nothing to fund. the fact is, yeah, it's a nice building and right next door to a pretty drab building, the state department, but the state department may not like the building they're in but would like to use the u.s. institute of peace for a whole variety of activities that they think they are able to get value added from and they choose to direct and work with and contract with and partner with the u.s. institute of peace on a whole variety of projects as does the pentagon. .

mr. weiner: the defense department has an arms control agency. these projects exist within the agencies. it should exist, mr. berman, but not in this way. mr. berman: i respect that. this is not a matter of whether or not they should consist but we by statute decided to create them for very specific purposes. if you don't think this is worthy of federal funds, then put in legislation to repeal the authorization and the creation of this institute. don't keep a statute on the book that creates an institution which we're now going to take away. mr. weiner: will the gentleman yield for a question? mr. berman: sure. mr. weiner: in the context of

c.r., we have a choice, fund, don't fund. i agree, i would like there to be oversight since 1985 over this and to answer this question, but to be very clear, you're not entirely correct. the money and the authorization to build the building came in the form of an earmark drop of $100 million by senator stevens that came from neither house, from neither committee, it just fell in there. and that was to build that building, again, a benefit -- we're catching up $780 million in. mr. berman: if retroactively you could undo the money that was spent, make that argument. you're trying to zero out the appropriations for an institute congress created through legislation passed in both houses. put in a bill to repeal the legislation and then we'll go through the arguments about its merits or not and decide. don't wipe it out in this indirect fashion. you put in legislation, the

authorizing committees will consider that legislation. this isn't the right way to do it. i urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> madam chairman, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman. i yield as much time as the gentleman from minnesota can consume. >> i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding. thank you, madam chair. just to discuss a point about the institute for peace being not like any other organization, actually, they are. afghan study center where it will conduct two one-day seminars in kabul provinces, a national unity, peace and stability, cooperation for peace and unity organization, resolve long-standing conflicts. mr. cravaack: report back to the respective community

stakeholders on peaceful approaches to resolve their disputes. another organization, cooperation for the center of afghanistan, the c.c.a. will map ethnic based conflicts and center afghanistan, trade local -- train local members and civil society leaders on conflict resolution and conduct community outreach to promote nonviolent practices in conflict situations. 's the same thing is the institute for peace does. now, the bottom line for this is we are $14.1 trillion in debt. we are selling our children's future away. the only reason i am standing here today as a member of congress is because i'm a father on a mission, to restore the fiscal responsibility of this great body. and this is one organization that we can do without. >> will the gentleman yield? i also want to make something else clear. one of the iranonnies the way

the institute of peace operates -- ironies the way the institute of peace operates, they're in a grant process. they have to use this as a defense for their practice. they say wait a minute, congressman, we passed along our money to other institutions. mr. weiner: we understand there are others that do our business. that's not their job. that should be the job either of an agency that they're contracted with, the department of defense or congress. now we're saying that we need them to give money to other institutions. they, themselves, rebutt what mr. jackson and mr. berman were saying because they've identified universities and nonprofits. the gentleman from minnesota is exactly right there are other institutions that do this. you know, it's a very cursory search, 151 peace study programs are underway now in colleges around the united states. just maybe one of them can do this as well. maybe the competition will help some. maybe a couple of them can work

together to maybe figure out ways to do the same work. the presumption we have here on this floor that there's something magical on the u.s. institute of peace's ability to do it is what the gentleman is talking to. if i went to the transcript of 1985 of oversight hearings, i'd have very small reading to do because we didn't have any. so what we're relying upon is the benevolence of this organization to say if you give us more than the $780 million we've gotten, we'll do things with it and the gentleman is exactly right and i'll yield back. mr. cravaack: i reclaim my time and yield to the gentleman from texas and thank you. >> i yield back, madam chairwoman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. >> adam chair? i'd ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk preprinted in the record, amendment 248. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 248 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. canseco of texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. canseco, thank you, madam chairman. the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, mr. royce and i have introduced a very simple amendment, specifically the amendment would eliminate the

$10.716 million in funding for the east-west center. the east-west center was established in 1960 according to its website, to foster better relations and understanding among the people of the united states, asia, and the pacific islands through programs of cooperative study, training and research. last year the federal government appropriated $23 million of the east-west center. on top of the federal funds it received the east-west center raises money from private sources. i'm not here to debate the merits of the east-west center. i'm not here to question whether or not the money has been used to do good things. what i'm here to do today is to debate and question why this program should be considered a priority and receive taxpayer funding when we're in a fiscal crisis. make no mistake, we are in a fiscal crisis that threatened not only our economic security

but our national security. however, you don't have to take my word for it. admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has said i think the biggest threat we have to our nation, national security is our debt. erskine bowles, president clinton's former chief of staff and co-chair of president obama's deficit commission who said, this debt is like a cancer. it is truly going to destroy the country from within. just how bad is our fiscal situation? well, i've just run two back-to-back trillion-dollar-plus deficits and we're in track to run a third one. we're spending at levels as a share of the economy not seen since world war ii. we are borrowing 40 cents on the dollar, deriving our already $14 trillion in debt even higher. cutting spending is a solution to putting our budget back on a sustainable fiscal path. however, my friends on the

other side of the aisle would have you believe that we do not have to cut spending. this just isn't the case. however, you don't have to take my word for it. in his written testimony from his recent appearance in front of the house budget committee, federal reserve chairman ben bernanke said, one way or another, fiscal adjustment sufficient to stabilize the federal budget must occur at some point. the question is whether these adjustments will take place through a careful and deliberative process or whether the needed fiscal adjustments will come as a rapid and painful response to a looming or actual fiscal crisis? no doubt we are making tough decisions here today to begin putting our budget back on a sustainable fiscal path. yet as painful as some of these decisions are, it will be more painful for our children and grandchildren if we do not get our fiscal house in order.

failing to do so will mean that we will be the first generation to leave the next with less opportunity and less liberty. is that the legacy we want to leave our children and grandchildren? i think not. madam chairman, i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? >> mr. chair, i strike the last word. mr. granger: i rise to prevent funding for the east-west center. the house has not included money in the bill, not because the center's use is not useful or wasteful but because of the need to address other diplomatic and development priorities. strong advocates have urged the house to continue funding in conference negotiations. the committee again considered eliminating funding in this c.r. but we were advised by the

center that their projected obligations through march of this year exceeded $8 million. as a result, a decision was made to continue the center's funding but at less than half year's level to adjust for what was planned to be spent. having said that, i share the gentleman's objective and i'm prepared to accept the amendment with the understanding that the $8 million in obligations during the c.r. period will preclude us from eliminating the agency entirely. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from from the american samoa rise? >> i move to strike the last word and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. mr. faleomavaega: i rise to talk to the amendments. mr. chairman, h.r. 1 debates the bill put forward by the

republicans and already cuts the east-west center from the current $23 million to $10.7 million. my friends across the aisle want to eliminate any and all funding for this institution. while i agree we need to cut the federal budget, i do not believe we should carelessly use a machete, a samurai sword or sledgehammer to discard programs that are necessary to protect u.s. interests in this region of the world. the east-west center was established by federal law by the u.s. congress in 1960. president eisenhower signed the mutual security act of 1960 which authorized its creation only after the state department conducted a study and reported back to congress about the relevance of establishing the east-west center. president john kennedy also signed an act which appropriated additional funding and every president since then, both republican and democrats have done the same. why? because the east-west center promotes a better understanding among the people of the nation

of the united states, asia, and the pacific region, and this understanding is critical to our own economic, political, social interests, especially our strategic and military interests in this region of the world. the asian-pacific region is the world's most populous region where currently more than 60% of the population live. two of the three largest economies in the world are in the asian-pacific region. . it receives the majority of its funding from private agencies, individuals, foundations and corporations. i agree that federal support can be scaled back and this has been done by the committee's 50% reduction. my friends on the other side want to go further than their

own party by total elimination of federal funding to help in the operations of this institution. for the information to my colleagues, more than 50,000 people from the asian pacific region have participated in the programs, including many who hold high positions of leadership, including heads of government, cabinet members, corporate leaders, coming as eminently as they were participants in this important institution. mr. chairman, i ask the u.s. would do well to keep its seat at its table and for this reason i ask the colleagues to support the base bill concerning this important institution. and i do want to say that while i have the utmost respect for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they wanted to eliminate this institution, i have an authorizing law that

continues to provide for the continuation of the activities of this important institution that is currently done many things in promoting it to enhance a better relationship between our country and the countries in the asian pacific region. with that, i respectfully request these amendments not be approved and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. a aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i request a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman ask for a recorded vote. clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed.

the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: page 321, line 12, section 2104 levels for each of the following accounts shall be as follows, international commissions, international boundary and water commission, $43,419,00, international commissions international boundary and water commission, united states and mexico construction $25,286,000. section 2105, the level for each of the following accounts shall be as follows related agencies board of governors, international broadcasting operations $689,661,00. section 2106, will level for each of the following accounts shall be as follows, administration of foreign affairs, education and cultural exchange programs $5 million,

related programs national endowment for democracy, 110,920,000. the chair: for what purpose does drk the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: section 2107, level for each of the following accounts shall be follows international development, $1,267,872,000. united states agency for international development funds appropriated to the president civil stablization initiative $7 million. section 2108, the level for each of the following accounts shall be as follows. bilateral economic assistance funds appropriated to the president, development assistance $1,787,780,00.

