twice as much for a fill at the vet -- than the veterans administration does because we have a law that the majority supported that says that medicare can't negotiate prescription drug prices. i favor repealing that law and saving at least $25 billion a year. i would ask my friend if he supports that? and i would yield if he'd like to answer. does the gentleman support that idea? mr. mchenry: why didn't the gentleman do it when he was in the majority? i'd be happy to yield back the balance of my time. mr. andrews: reclaiming my time. we did not -- two republican senators support on the other side we would have done it over here. second thing, does the gentleman support stopping the spending of $110 billion a year to occupy iraq and afghanistan

and instead spend that money here mountain united states, does the gentleman support that? i'd like to yield to him? i'd repeat it. we're spending about $110 billion a year to help finance the government of iraq and afghanistan. i'd rather see that there are 110 billion to reduce our deficit. would -- that $110 billion to reduce our deficit. would the gentleman support that? mr. mchenry: does the gentleman support the president being in libya? mr. andrews: i do not. i do not support baghdad and kabul for what we could be doing here at home. third, we'll spend at least $63 billion over the next 10 years to give tax breaks to oil companies that made record profits, $44 billion last year alone, as our constituents are paying over $4 a gallon at the pump. i support repealing those giveaways to the oil industry and putting that money toward

the deficit. i don't see the gentleman any more. not sure how he stands on it, but we support that. four, i support the people who make more than $1 million a year might be asked to contribute just a little more in taxes to help reduce this deficit. i know the other side's going to say, well, this will hurt the job creators in america. there's an echo in this chamber. in 1993 president clinton proposed a modest increase on the highest earning americans to help reduce the deficit. the former speaker at the time, mr. gingrich -- he wasn't speaker at the time -- became the speaker -- said this would cause the worst recession in american history. he was wrong. the gentleman who became the majority leader, mr. army, said this was a recipe for economic

collapse. he was wrong. when we follow the supply side trickle down the last eight years under george w. bush, the economy created one million net new jobs. but when we asked the wealthiest of americans just a little bit more to reduce the deficit in the 1990's, the economy created 23 million new jobs. so when they ask, where is the plan? here's the plan. don't abolish medicare the way they plan to. negotiate prescription drug prices, stop paying the bills for iraq and afghanistan, stop the giveaways to oil companies that make record profits and ask the wealthiest in this country pay just a bit more to pay down our deficit. let's put that plan on the floor and reduce the deficit that way. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes.

ms. lee: thank you very much, madam chair. i rise in strong opposition to the underlying very reckless bill, h.r. 1216. the republicans -- and we heard this over and over again -- they want to destroy and to deny seniors long-term affordable health care by eliminating programs that are training the future health work force of our country. this legislation is really part of an ongoing republican attack on medicare under the guise of deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility. it really is about privatizing medicare and, of course, that means there will be some winners and there will be some losers. the republican' plan to end medicare threatens the healthy and secure retirement that we promised american seniors. in fact, an end to medicare as an end to the lifeline that millions of seniors rely on. medicare gives peace of mind to millions of americans who pay into it all of their lives. the republicans want to give

aging americans a voucher, mind you, that will not come close to covering the cost of health care instead of maintaining and improving medicare. sure, waste, fraud and abuse must be addressed wherever we find it, including the pentagon. but we disagree with the republican agenda that the program must be killed. the republicans want to end this program when millions of medicare beneficiaries are struggling to make ends meet, and when we know that medicare eligible beneficiaries will double over the next 20 years, republicans have the wrong priorities, focused on letting the rich get richer on the backs of the middle class and the most vulnerable in our nation. under the guise of reform, republicans would increase cost for seniors and cut benefits while giving tax cuts to millionaires, subsidies to oil companies and sending desperately needed jobs overseas. if the republicans get their way, millions of seniors would immediately begin paying higher

costs for prescription drugs. the impact of killing medicare will be the most severe on vulnerable and underserved populations, including our seniors of color, while negatively impacting all seniors who rely on medicare to protect their health and economic security. an end to medicare is really an end to a lifeline that millions of seniors rely on. if republicans have their way, millionaires will continue to get big bonuses while millions of americans fall deeper into poverty. madam chair, approximately 43.5 million americans were living in poverty in 2009. but did you know that nearly four million of those are seniors? given our challenged economy, we can't expect these numbers to improve since 2009. medicare is part of a promise made to hardworking americans to ensure that they would not lack the security of having health care. and so rather than stand silently while republicans destroy a program that protects