section 2109, level for each of the following accounts shall be as follows, bilateral, funds appropriated to the president, economic support funds $5,606 ,752,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from rise? >> i call up amendment 291. the chair: clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 291 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: the tropical

forest conservation act is a $20 million a year program and perhaps one of the most outrageous of any i have seen so far that calls into question any of the claims that we can't possibly spare a dollar from this section of the budget. under this program, the united states staggering under the biggest peacetime debt in the nation's history, a debt so large that the united states of america would now be denied entry into the european union because of our excessive debt. nevertheless, is paying down the debts of developing countries if they do restoration and conservation work in their own rain forests. really? the deficit alone puts an average family of four on the hook for about $20,000 of additional debt that they must repay through future taxes just as surely if it appeared on

their credit card. and part of that debt will be used to pay down the debt of developing countries if they develop their rain forest. now, of course, if they cut down their rain forests to grow corn, they can get american ethanol subsidies but that's the subject for another day. history is screaming this warning to us. before we pay down the debt of developing countries, i would like to make this modest suggestion. perhaps we ought to tend to our own. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? >> i thank the gentleman for this amendment and i'm willing to accept his amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is

goode to. clerk will read. the clerk: page 324, line 4, section 2110, level for each of the following accounts shall be as follows, bilateral economic assistance funds appropriated to the president, international disaster assistance $429 ,739,000. by rat ral funds associated to the president $44,635,000. bilateral economic assistance department of state migration and refugee assistance, and bilateral economic assistance department of state united states emergency refugee and migration assistance fund $44 million. section 2112 -- the level for bilateral economic assistance

independent agencies peace corps $330 million. section 2113, following accounts shall be as follows. international security assistance department of state nonproliferation anti-terrorism deeming and related programs $740 million. section 2114, level of each of the following accounts shall be as follows, international security assistance, funds appropriated to the president, pakistan, counterinsurgency capability funds $1 billion. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the clerk: section 2115 level for each of the following accounts, multi lateral assistance funds appropriated to the president international organizations and programs, $309,897,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada rise?

>> i have amendment 29 at the desk. clerk the clerk: amendment number 29 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. heller of nevada. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. heller: thank you, mr. chairman and i appreciate the opportunity to speak. earlier this evening or i should say last night, i had a town hall meeting and i do this once a week and what i do and we talk about what we're doing here on the floor today trying to create jobs by reducing the size of government. and i asked people what would you cut or send me an email and go to heller@house.gov and tell me what you would cut and i got numerous responses. but i have to tell you on the top of everybody's list frankly,

if it's not top two or three but top five it's cut foreign aid. so we have the opportunity to do it today. so what my amendment does it cuts $244 million in the state foreign operations section. this number is $14.5% of the account and i ask what is the 14.5%. it happens to match the highest unemployment of a state, the state with the highest unemployment in the country and that state is the state of nevada, the state i'm from. this money is going to go to debt reduction and i would like to talk about what is being cut in this particular amendment. some of us have heard these organizations, most haven't. for example, go to the global environmental facility, g.e.f.

they make grants and help countries deal with environmental problems. going to cut the international development association from the world bank. loans concessional rate. what is that? we are going to take your tax dollars and you can go down to your own bank to make a loan so it is -- we are going to take the money and loan it less than what you get the money itself. the technology fund, seeks to reduce greenhouse gases in developing countries. strategic climate fund, seeking to address climate change under the auspices of the world bank. we can go through the list. some of them actually quite interesting, the international american bank. multi lateral investment fund. i don't know how many have heard of these but tax dollars going

to this. asian development fund. i wonder if they get a concessional rate, china, perhaps to buy our own government securities with. african development fund, international fund for agricultural development. we can go on, international organization and programs, international financial institutions. my point is here, mr. chairman, it is not our job to create or our responsibility to create jobs in foreign countries, our jobs is to create jobs right here at home and i choose america first and i think that's what our constituents are asking. in this process, do you choose america first before foreign aid. i choose america first and nevada first and i think when our nation is facing significant budget crises and many americans' needs are still unmet, congress still continues sending money overseas is

unconscionable and united states is responsible to americans and i strongly urge all my colleagues to support my amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? >> i'm willing to accept the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from rise? mrs. lowey: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lowey: i understand it is quite easy -- i rise to strike the last word and i rise in opposition to the amendment. i understand it is quite easy in a time of belt tightening to offer an amendment to reduce funding to international institutions. voting in favor of this amendment has consequences. the amendment would cut funding to the asian development fund which provides loans and grants

to support basic health care, education, infrastructure and construction development to front line countries such as pakistan and afghanistan. the international development association which provides debt relief to developing countries and supporting an integrated agricultural initiative to address the global food crisis. the global environmental facility which provides grants and loans to preserve some of the most vullnerble habitats in the world. the international fund for agricultural loans which provides loans to support food security programs as a complement to u.s.-government-funded programs. the amendment would undermine the ability of the united states to meet its commitment to global debt relief efforts and to countries around the world that relies on grants and loans to these institutions to stabilize these economies.

. the u.s. chamber of commerce strongly imposes this amendment because it would impair the ability of u.s. companies to access developing markets. the chamber recognizes that these programs help build reliable trading partners to the united states, which in turn creates jobs here at home and strengthens our own economy. in light of that fact, it is puzzling why the majority would propose these cuts. with regard to international organizations, the c.r. cuts the request to below levels enacted under president bush. this level would result in draconian cuts to our contributions to unicef, the united nations development program, the montreal protocol to prevent ozone decompleting distances -- substances in a

wide range of programs that address counterterrorism, sustainable development, humanitarian, reduce violence against women, human rights, scientific and environmental trade development. this would represent a major stepback from u.s. engagement in these organizations and dramatically impact u.s. national security. this cut will harm u.s. support for efforts in international development, human rights, and environmental areas, as well as send the wrong signal to our partners and allies. i urge a no vote on this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise -- california rise, pardon me? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. schiff: i also rise in this

amendment as my ranking member, mrs. lowey from new york pointed out, the funding for international operations and programs in the c.r. is already below levels enacted by president bush and this would cut it further and means reductions for a fund for victims of torture, the development fund for women, the u.n. development program as well as two i want to highlight in particular, unicef, and the democracy fund. since its founding in 1946, unicef has served -- saved more children's lives than any humanitarian organization in the world. unicef works in 150 countries literally saving children's lives, one of the best investments in foreign assistant dollars. through global efforts spearheaded by unicef, child mortality rates have dropped by 1/3 since 1990. every year eight million children under 5 still perish from causes and the funding for

soon receive is needed to help save these children. unicef reaches more than half of the world's children with immunizations like against diseases like measles. it distributes over a million doses of vaccines. unicef is one of the largest purchasers of life-saving nets in 48 countries. nearly 1/3 of unicef comes from nongovernmental sources, personal and foundation contributions. unicef is also an important partner with organizations like rotary international to eradicate polio and kiwanis to fight iodine deficiency disorder. it plays a vital role to help children in environmental crisis whether it's a earthquake in haiti or flooding in pakistan. it's the lifeline to millions of children caught up in 36 humanitarian emergencies worldwide serving as the

coordinating agency for water and sanitation, child protection, nutrition, and education. the funding for unicef extends the reach of the u.s. government and of the american people and saving children from preventable deaths, supporting education and fighting hiv-aids and protecting children from violence, exploitation and abuse. it's a high return investment in children and a critical part of our international assistance that enjoys the ongoing support of the american people. this is just one of the programs that would be dramatically cut. the democracy fund is another that i want to highlight. we've all witnessed the marvel of the egyptian and tune erbeian -- and tunisian support%. the next months will be crucial as these countries travel the path to democracy. we must be able to fund other entities and a g.a.o.'s to help democracy become rooted. as the world's oldest democracy we cannot shirk our responsibility to foster representative government elsewhere especially when people have taken it upon them

to cast off the old order. the democracy fund provides resources for innovative projects that support the long-standing bipartisan u.s. foreign policy goals of defending human rights and advancing democratic values, working over -- implementing partners in 2010, the democracy fund supported local groups to promote democracy and human rights. just a few examples in yemen an n.g.o. is working through a combination of youth chat radio series and leadership roundtables and forums to increase awareness of religious freedom and tolerance. in the west bank it helped promote tolerance with youth by working with teachers and administrators and in sudan against widespread violence against children in darfur and to help those with gender based violence. without the democracy fund, the d.r.l. and state department would be unable to push the

chinese government to disclose food and drug safety information which protects the well-being of the american public. these are a few of the essential programs that are covered and are cut in the c.r. and will be cut further by this amendment for all these reasons, i urge a no vote on the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nevada. those in favor say 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 nevada rise? >> request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further business on the amendment will be postponed. clerk will continue to read. the clerk: section 2116, the level for each of the following accounts shall be as follows, export and investment

assistance, overseas private investment corporation, noncredit account, $47,115,000. export and investment assistance overseas, private investment corporation program account, $23,310,000. section 2117, the amount included under the heading administration of foreign affairs, embassy security construction and maintenance shall be applied to funds appropriated by this division. section 2118, the amount included under the heading bilateral economic assistance fund appropriated to the president global health and child survival in division f of public law 111-117 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this division. section 2119, the level for each of the following accounts shall be zero dollars, administration of foreign affairs, buying power maintenance account, bilateral economic assistance, funds appropriated to the president,

complex crisis fund, bilateral economic assistance, funds appropriated to the president, international fund for ireland. section 2120, unobligated balances available for funds appropriated under the heading export and investment assistance, export/import bank of the united states, subsidy appropriation, $150 million are rescinded. section 2121, the president shall transmit to the congress the report required under section 653-a of that act with respect to the provision of funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this division for the department of state, foreign operations and related programs. section 2122, the dollar amounts under the heading administration of foreign affairs, diplomatic and consular programs shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division.

section 2123, the first proviso under the heading economic support fund in division f of public law 111-117 shall be applied to funds appropriated. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. ms. granger: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the clerk will first designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 481 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. franks of arizona. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. franks: my amendment calls on the new government of egypt

to fulfill the commitment to the egypt-israel peace treaty signed march 26, 1979 into the freedom of navigation in the suez canal. for over a 1/4 of a century, israel and egypt have chosen to transcend their differences to promote their respective national interests. through hostile times and dramatic regional and international changes, egypt and israel have maintained a steadfast commitment to the well-being and existence of one another. the united states now calls upon egypt to maintain their lives with the state of israel during these perilous times. israel has been a beacon of democracy in the middle east even in the midst of experiences both foreign, state sponsors and other omnipresent terrorist attacks, all the while being surrounded by those who embrace a radical islamist agenda and pledge a jihad against the tiny jewish state. for this reason i offer amendment number 481. the continuing resolution states, quote, any assistance made available to the government of egypt shall be

provided with the understanding egypt will undertake significant democratic reforms. the egypt-israel peace treaty of 1979 is central to fulfilling that commitment. i also feel it's important to express a grave concern about the muslim brotherhood in egypt and their stance against preserving a peaceful relationship with israel. according to its charter, mr. chairman, the muslim brotherhood seeks to impose the shria law and to conquer muslim, quote, noninfidel states. they recently pledged the brotherhood would continue to raise the banner of jihad against the jews. he called the jews the brotherhood's first and foremost enemies. another top muslim brotherhood leader mohammed gainam said to the arabic language television network that he believed egypt should close the suez canal to u.s. warships and that, quote,

the people of egypt should be prepared for war against israel. mr. chairman, there are now reports iranian ships are passing unimpeded through the suez canal this very night. the obama administration recently said the muslim brotherhood is largely a secular group which has eshooed violence -- ashewed violence and they've pursued social ends and a betterment of the political order in egypt and that there's no overarching agenda particularly in pursuit of violence. mr. chairman, what a preposterous and expressively dangerous statement to make. the terrorist group hamas is an offshoot of the muslim brotherhood and al qaeda itself was calt gorized by elements -- categorized by elements of the muslim brotherhood. i am bewildered by what president obama has done when he called for the muslim brotherhood to have a seat at the table in the new egyptian

government. based on their recent history and statements from their leadership and founding charter, a, quote, seat at the table for the brotherhood would be a grave threat to any democratic society as well as the egypt-israel peace treaty and the stability, indeed, of the entire middle east. mr. chairman, israel shares a long and porous border with egypt and i cannot express how crucial it is for the new government of egypt to honor their peace treaty i call on the u.s. house of representatives to expect that any government of egypt do exactly that and hope any new government of egypt will remember that america is watching. now, mr. chairman, i thought it was important to get these comments on the record in this debate tonight. however, i'm told due to clause 2 and rule 21 that a point of order will be raised on my amendment and therefore i ask unanimous consent to withdraw it at this time and i yield back. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. the clerk will continue to read.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. abortion is always corrosive to the baby in the woom. the baby has no right to refusal and no veto power whatsoever concerning a procedure that violently tears that child's body to pieces and effectuates the kilby lethal injection or starvation by, u-486. in china that coercion is extended by brute force to all women. any mother caught without ex-policive government authorization to give birth is coerced to abert her baby. mr. smith: since 1979, mr. speaker, brothers and sisters have been illegal in china as part of the barbaric one-child per couple policy. and for 30 years the united

nations population fund has vigorously supported, funded, defended, promoted, and even celebrated these massive crimes against humanity. . under president reagan and president bush and president clinton, the shameful support and co-management of china's forced abortion policy. my concern this morning is an amendment that had been printed in the record but not offered, at least it has not been offered at this setting, i expect we'll see it later that would compel every american taxpayer to furnish $55 million to an organization that unapoll getically stood not with oppressed women but with the oppressors of women and the

chinese killing machine more lethal, an organization that has whitewashed and defended these crimes against humanity. it is not only part of the planning of the chinese who run this program but they insist in the implementation of it in several counties as well. the uncontested facts are these. any chinese mother without a birth allowed severity is forced to abort. all unwed moms are compelled to abort and what can only be described as a search and destroy mission, they are aborted as part of the program. each day they impose huge compensation fees on any woman who lacks permission to give birth or evades detection and many women have their children

on the run. fines the combined annual salaries of both parents plus jail, torture, property confiscation, loss of educational opportunities housing and health care are all weapons routinely employed by the so-called planning cadres to ensure for the one child per couple policy. in denying funds, department sect of state wrote, the program contains harshly coercive elements in law and practice and coercive abortions and involuntary sterilization. number two at the state department said it is illegal for a single mom to bear a child sm the state department knows that a chinese law is the foundation of its coercive policies and practices and it

comports with and adheres to that chinese law. mr. speaker, it supported one child per couple policy has led to the worst gender disparity in any nation in all of human history. where are the missing girls in china? dead, mr. speaker. murdered because they were female, destroyed over 30 years by sex election abortion. today there are as many as 100 million missing girls in china, genderside, the evil twin. the support of one child per couple policy are absolutely staggering. the world health organization, about 500 chinese women commit suicide every single day. china has become a magnet for sex trafficking in large measure bus of the missing girls.

estimated 40 million men won't be able to find ways by 2020 because for 30 years and counting girls have suffered gender discrimination sex election abortion. little year ago i convened a congressional hearing on this policy. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. i revise and stepped my remarks. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lowey: i do feel my friend the gentleman does deserve a response to clarify the response and talk to this body about why funding for unfpa is so important. first of all, i fervently believe that unfpa is essential to achieving our global health

geels. the family and reproductive health activities are key elements of global health and contribute to the u.s. comprehensive strategy for sustainable development. unfpa improves the many ternl health of women throughout the world through the implement tathes of effective voluntary family planning policies and programs. it is the largest multi lateral provider of reproductive health and information services in programs in nearly 150 countries. the u.s. government's partnership with unfpa leverages funds for these programs including the reduction of month talt and rights of women included those affected by conflict and natural disasters and extends the reach of u.s.

government support to a number of countries where usaid does not have programs. unfpa works with governments to strengthen laws and national capacities to promote women's equality the prevention of agendaa-based violence and improving the health and well-being especially of women and children and promotes insternal stability and social and economic progress. and i would like to remind my colleagues that the amendment prohibits funding for, quote, any organization or program which is determined by the president of the united states supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. we oppose china's coercive birth

limitation policies. the facts show that unfpa does not support or participate in the management of any program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. in fact, unfpa works to eliminate them. the department concluded in 2009 , based on review of available facts that unfpa does not engage in these activities. we continue to monitor unfpa's programs and continue to believe their activities in china do not implicate the program. as part of our due diligence the department sent a team to china to review unfpa's program in june, 2010 prior to the executive board's renewal of the china country program.

i yield back the balance. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise -- kansas. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> yield my time to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. smith: the problem -- the activities in china is that it strictly adheres to chinese law. chinese law is a one child per couple policy as a direct result in the clinics and in the programs that are run in the approximately 30 counties that unfpa oversees or has programs in or projects and each of those they adhere to that one child

per couple policy. they choose you may have to have one child or i.u.d. insertion. it is involuntary. so they enforce the compulsory nature, but may give a choice as to what method the person may be able to follow. that is not voluntary. i would point out that for 30 years, representatives of the unfpa have said again and again and again that the chinese program is quote, totally voluntary. nothing i would submit to my good friend and colleague from new york could be further from the truth. there is nothing voluntary about this horrific program where women are treated like chattel, i have held 27 hearings as chairman of the foreign affairs committee, 27 hearings just on

china. we have heard from numerous women who are forcibly aborted and told the story about how it was told to them this was a voluntary abortion. they were coerced. they had sessions with cadres that worn them down and over time they felt they had no way to fight back. i had a woman to testify who recently got asylum right here in the united states. she had a well-founded fear of persecution based on the forced abortion policy. a student at a major university here. she testified through tiers how she was forcibly aborted rounded up with other women and said at the clinic, which was voluntary, all of this is voluntary, there were moms crying, rolling on the floor and she said when they killed her baby and severed the baby's limbs with scissors that

the nurse put a foot -- near the top of her lapel and looked at the bloody foot and broke down crying and could not finish her testimony. i will provide it to the gentlelady. the unfpa have enabled these crimes. at the nuremberg war crimes tribunal, force abortions were crimes because it was abortion against polish women. activists have been clear the one child per couple policy is one of the worst violations if not the worst violation in rights in scop and magnitude directed against women and of course the dead children who are the result. unfpa is part of that and they defend it and with due respect to my good friend, this funding of an organization that says

this is a voluntary program must cease. i met final ily with the woman who ran the program i was in beijing and she said to me over and over again in that conversation the unfpa is here and they see no coercion. there's no coercion. i thank my friend for yielding and should direct our money to other organizations, n.g.o.'s and usaid. a dear colleague went out about a bill passed in this house back in 2005 that established a fistula repair program for weapon in the undeveloped countries. it pass. i went to the administrator of health for usaisd and i said

take this and put it into practice. we have 35 programs in 12 countries, 15,000 african and asian women have had fistula repairs. we need to funnel our money into health care interventions to those who suffer from such terrible things as obstetric fistula and i thank the gentleman for yielding. >> i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does gentleman rise? >> i move to strike the last word. mr. nadler: let me begin by congratulating the gentleman on his program to repair fistulas that are a great problem for women in the developing world and i yield to the the gentlewoman from new york.