vulnerable populations, we are here to speak up and stand up for our mothers and our fathers, our grand mothers and our grand fathers, our aunts and our uncles and, yes, our young people and our children and to be their voice in the house of representatives. we are here to declare that medicare should be protected and improved to protect our nation's seniors and most vulnerable populations, and we're here to say we want to secure it for future generations. ending medicare really does end this promise, and the security for millions of americans today and here and in the future. so we're here today to defend medicare and the support it gives to our seniors. we must ensure that those who have worked hard their entire lives have the health security they need and that they deserve in their later years. thank you, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back.

the gentleman from texas. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> madam chairman, i have seen shameless acts on this floor before and we're watching another one with the last few speakers that we've seen here today. mr. sessions -- the facts of the case are, and people know this, that we passed a budget resolution which is a construct to ask this house of representatives to consider a plan so that we do not bankrupt medicare which is exactly what anyone who voted for the health care plan on march 21 or 22 a year ago did. the plan under which president obama and speaker pelosi at that time supported took $500 billion out of medicare to support a plan which could not be sustained either which cost $2 trillion for health care. so this year republicans have a plan which would allow the

sustenance to sustain medicare with a plan that is a market-based plan. it's not a voucher program. not one person who is presently on medicare today nor anybody that is 55 years old or older today would be impacted by this plan. it is a plan that says we should challenge the congress of the united states, including the administration, also, to come up with a plan about how we can sustain medicare as we do see a doubling over the next 15 years of people who will be expected to participate in that plan. so that we get this right for once let me say this -- it is not a voucher program. it does not impact anyone that is presently on medicare, so the shameless things we heard today about everyone's grandmother and everybody's grandfather and all these

people that will be thrown off medicare, they will be un affected. here's what the plan calls for. it calls for the united states congress to begin a process with hearings that would allow members of people who would be on medicare to probably be allowed to have instead of a one-size-fits-all plan of medicare to have a plan that looks just like what government employees would have. a realistic opportunity for them to choose among several plans, whether they want a basic plan, all the way up to a plan which they could fully participate them self. today, medicare is a closed one-size-fits-all process just like we heard mr. miller, we're going to treat everyone the same way, it does not work because not everybody has the

same needs as each other. we will have a plan which is market-based, which does not bankrupt this country nor the system, which will allow the individual an opportunity to come into a process and have their own health care just like somebody who works for the federal government. it would allow people who were in that program to take money out of their own pocket to choose their own doctor if they chose to and to be allowed to supplement those payments. we would probably set a mark, a bar that said if you make above a certain amount of money, that's not determined yet, but if you had the ability to pay for yourself you shouldn't rely upon the government. another way to make sure that we support the system because if people have the ability to pay for their own health care, we should allow them to do

that, encourage them to do that. and then we look at how doctors are paid. doctors today have not only been mistreated by both sides but in particular as we see doctors not being compensated, they are not available and it means seniors are being denied coverage because physicians are not being reimbursed properly. it allows us to have a great system where doctors would want to serve seniors, a great and better system that's market-based whereby the person has the ability to pay. if they do they would pay their own physician and their own way with the minimum support from the government. bottom line is the gentleman from north carolina asks a relevant question, and the answer that came back was when he said, what is your plan, the answer that came back was, what about the war and what about oil companies? well, the facts of the case are, we're talking about

medicare here today. a system that is draining, draining this country from not only its ability to provide outstanding and excellent health care but also a system -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. sessions: i thank the gentlewoman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded not to walk in the well when other members have been recognized. the gentleman from ohio. >> madam chair, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in opposition to the underlying bill and i think it's important for us to go back, as we hear about market-based solutions, to why medicare was started in the first place. mr. ryan: there is no market to provide health care for older people because there's no money to be made. insurance companies can't make money off of covering old people who get sick, really, really sick. and what this plan does, madam

chair, and the analysis was, well, it's just going to be like the federal employee plan. we get members of congress and federal employees get a premium support. well, the premium support that federal employees get is about 70-some percent of the health care costs, and that number goes up and down with inflation for health care. so no matter what the health care costs are, the federal employee has 70-some percent of that covered. the problem with the republican plan is that the voucher or the premium support is hooked to the c.p.i., the consumer price index, which is 2.5%, maybe. so the voucher is going to go up at c.p.i., say, 2.5%, while health care costs are usually a percent or two above g.d.p. growth.