mrs. lowey: i have seen the work you are doing and see the suffering that women go through and i thank for your leadership. the hour is late and we have been talking about these issues for many, many years and i would be delighted to have a further discussion, but for the purpose of this debate and the purpose of closing the bill for the moment, i just want to close again by making it clear, we oppose china's coercive birth limitation policies. and the facts show that unfpa does not support or participate in the management of any programs of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. in fact, unfpa works to eliminate them. it is important to note that 150

countries that do not receive bilateral support in family planning. we have seen some very, very important work that actually saves women's lives. so i would like to say to the gentleman as we are closing this debate, thank you for your good work. we can agree to disagree on this issue, but i think this is such an important program and we have provided such invaluable help to women that i would hope that at some point we could agree on that. i yield back and i thank the gentleman from new york for yielding. and i thank our chairwoman for your important work on this bill. . mr. nadler: i yield back. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: subsection c through d of this section shall apply to funds appropriated by this

division in lieu of section 7076 of division f of public law 111-117. title 12, chppings, housing and urban development and related agencies. section 2201, the level for the department of transportation, federal aviation administration operations, $9,523,028,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i have amendment 511 at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. >> mr. chairman? the chair: the clerk will read one more paragraph. the clerk: section 2202, the level for department of transportation, federal aviation administration facilities and equipment, $2, 736,203,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise?

mr. nadler: i have amendment 511 at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. >> mr. chairman? i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 511 in the congressional record offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. nadler: thank you. the continuing resolution under consideration today includes very dangerous cuts to key transportation programs. this is exactly the wrong thing to do if we want to reduce unemployment, create jobs, and grow the economy. in the survey released by the american public transportation association, 80% of private sector businesses surveyed indicated that the level of federal investment in public transportation has a large influence on their business revenues. for example, every $10 million in capital investment and

public transportation yields $30 million, three times in increased business sales. the texas transportation institutes 2010 urban mobility report shows that worsening road congestion across the nation, $134 billion, $134 billion a year cost in lost productivity. and when it comes from transit alone, every $1 billion invested creates or supports 36,000 jobs. despite the clear link between transportation funding and economic recovery, this continuing resolution cuts billions for transit, high speed railroads and other key infrastructure projects. the c.r. cuts over $8 billion from current infrastructure formula programs and already awarded projects resulting in the loss of 280,000 jobs from the current budget funding levels. these proposed cuts in

transportation include $4.97 billion in high speed, intercity passenger rail grants, $710 million in transit capital investment grants, $292 million in hs security priorities, $100 million for amtrak and $100 million in federal rail administration, rail safety technology grants. this amendment would eliminate these cuts and restore transportation funding to their current levels, not any increase for inflation, no increase for increased population, no increase for increase work but simply to restore the current levels. we must restore these current levels because every dollar we cut reduces $3 in business activity and every billion we cut costs $36 -- 36,000 jobs in an economy that can't afford to lose tens of thousands of jobs. unfortunately, the underlying

bill cuts transportation funding so dramatically and other funding so dramatically it is virtually impossible to write an amendment to restore transportation funding to current levels even that would be in order under the rules of the house has adopted without causing great harm to other critical programs and is particularly true since all the transportation funding programs and all the housing and urban development programs which are in this title are underfunded. so it's almost impossible to say let's restore these transportation funds but eliminate other transportation or housing funds. in fact, this c.r. is such an irresponsible and reckless document that it is almost not worth trying to fix it. the republicans have seized on this idea to cut $100 billion from the current budget, pulling that figure arbitrarily out of thin air and without any regard to what it could mean to our economy or the services our budget presents. it is a dangerous overreach and

would be devastating for middle and working class americans, would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs without replacing them and would threaten the national security. the transportation cuts are a small part of these irresponsible cuts. this amendment is a small part of opposing this dangerous continuing resolution. and i anticipate, unfortunately, my amendment is going to be ruled out of order. i hope that's not the case, in a rational house it would not be the case but i urge my colleagues to support the amendment if they have an opportunity to do so. and in order to support reasonable transportation funding so as not to decimate this economy, it's necessary, i urge them to vote against the entire c.r. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: does the gentleman from iowa continue to reserve

his point of order? the gentleman continue to reserve his point of order. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. neal: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the -- congratulate and thank the gentleman from new york for the statement he has just made because i think it represents the most rational thing that we could do with the transportation section of this legislation. but given the hour, and understanding that we are not operating under rational rules on this issue, i will say only that, that i do congratulate and commend you for the statement that you have made in which i virtually totally concur. mr. olver: i might find a word or two to disagree with in the usage there, but i concur and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise?

>> mr. chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. mr. latham: the amendment is not in order under section 3-j-3 of house resolution 5, 112th congress which states, it shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered enlock with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2-f of rule 21. the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: any other members wish to be heard on the point of order? if not, the chair will rule. the gentleman from iowa makes a point of order the amendment offered from the gentleman from new york violates section 3-j-3

of house resolution 5. section 3-j-3 establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill. the chair has been persuasively guided by an estimate of the chair on the committee on the budget the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. therefore, the point of order is sustained. the amendment is not in order. the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: page 346, line 19, section 2203, the level for each of the following accounts, zero dollars. section 2204, the level for the department of transportation, federal aviation administration research, engineering and development, $146,8 28,000. section 2205, the level for department of transportation, federal transit administration, capital investment grants, $1,569,092,000. section 2206, the level for department of transportation federal railroad administration rail lines, relocation and

improvement program, $15 million. section 2207, the level for department of transportation, federal railroad administration capital and debt service grants to the national railroad passenger corporation, $850 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 43 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. sessions of texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. session is: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise this morning to offer an amendment to h.r. 1 which would decrease the amount the federal government subsidizes amtrak by $446,900,000. in 2008, the pew charitable trust foundation performed a study of amtrak services. according to that study, the 20 most egregious, inefficient

train lines run an annual deficit between $4.9 million and $59.4 million per year with many operating at a 100% loss. my amendment would decrease the spending authority to amtrak by the amount equal to those line losts -- losses. in 1997 congress passed what was referred to as the amtrak reform and accountability act which requires amtrak operate without any federal assistance after 2002. by the way, that was eight years ago, mr. chairman. it has never reached the intended level of self-sufficiency. it is time congress stop supporting these failed rail lines. it is important to the taxpayers of this country, mr. chairman. instead, by eliminating these very inefficient and seldom

used lines, amtrak can focus on its core competency of urban and suburban transportation. for example, the othello line which operates along the northeast quarter continually operates in a self-sufficient manner. we should shift amtrak's focus to the things it does well, not the extremely inefficient, long distance lines it fails to operate within the budget. mr. chairman, amtrak has proven to be a money losing venture that the government can no longer sustain and support. in 2008 alone, amtrak lost $1.1 trillion. i didn't believe it but that's what it says here. at a time of record debt and deficit, this amendment stops wasteful spending and directs the entire $446,900,000 to the spending reduction account to help pay down the debt.

we must operate within some sense of business operation of common sense. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to reduce the federal spending and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. olver: thank you again, mr. chairman. the underlying bill we have with us -- we have before us profoundly limits the transportation options that are available for the american people and imposes deep cuts upon the very programs with the greatest potential for creating jobs and provides the necessary foundation for a strong economic recovery.

the underlying bill terminates, completely defunds the high-speed rail, inner city passenger rail program that was authorized under the prerail safety bill in the fall of 2008 and signed by then president bush. that's 28 months ago. it rescinds under the -- under those items that were in the recovery act in the -- in the legislation that was passed in -- in february of 2009, the recovery act, it rescinds all of the unobligated funds from that recovery act, and it rescinds in the high-speed rail program the $2.5 billion of

grants that were awarded in september of last year. . they were passed in december, 2009, 2010 appropriations bill. those grants were awarded but have not been obligated and happens to shut down all of the new funding for light rail and commuter rail and bus rapid transit, only providing money for those projects already in place that are -- have received full funding grant agreements. they have contracts of that sort. there is funding in the underlying legislation to do that in the area of the federal transit administration. it also cancels all of the tiger grants, the so-called tiger

grants, which were part of the fiscal year 2010 legislation, some $600 million over 76 projects in 40 different states, which were awarded money frr among 1,000 projects that claimed -- that asked for $20 billion, showing the enormous need that was perceived on the part -- on the part of the country. all of that in the tiger grants in the 2010 budget are matched by local funds. it's not all federal funds as were the monies but has to be matched at the local level and not cookie cutter and not ordered by beltway bureaucrats or anything like that. it's projects that grew out of

the planning and the intent on the part of the states or the cities or the regional transit agencies to get good projects done. all of these, all of these are job-killing cuts, terminations and recisions. every one that i have mentioned that is done in the underlying legislation. all of these are part of the $7 billion reduction in transportation construction for infrastructure, for transportation infrastructure that have been removed from the -- removed, terminated, rescinded, cut, that have been removed from our construction industry, which is suffering from 30% to 40% unemployment. they represent at least 280,000

jobs, 280,000 man years of work for that construction industry suffering from 30% to 40% unemployment. and this is at a time when bids are coming in at 20% below the estimates, the engineering estimates for what they would cost, exactly the time we should be doing those construction projects, putting those construction projects out. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i move to strike the last word. mr. nadler: i yield to the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. olver: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i have gotten to the amendment to the gentleman from texas. the underlying bill before us

actually provides $850 million, which is -- which covers both the debt service for the bonded debt of amtrak and covers capital improvements. now, we also have amtrak, which was authorized for funding in the legislation, the prea rail safety legislation as signed by president bush in september or october of 2008 for the fiscal year 2011, for debt service and for capital grants from that are authorization is over $1.3 billion. so the amount that is in this will bill, which happens to be at $850 million is $450

million-plus below the authorized amount for those items and actually comes right on the enacted number for amtrak for the same purposes, the debt service and the capital grants for new improvements and for improvements to whatever it is that is needed for state of good repair and such in amtrak, which mostly is spent on the northeast corridor which is where amtrak owns most of the trackage. most of the capital is used in that kind of a way. that money already leads to 1,500 jobs, which will be terminated at amtrak at the $850 million level and the gentleman's proposal is to kit

another $446 million below that. that happens to leave us in a situation where there is almost no money left for operate to do any kind of capital program for the rest of the year, because they are committed to $270 million-plus of debt service. if the gentleman's amendment were adopted, it would take $446 million out, leaving $403 million less in the program. $270 is needed for the debt service and $127 million has already -- it changes as the day goes on, has already been expended on state of good repair

service and i am profments in this fiscal year as allowed under the c.r.'s we've worked under for almost five months, so there would be virtually no money, less than $5 million left to doing any kind of improvements, maintenance, the track work, if there are bridges that need to be done or anything of that sort. so it virtually ends up with leaving them with nothing to do with the kinds of emergencies and anything that would be otherwise planned for the rest of the year. now that means that amtrak, will, in fact, terminate 1,000 jobs. mr. sessions: i find it interesting we are going to continue to fund the service.

but if i took the money and stopped the service, we can't fix all the things that you want to fix. my gosh, the bottom line is, they need to quit operating the service and then use it for what the gentleman says they should use the money for, of the bridges and the operating of the infrastructure. i thank the gentleman. mr. olver: it wasn't my time but going through mr. nadler. but the money is assigned to be used either for the payment for the service -- for the service itself or the need for some subsidy on the service, which is a very small one on the operations in the northeast corridor, if any at all, and the rest of it is assigned clearly for debt service and for the capital program, which necessarily goes on, because if you don't do it and keep up with

repairs when they are needed, then you end up with ever growing repairs that put you out of business. mr. nadler: reclaiming my time. i would like to point out the gentleman from massachusetts says is absolutely correct. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment 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. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. olver: i ask for a call of the roll. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the gentleman from will be postponed. the clerk: section 2208, level of maritime operations and training, $155,750,00. section 2209, prior year

unobligated balances for department of transportation federal railroad administration, capital assistance for high-speed rail corridors and inner city rail passenger service. >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 357, line 22 be considered as read, printed in the record and open to amendment at any time. the chair: is there an objection? >> i object. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. polis: i yield to the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i won't take the five minutes. i just wanted to complete a couple comments on amtrak from the discussion in the last amendment. that amendment, which is now been passed subject to a vote on the floor presumably tomorrow,

if adopted, will, as mr. olver said, essentially eliminate all capital funding for amtrak, all capital funding. the question is raised, why shouldn't we spend capital funding on amtrak when it loses money? the answer is almost no transportation modality in this country makes money. that's why we had to form amtrak in the first place. you look at trucking for instance. you look at trucking. we support the interstate highway system. someone may say well, the trucks pay diesel fuel tax and they support the highway system. not really. one 18-wheeler, one 18-wheeler of 70,000 pounds does 10,000 times the damage, the wear and tear, vibration to a highway as

an automobile, yet the trucks don't pay 10,000 times the gasoline tax as the automobile driver does. if we asked them to do so, trucking would be noneconomic. not suggesting we do so. but at the same token we need rail transportation because it is three times as energy efficient. far more energy efficient per passenger. we want to decrease our dependence on middle east oil and borrow less money from china to give it to middle eastern dictators who fund the war on terror. we need more rail. the only way we can do that is by funding amtrak and amtrak has to

improvements because there are improvements on the rail system. an amendment like that is totally destructive because we must have a choice, a choice for shippers and people of the modalities of transportation to make our economy more efficient and so they don't sit on the highways in congestion all the time. amtrak is cheap enough and $850 million for the entire country is much too small, we should maintain that level -- we should have $1 billion 3 but the c.r. is taking it to day 50 and for the balance of the year we shouldn't bring it down to zero by adopting the amendment that we just voice voted which will come up for a vote tomorrow. i thank the gentleman and i yield back. mr. polis: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the clerk: page 348, line 22. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. rogers: i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of

the bill through page 357, line 22, be considered as read, printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: is there any objection? hearing none, so ordered. are there any amendments to that portion of the bill? mr. polis: i have an amendment at the desk, number 68. the clerk: division c, stimulus recession, section 3001 here by rescinded all unobligated balances remaining as of february 11, 2001 of the discretionary appropriations provided by the recovery and reinvestment act of 2009. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 68.

. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 68 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. polis: mr. chairman, i'm proud to offer this amendment with my colleague from colorado, mr. perlmutter. this amendment simply changes the date by which the bill rescinds obligated funds. by moving the date to the end of the fiscal year september 30 it allows for everyone from local government to innovative clean tech companies the ability to plan the rest of their fiscal year and not have grants yanked from under their feet. we should not change the rules on people in the middle of the game. it really calls into question the reliability of the federal government. there are so many grants in the keys of these agencies and we're calling all funds unobligated after february 11

will devastate the local communities and small businesses just looking for long-term stability throughout the rest of the fiscal year. changing the rules after the fact is never a strong, good practice. mr. chairman, this amendment is pro business, pro infrastructure, pro local government and deserves to be supported. the amendment is also fiscally responsible and meets the house budget rules. my state of colorado provides an example to why it should be changed. colorado is awarded a $10 million tiger tifia challenge grant through the recovery act that expands one of the most heavily used and congested highways in our state, creating jobs, fostering job development, multimodal transportation, the lifeblood of my state of colorado. this $10 million investment helps generate additional funds creating $276 million in employment income and over 7,200 jobs. to date only $900,000 have been obligated and because the c.r. rescinds unobligated funding

throughout the board without thought to details or individual projects, we risk never seeing the remaining $9.1 million they were promised and because of that will lose $300 million in local funding, contingent on the stability provided by the tiger grant. for the businesses and residents of colorado, this is simply ridiculous and doesn't make sense. how could we rescind a small government grant not an earmark, we've moved away from earmarks, and i supported that but what they get replaced by are grants, merit-based opportunities for our projects to compete for federal funds. how can we rescind a grant through local and state ingenuity they leveraged in the $300 million in the local, state and private funding. that is not fiscally responsible. i'm hopeful this was merely an oversight by the committee and hope they'll work with me to address this issue. the process to leverage $10 million into $305 million takes time. colorado is awarded the tiger

tifia challenge grant in february of 2010 and colorado and other states were challenged to think bigger and do more with less but colorado was the only state to accept that challenge. many of the other funds have already been obligated under tifia. because they're doing what we wanted them to do, being creative and leveraging the capital, unless we make this change, they could be punished. colorado's u.s. 36 application did not anticipate a tifia loan but colorado and the u.s. 36 embraced the challenge and the application is in, the obligation is expected by september of 2011. consistent with the intention of the challenge grant in the first place. mr. chairman, in addition to, my amendment would ensure the long process of applying for a loan guarantee at the department of energy, not a grant but simply a loan in the tight credit market would not mean projects already in the cue would be thrown out. how can we tell a private company to spend time and money applying for something, have it awarded and turn around and take it off the table?

that's simply bad for business. similar programs are the world bank and i.m.f. treat the loan authority authorized by congress as obligated funds once they're appropriated. we owe it to our small businesses and local governments to provide predictability with regard to federal funding streams. as we move towards ground-based programs, it's critical people trust and believe in the federal word is good. i believe that these provisions in the c.r. run contrary to that and i ask my colleagues to work with me to address this issue. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. rogers: i rise to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: mr. chairman, h.r. 1 attempts to save the american taxpayer on a number of fronts. first, we cut $100 billion from regular government spending. second, we went a step further

for the taxpayer. by rescinding the remaining balances of the failed stimulus bill, about $5 billion, if we act now. we need to act now to stop any more funds from being spent. the longer we wait, the longer we let the administration shop around with the taxpayers' hard-earned money. further, we were told the stimulus bill was the lightning bolt that would put america back to work right away. if these funds haven't been already obligated, when are the people going back to work? where is the instant impact? where are the jobs? unemployment is still over 9% in many areas of the country and upwards of 15% in other sections. if the funds have not been obligated by now, they probably weren't meant to be in the

stimulus package. let's save the taxpayers $5 billion today and rescind these funds now. i urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. olver: i want to commend, again, and congratulate the gentleman from colorado for offering this amendment. and i want to support this amendment, so i realize the realities of the situation that we are in. in the recovery bill, which we could have a long discussion about the word "failure" of the recovery bill but we won't go into that at this time of night.

the items which were ready -- the so-called projects that were ready to go into construction right away, those were designated with a termination date the work had to be done by the end of 2010. and those moneys that were for shovel-ready projects have all been expended completely in the process. so the longer term investments which the high speed program and the tiger grant program were part, those were always intended to go farther. never was it suggested that they could be done and the work done that would produce the jobs as necessary until at least 2011 and 2012 as well. so what has been proposed for the tiger grant here and all of

the tiger grants puts them in quite a different category. the gentleman's amendment highlights an example of how the majority's rhetoric and political posturing on the continuing resolution comes at the expense of good policy. if you presented this project that the gentleman from colorado has put forward to a member on the other side of the aisle, they agree that the use of a $10 million grant to leverage over $200 million in nonfederal funds is a perfect example of the potential for public-private partnerships. but the moment you mention the project genesis within the president's recovery act, it soon turns to righteous condemnation, more broadly there are other projects across

the country that would be impacted by the political intent. in particular efforts to address congestion that is choking our transportation network through the creation of a 21st century high-speed rail system would be halted in many regions. for example, $110 million to improve connections to amtrak's northeast corridor within the nation's most densely populated region is also caught up in the same problem that the gentleman from colorado is talking about. so it would be an entirely rational thing to allow the funds to be implemented until september 30, 2011, as has been suggested. and i support the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: page 358, line 9, section 3002, no federal agency administering funds provided by division a of the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009 may provide funding or reimbursement to any entity awarded funds. division d, miscellaneous provisions, section 4001, spending reduction accounts, the amount by which each applicable application of the budget committee on appropriations exceeds the amount of related proposed new budget authority is as follows, one, agricultural rural development, food and drug administration and related agencies, $1,972,000,000.

>> mr. chairman? the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. rogers: i move the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion to rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman? the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 1 directs me to report it has

come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair: mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? >> i ask unanimous consent when the house adjourns today it adjourns to meet at 9:00 a.m. today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on, with the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the motion is adopted, accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m. today.

we have changed a lot in the last few years in terms of our procedures and processes. we can negotiate smarter contracts. we have seen real benefits from that. the example was used in another context of a literal combat shift. we got the price down far enough that we could buy more ships.

i think we have a lot of efforts going -- under way. we get thousands of auditors, 10,000 lawyers. the key is having the acquisition professionals who can discern these bad behaviors and prevent them from happening in the first place. they can be quicker and more effective in catching them. >> gracias. my time is over. we would like to take a look at that department of defense report. thank you. >> thank you. mr. aitken. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i really respect your decisiveness. nobody can say you are afraid to

make the tough decisions. we need that kind of leadership. i do not always appreciate the communication strategy. sometimes you say you do not know to six months before it a program is going or not. it is a matter of a day or so that we find out. it would be committee if the work on communication to get some of us a heads up of what you are thinking and where we are going. we are trying to play as a team with you. we are trying to help people understand the difference in growth of entitlements and what is happening to the defense budget as a% of gdp. -- as a percent of gdp. we need to make the case to make sure you are not so pinched on money that you cannot get the job done.

we hope you look at us as partners. it would be helpful to have some idea what you are thinking. we do not want to move from full speed ahead to all stop. i was interested to hear you reflect on where you are concerned about where we are over all. i am concerned about the number of ships. i spent 3 hours in one of this situation rams -- situation rooms. what's the big lessons from that was a huge fight the war with the ship that you have. you cannot design a new ship and build it because the war will be over before you get there. we were talking about a 313 ship navy. we are down to 287.

if you put a new submarine in there, that budget blows up. we want to work on whatever we can do. on the expeditionary fighting vehicle, i do not care what particular platforms we have, but it seems to be non- negotiable batteries have to get from the ocean to the land. they need to actually fight when they get to shore. i am not convinced we have an adequate strategy without having that vehicle or something to fill that gap. it is something to take a look at. i hope you will at least allow us to go through that and be flexible with us in saying if we do not have a good strategy, let's make sure we had a good one. they got in the falkland islands war and almost lost because they did not have a plan to get the

marines on the shore. i want to allow you to respond to my rambling i get a little bit. we want to work as a team. that is my main point here. we need a heads up before you make any decisive moves. >> first of all, let me just say publicly and for the record that the department of defense totally supports the marine corps in a firm requirement for and the fabius us all capability for the marines. we just do not want to spend $15 million, which is virtually all of the marine corps's vehicle procurement budget for enough vehicles to take 4000 out of 202,000 marines from ship to shore. -- this was a recommendation

from the, died to the secretary of the navy and then to me. we should understand that the, dot does have an alternative plan -- the commandant does have an alternative plan. upgrading part of the existing amphibious assault vehicle fleet and designing a new assault -- amphibious assault vehicle, but one without the expensive, exquisite capabilities. there is a commitment to this end there is money in the 2012 budget to pursue this. with respect to your first observation, i would say, first of all, i think most of the members of this committee believe i have been pretty

honest, pretty forthcoming, candid, and transparent ever since taking this job. i fully recognize the constitutional role of the congress with respect to our military forces. in fact, in my first commencement address at the naval academy i spoke to the midshipmen about that very fact and the importance of congress and for them to stay apolitical among other things. at the same time i have to have the discipline decision process inside the department of defense. until a few years ago the place leaked like a sieve and i cannot make an internal decision without the process being in the newspapers. i have tried to instill some discipline in the department. the truth is by going out on january 6 with what we have in mind for the fy 12 budget, this

committee and its counterpart in the senate got a headstart in evaluating the budget over every other committee in the congress. i get the president's approval to go ahead and do that. the same thing happened in the spring of 2009 when i came up. i made a lot of decisions in the spring of 2009 on programs. 33 of them came up here. all the major ones. in every single one of those the congress had an opportunity to evaluate it and decide to go forward or not. right now 32 of the 33 are the law. i agree that we need to do this as a team, but i also have to have a discipline decision process inside the department of defense so people can speak up in meetings, disagree, and we

can work things out before making a decision. >> thank you. mr. andrews. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen, for your service. your flight the same level of excellence as the men and women that you lead. i apologize for not being personally present during your testimony. i have read it. mr. secretary, i want to direct your attention to page 4 of your written testimony that goes into a list of the savings you are proposing. first, let me thank you for proposing this. i think too often the debate here has been trivialized by people who i think incorrectly say our military budget is too large without being able to talk about the needs the country has. there are others who would look at any reduction as a threat to

national security without real and fair analysis. i cannot think of a person better suited to lead us through a mature discussion of this than you. i thank you for taking that leadership role. you talk about $11 billion over the five-year window from resetting mission priorities, the functions for agencies -- what does that mean more specifically? >> let me answer quickly and ask mr. hale to elaborate. what we have asked, every defense agency and every part of the office of the secretary of defense to do is to read their activities. what are you doing, how should

you be doing it, and how many people does it take to do that? we have been able to shed contractors and reduce the number of people working in these areas. we are consolidating some activities. we are eliminating other activities. it really has to do on the civilian side of the department with how do we make the defense agencies more efficient and find savings? that is the basic umbrella. >> this goes to your premise of the earlier arguments which i understand is making ways to find more efficiency in our logistical operations so we can be more effective in our actual defense activities. is that a fair summary? >> yes, sir. the defense agencies have a lot of people and a lot of money. they have grown a lot of the

last decade. frankly, we thought it was time to take a fresh look at all of this. i think it has been a long time since anybody has gone into this in the way we have. >> i would be eager to work with you to find more savings in these and other areas. i think you'll find that there are members of both parties willing to do that. >> i think there are two areas where we have not realized the opportunities that we have. we came up with $178 billion worth of structural changes, overhead changes, economic changes in the space of about six or eight months. there are two areas, for example, where i think we have the opportunity to save money. one is in acquisitions. the other is negotiating smarter and better contracts.

we've seen that on several different programs. the other is in infotechnology. we have to start on that in this effort. it is complex enough that we have not gotten as far as we would like. those are two areas where we could do a lot more. >> many of us are eager to be your partner in those efforts. i want to thank secretary haile for being accessible and precise whenever we need to speak to him. he said he would take personal responsibility as we have some of our colleagues would. there is a tendency when we want to try to change the law to settle for putting in a provision and asking the pentagon to do a report. i would be willing to try to not do that in the future and urge

our colleagues to do the same thing. >> we will give you some ammunition. for now on, all reports will on the front page have the cost of preparing the report. >> you should also include the person who asked for it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. secretary, thank you for being here today. we respect your office and i hope you will not conclude that it is disrespectful as we try to get your answers to be concise enough. it is difficult for many of us, at least on this side, to get information from the department of defense. one thing we saw on january 26 when your deputy secretary was here, he testified that the department had failed to comply with the laws requiring audited financial statements be filed annually in the years 2007,

20008, 2009, 2010 -- all years in which your secretary of defense. for any of those years, were you aware that the law required the director -- the department of defense supply these statements? >> i certainly was not aware that we were in violation of the law. >> you did not love you were in violation of the law? the second question, he'd further testified that no such statements would be filed this year, but he said it was a priority of the department of defense that you be in compliance and you had a plan to do it. has that always been a priority of yours since you had been secretary of defense? >> yes, it has. if you go back to testimony four years ago, the person who had

the job before mr. hale had begun the planning and execution of getting us to a position where we could comply with the law -- >> if i could, i do not know if we have an opportunity to put it on the screen, but hopefully we will -- there is a chart right over here. i am wondering if you recognize that website at all. just to refresh your memory -- i know it is hard to see -- this is your website. this is alive. this is not something we made a copy of. this is what you would have seen that the testimony you were talking about in 2007. if anybody were to go to it today -- that says this website is designed to provide all of

the information you need to understand the budgeting of the department of defense. what it clearly states on there is that the department of defense would have been in 100% compliance by the year 2010. according to the testimony, the department was off one under%. -- 100%. is that not accurate? >> we have certainly not provide a clean audits, that is foreshore. >> would you authorized -- you had been given $2.50 trillion in essentially since you had been secretary of defense. these sumsuthorized if he did not know where these funds were being spent? >> i am, the debt that we have

the financial processes all of which were designed for budgetary planning and congress has relied on for some time. i am have confidence in where the money is going. we do the kind of audits required by the cfo, but we are spending between two other dollars million to $300 million to get in compliance. we have a plan to get there which i would share with the committee. we understand our obligation, but we do have systems in place to deal with fraud and other issues and to provide us with the tools to do financial management. >> i do not want to cut you off, but the reality is best -- you were 100% off. i want to be kind and respectful, but the taxpayers interested in your department with $2.50 trillion and this is

the way you repay them with the accounting. you issued a gag orders to stop people in the pentagon to talk about what is going on. he did not get the aviation plan in the years it was required by law. you did not get the audit did financial statements that were required by law. we only get back filled m five. i know my time is up. i yield back. >> boss is very much. mrs. davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we applaud you for your extraordinary service. i want to add my voice as well. you said this was your last budget? >> as far as i know. >> given that, several of my

colleagues are asking questions that you can take out of your minutes. what is it that concerns you the most whether it is in the budget or outside the budget? did you speak a bit to the disconnect you see between what the needs are and what the budget actually reflects? it is a little of the "what keeps you up at night" question. is there anything in particular you would like us to focus our attention on? >> i will take a crack at it. as i look at the future, there has been a discussion today about structure. i worry in the longer run that we align our structure with the national security requirements we have. at some point in time with the structure we have, we will have

to start saying that there will be some stuff we have to stop doing. i worry about refitting from these wars. we will get two years of all time in the next few years, but we are not really reset for two years as opposed to instantaneously when that starts. i worry about properly resetting during a time when the challenges in the world continued to grow. there is no better example than the last couple of weeks. i think that will continue. if you track crises back to the time the secretary has been here, they continue to grow. i am comfortable that we had the best military we have ever had. we need to make sure we sustain that over the long-term. we talked a lot about equipment

in these hearings. we get it right for our people and their families, we will be fine. if we do not, it will be a struggle. in two specific areas, not that we do not have the challenges, -- one is space and the other cyber. those are areas that are too often in these areas. they are demands without boundaries, without rules. we have international players as well as individuals, particularly on the cyber side, extremely dangerous in both realms. we have invested in that heavily. we have set up a command. those are our initial steps, but we have a long way to go. >> mr. secretary, did you want to respond to that? >> as this is my last hearing, i will be bold and tell you two

things that worry me. they both have to do with the congress. one is the disconnect between the roles and missions that have been given to the military by the congress and the president and the discussion of the defense budget now and in the future here on the hill. it is treated more often than not as a math problem. you have 18.9% of federal outlays. it is the lowest federal outlays for defense since before world war ii. yet because we have half a trillion dollars, we must be part of the problem in terms of the nation's debt and the deficit. i would tell you on a $1.60 trade deficit, if you cut the defense department by 10%,

which would be catastrophic, that is $50 billion. you have not gotten very far in dealing with the deficit. the second thing i worry about is that what we have found in the executive branch is that the elements of the different parts of the executive branch are increasingly integrated in the way they deal with problems from the state department to the defense department. yet the jurisdictional lines appear on the hill are such that you do not get to see the overall national security picture that we see in the situation room and what the president sees that brings intelligence, the state department, defense, and these different elements together and integrates says. i think it is a challenge. this is becoming more and more the case in the problems that the nation is dealing with with national security and, yet

congress continues to have at a stovepipe approach to dealing with these issues. as you all think about the future, those are two things that concern me. >> process. i'll submit other questions for the record. >> we are going to turn to mr. wilson and then we will take a five minute short break. mr. wilson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral, mr. secretary, thank you for being here today. in particular, secretary gates and admiral mullen, i want to thank you for your service as the highlight the conclusion of your careers in the military. i had the same concerns as our chairman. it is a bipartisan concern. i was listening to congressman rail. that is with the drawdown.

i am very concerned about the effect. i am very concerned about the effect on morale of the service members, on their families, the consequence of them not feeling secure about their military futures. some people have been so dedicated to our country. with that in mind, mr. secretary, what flexibility will there be for the service chiefs in terms of the conditions? it is my view that the conditions have changed in the last month with the instability in the middle east, the potential facing an asymmetric enemy on a broader scale that would require more troops on the ground. >> i think you are concerned

about an asymmetric threat -- it is correct. i will tell you that i think those who will face this asymmetric threat to the greatest extent are the air force and the navy. particularly as we look at capabilities that china and others are developing, the kind of activities the iranians are engaged in, the north koreans, and so on. that is why we put a freeze on the air force and the navy in 2007 and drew down their personnel. we stopped that. there are no drawdowns planned for the air force and the navy. as i said earlier, the marine corps -- this is their idea. you need to speak to general a mess and get his thinking and logic as to why the marine corps ought to be stronger and lighter as soon as we come out of afghanistan.

because of instability we are seeing in the middle east now, it is difficult for me to imagine circumstances in which we would send u.s. ground forces in. those are problems that are emanating from within those countries. it is primarily a diplomatic challenge for us, although i would say that if you want proof of the value of our military assistance to egypt over the past 30 years, it has been in the behavior of the egyptian army of the past three weeks and their professionalism in dealing with the situation they have. 2015 is a long way away. i think -- we are talking about $6 billion. i think the chiefs have a lot of flexibility in terms of that they determined in 2013, 2014

that drawling down from 547,000 or from 187,000 in the case of the marine corps, or 202,000 -- they can obviously make that pitch. i will tell you a lot is going to depend on who's the secretary of defense and use the president. there had been opposition within the department of defense to increasing strength when i arrived. that is why it has not happened. the previous chairman of this committee had been a strong advocate of increasing strength. it did not happen until you have a different secretary of defense. that will matter, too, as well as the service chiefs. >> allow to comment on the surge. i think it was successful in afghanistan. i am very grateful that so many of the army personnel made such

a difference. also, in regards to the national guard, what is the status on our equipping of the national guard for their domestic and foreign capabilities? >> this is a real success story. this is something i am proud of. when i came to this job, the equipment on hand across the nation for the national guard was about 40%. it is now in the mid-70%. we are well above that. more importantly, they are getting first-line equipment. they are not getting handouts from active forces. they are getting the same high- quality equipment the active force is. >> thank you very much. we will take a five minute recess and reconvene at 11:50.

>> mr. gates, the first question is for you. be that a date for the tanker decision? >> no, but i would say within

the next two to three weeks. something like that. >> thanks. admiral mullen, your written testimony discusses the resources. that is about as much as we have. you both have testified about the need to define defense activities. can you talk a little bit more about this idea and when we can expect to see actual language? >> from my perspective, i think what has worked between state and the department of defense is called dual-key capabilities

that assigns responsibilities to the secretary of defense and secretary of state that we will spend money in a certain way. it gets focused on iraq and to some degree afghanistan, but it is really about preventive action. the investment ahead of time so we are not in conflict. special forces, for example, is one area, but we cannot do it all. in terms of the level of detail in the proposal, i think we can get that to you relatively quickly. the language is there right now. it is a $50 million with the language that would allow us to reprogram an additional 450 and out of our own money as the need emerges. we need to do it now as these

emerged as opposed to taking months or even a year. >> do you envision that you need additional 40 or reprogramming authority? >> i think we need more. -- i think we need both. >> that authority is for a decision structure as well? >> right. support for a decision structure. >> so you can impose your colleagues, the $50 million is the state department contribution. >> that was the next question. i think it is important that both agencies have a skin in the game, if you will, to make this work. i look forward to some actual language and help from you all on that. the continuing resolution on the floor today and the next day includes eight hit to the

department of energy's budget of about $600 million below the 2011 request. this is for nuclear non- proliferation. this is the nuclear materials peace in addition to other things. it is in our jurisdiction. have you looked at what the and back of that hit will be? >> no i have not. >> in want to ask you to get back to me on that one. can you speak to the 2012 request for the department of energy's non-proliferation budget request? >> to be honest, the only part

of the energy budget i had any familiarity with is for the mms on the nuclear weapons. >> that is fine. finally, can you discuss the budget request? perhaps secretary gates in the next few seconds -- supporting phase one of missile defense and what the budget defense looks like four phases two through four -- what kind of dollars are there to move this along? >> i cannot parsed the specific elements of it. i know the overall budget for missile defense is going from $10.20 billion to $10.70 billion. there is money for more aegis

ships, more of the chance affordable rate dollars what we have in israel and japan right now, and there are also continuing investments in the ground-based interceptors systems. there is money for some of the high level tech ballot -- high- level technologies such as the high energy lasers. there is a significant increase in missile defense, including going forward with the adaptive or re -- adaptive array. >> mr. secretary, thank you. thank you for your letter yesterday in which you announced your support for a federal uniform standard.

you know that unfortunately throughout our country there are family law courts where a judge will use the time away that someone has been deployed or even the threat of deployment as a sole factor for determining custody, resulting in our men and women being honored for their service actually being disadvantaged for their service. this house has passed this in legislative form five times, once as part of a stand-alone bill. your letter indicates that you'll be assigning your staff with the responsibility to negotiate language that can ultimately be enacted in legislation to provide that protection. this battle has been going on for five years now. this does not just affect our

service members currently in custody battles. we are not asking them for being at an advantage, but it also affects our service members that had the stress of the concern that they could be subject to a custody battle and do not have a national standard. many of these battles and all three states -- the state in which the original custody order was issued, the state in which the service member resides, and the state in which what the child presides. my first question to you is i believe this should not wait for the national defense authorization act this year. it should be passed as a stand- alone bill. we passed it for other times. if we roll up our sleeves, we can pass this very quickly to the house. i would like to have your support to get to work on this right away. >> we certainly will do that.

if you can get to the house in a hurry, it is up to you all. that would be excellent. >> i want to talk to you about the issue of sexual assault. in my district, we had a woman who was tragically murdered after making allegations of sexual assault. we worked on provisions that had been enacted over the past several years. a new york times article in reporting a lawsuit that has been filed identifies the legislative accomplishments so far are modest. we actually had a provision that went to the issue of sexual assault, one of which would have provided a mechanism for expedited consideration for those subject to sexual assault, another one provided -- all of those did not make it into the final bill.

i just wanted to bring it to your detention it -- to your attention. my third topic is the strategic forces subcommittee. i have been concerned about the nsa not being recognized as being part of the defense infrastructure. when people talk about cutting everything that is a non- security related, they are subject to a cut. as we look to the importance of the nsa and the support they need, i would appreciate your comments on the importance of this funding and the characterization that should be made that the nsa is part of our national security infrastructure.

>> i simply cannot endorse the last two statements. it is incredibly important. endorse the cann last two statements. it is incredibly important. it should be considered as part of a security component. >> there is vastly money in the defense budget that will be transferred. the desire was to emphasize the partnership between our two organizations. they are very important to meeting our nuclear needs. >> excellent. thank you both. mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for appearing today and providing us with your testimony as well as our service.

first, i have one simple question. you can give me an up or down answer. i thank you for your support of hr 44. this proposed legislation is very an important to guam who survived the brutal enemy invasion in world war ii. i have reintroduced a compromised version that eliminates the payment of claims to defendants of those who suffered personal injury jury the occupation. can we expect the same level of support from the department of defense as we did in the 11th congress? the people of guam are being asked for land for the current build up.

>> as the deputy secretary testified, we continue to support the department of justice's position on this. >> the answer would be yes. my second question -- i am incurs to see the administration supporting the military construction funding in guam. i am also encouraged about the civilian efforts structure in guam. my question is for secretary gates. given the strategic importance of bomb and our efforts to reshape our military presence in the pacific theater, can you tell me the status of the department of defense's roadmap for aligning u.s. forces in japan? specifically, how is the project

proceeding and when can we expect to see tangible progress in okinawa? >> i discussed this when i was in japan a few weeks ago. i feel like the japanese government is making a serious effort to resolve the issue. my hope is that we will get resolution, particularly on the configuration of the airfield perhaps later this spring. that would allow us to go forward with our planning. until we get the replacement facility issue settled, we are not in a position to go forward. without resolution of that issue, our troops do not believe okinawa, the land is not yet returned to the japanese from

okinawa. my hope is that we will get resolution of this to a sufficient. by sometime later this spring -- sufficient point by sometime later this spring. i expect to be around for some months to be able to work with you on that. >> if that is good. my third question is for either secretary gates or sherman mullin. i was pleased to see research and development for a next generation a bomber. this is important to our long- range strike capabilities. why is standoff insufficient to meet future combatant requirements? what are the limitations within

our existing legacy bomber fleet? >> you almost did it in your question. we went through a very rigorous debate to get to the conclusion that we should invest in a new penetrating stealth bomber. we think that capability is vital for the future. there is a great focus obviously on this with respect to the specifics. in a lot of the capabilities we have developed over the years, oftentimes we use it in changes. we think it is broader than that. it was reviewed for both its ability to be developed from an evolving technology. i think there is a very smart

acquisition strategy associated with it. it will not be a squeeze it in every way. it is bound in costs. when combined in the platform, it will result in a revolutionary capability in terms of our requirements. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a couple of other questions i will enter into the record. >> thank you for your service. at the risk of a 15-yard penalty for piling on, i want to get back to the audit issue that was brought up. it is not going to happen. none of the three of you will be in place when didn't -- when this gets done. that is inherent bias in the system we have in place. it helps explain why we are not there.

it is a key component of what you want to get done, it will not get done. i wish we had the same commitment to auditing the financial statements. we have heard testimony this morning about the wonderful things that were done with respect to that, but you cannot tell us the differential in cost between doing it that way versus the standard way of doing that. we do not know what that costs in those differentials. there is a story in the post where people who have defrauded the government had been awarded additional contracts. that is an internal control issue. internal controls or an integral part of a good financial system

that allows you to know where your money is or is not going. it adds to the confusion. i go home to people in west texas and when they find out the department of defense cannot be audited, they are stunned. thousands of auditors and 10,000 lawyers is i opening to those of us on this side of the deal. secretary hell and i have had extensive conversations. we have bent over to the pentagon. they are working really hard. they get it. hart is not impossible. as keith alexander says, nothing is impossible for those who do not have to do it. i do not have to do it, but you do.

the question is how do you leave a legacy in place that keeps this process moving? it is so systemically and drained into the team that this is important. we need to know where the money is going. the general public should game additional -- should gain additional confidence. had believe that legacy in place to make sure we do not lose ground because you will not be here when 2017 rolls around and it is not done. >> mr. hale and i have talked about this. he has asked for my support in terms of communicating to the rest of the department that this

is a high priority. i have provided that support. to answer your question of how do i know that this will continue after i am gong, it is because mr. hale will not be gone. he will continue in this. he is committed to this. i think he has a plan in place, as i mentioned earlier, both short-term and long-term in terms of getting us to compliance by 2017. >> we will keep track of it. i have to be able to get the matrix in place to measure progress against that timeline. it also begs the question, you have $100 billion in reprogram money. your team has said we do not need to do $100 billion worth of this, we would rather do $100

billion worth of that over that time frame. how would you check that? how will you make sure it does not more into the commitment to save the $78 billion over the next time frame? i can see where you would wind up siphoning off moneys that would otherwise be reprogrammed enter the department of defense. >> i would like to offer a defense of the financial management system. i understand we need audits for public confidence. it does not mean we have no idea where we are spending the money you send us. we have 55,000 people in the defense community. they are well trained. we have several thousand auditors watching us. if we had no idea what we were doing with the money, we would have a rampant anti deficiency

violation. for the last five years, to test of our budget has been associated with ada. it is smaller than the percentages of the non-defense agencies, all of them have a clean audit opinions. i think we do note what we're doing with the money you are giving us. we cannot pass commercial audit standards. we need to do that to make sure the public knows we are good stewards of their money. >> i want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. i was at the first hearing after you were appointed. always a brand you a member of congress. i remember you what in and said we would raise our strength. that is also the hearing were you announced you would make a commitment to amrap deployment

in iraq and afghanistan. last easter there was a national guard unit that was riding in an amramp. a 200 pound ied was detonated. it came crashing down. everyone survived. there were some pretty bad injuries, but everyone is a lie. if a flat bottoms humvee had then in that type of event, it would not have been the case. i spoke to one of the mothers of one of the soldiers. she did not know what it was, but whoever was responsible for making sure that those types of units were in the theater, just think them. i am doing that public because you're part of that extraordinary effort to get those things over there to

protect our troops. i want to touch on two quick things that people are talking about in connecticut. one of the comments made by an admiral last year when the issue came up is that aside from the claims that the second engine would pay off over time, he pointed out the fact that on aircraft carriers there iscapacity to deal with repairing and maintaining two separate systems. we have an admiral here who knows the ships quite well. if you could comment on the overstated claim that when you think about the operational headaches that the engine would create. >> we focus on getting things out the door as opposed to what it cost in a life cycle. it applies in all three services.

this is two separate maintenance manuals, two separate training, at two separate supply forces. they lagged each other significantly. i am been doing money a long time. i cannot make sense of the second engine. it is years behind. it will not compete, quite frankly. we cannot afford to buy the second engine from my perspective. there have been multiple airplanes that are single- engined airplanes that are single-source. i do not accept that 95% of the fleet will go down at once. it just does not happen. we are better at that. the first engine will be, i think, more than adequate to meet the needs we have for that airplane. if i thought any different, i would be encouraging this second engine. i just categorically cannot see

that it will make any difference. it will cost us a lot of money, not just to get it out the door, but over its life cycle. >> for the proponents to keep bringing it up, we are in a different world than we were 25 years ago in terms of testing. the risk level is not what it was. i just want to get your statement on the record on that. >> it is worth noting that the is a single source. the f-35 is a derivative of the f-22 engine. the likelihood of a serious design failure is very small. >> i want to note for the record that one year ago we were talking about a $7 billion submarine. the figure has been brought down

to $4.90 billion. congratulations. it will still be a long-term challenge for the shipbuilding budget. it should be treated as a national strategic asset. you smile last time i asked you about this. there is precedent for treating it outside of a normal defense budget. that is a solution is it not if you can figure out a way to make it happen? >> is a third of the shipbuilding budget. the shipbuilding budget has to absorb that this year. it would break the shipbuilding budget. the solution be described as been talked about for years. it boils down to resources and a shipbuilding plant that will get us there and beyond. with the arrival of the ssbn, that will not en