so say we have 4% growth, then health care costs are going to go up 5%, maybe 6%. so your premium support or your voacher is going to increase every year by 2.5% while health care costs are going up at 5.5%. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out over the course of several years that voucher becomes worthless and it will only probably cover 30%, maybe, of the costs of the health care that these seniors are going to get. so let's not sit here and pretend like the senior citizens in the medicare program are going to somehow be living large and getting some kind of great health care. this dismantles the medicare program. period. dot. at least have the courage to come out and say we want to dismantle the medicare program, and if you want to look at how far to the right that the republican party has gotten on this issue, i've never seen

former speaker gingrich do a faster or complete potomac two-step in my entire life when he even insinuated that this may not be good for seniors because the goal now of the republican party, madam chair, is to dismantle the medicare program. . and tree tried to privatize social security. and this is no surprise. and my question is, madam chair, if you are a 55-year-old guy in youngstown, ohio, who statistically over the last 30 years, last 30 years, your wages have been stagnant in no increase in real wages over the last 30 years, now you're saying to them, they have to come up with another $182,000 to be able to pay for their health care. you can nod your head no all you want. these are the facts.

congressional budget office says neutral third party, that the average person going into this medicare proposal will pay $6,000 more a year. that's not the democratic study committee or our policy saying it, it's c.b.o. $6,000 more a year. while the guy's wages has been stagnant in the last 30 years and that's where the issue of the oil companies does come in, because we are giving huge breaks to oil companies. we will take more arrows on the other side to protect even thinking about possibly asking the westiest 1% to pay just a little bit more to help us address this issue. the world's falling. the sky is falling. the world's ending and it's so bad that we can't even muster up the courage to ask bill gates and warren buffet to help us out a little bit while we have these

problems and three wars going on at the same time. i mean, come on, madam chair. this is not right. this is not right. so at the end of the day, the democratic plan is for medicare. we keep it to cover senior citizens and their health care when they get older. and if we've got to make adjustments, we make adjustments, but you don't dismantle the entire plan. you don't at the same time give tax breaks to the oil companies. don't dismantle medicare, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: if we are going to tell stories here let's start out with once upon a time and end with, they lived happily

ever after. is it the responsible republican plan that was debated on this floor for hours. this was a plan, the first time we had laid out a pathway for how to save medicare for people who are going into the program in 20 years, 30 years time. now, what is the plan on the other side? well, there was no plan from house democrats. there is no plan from the senate democrats. there is a plan from the president. the president laid out his aspirational budget like the republicans laid out their program, which was their budget and the president's aspirational document laid out a clear path. the president believes in 15 people, not elected by anyone, but appointed by him and their ability to control costs in the medicare system. it was written into a bill

called the patient protection affordable care act. i have a great deal of sympathy with those on the other side who don't like the independent payment advisory board. one wrote an editorial yesterday decrying the nature of the independent payment advisory board, but the sad fact of the matter is, this is the democratic alternative to the republican plan to save medicare into the next 50 years. that plan, the democrats' plan, the president's plan, with the independent payment advisory board says 15 people are going to be picked and will be paid well. they will then decide where are the cuts going to occur in medicare. now true enough, congress gets an opportunity. this 15-member board will come back to the united states congress and say here is the menu of cuts that we believe is necessary to have this year in order to keep medicare solvent. by law, they have to come up with a certain dollar number of

cuts but as the president said in his speech to georgetown earlier this year, that's a floor, not a ceiling. if we need more money, we can go back. congress looks at the cuts that are brought to them by the unelected board and says, we don't like those cuts. some of those cuts will be damaging to poor seniors on medicare. do we have a choice? yes. we can vote it up or down. if we vote it down, we have to come up with our own menu of cuts to delen deliver to the secretary of health and human services. what if congress can't agree -- i know, when has that happened before -- but what if we can't agree? that's the purpose of the independent payment advisory board. we can't intervene because the president's board has spoken. so congress can't agree on what these cuts should be. so what do we do? we continue to fight.

but guess what happens? april 15 of the next year, the secretary of health and human services, whoever he or she may be at that time gets to institute those cuts that were brought to you by the independent payment advisory board. now is that a good idea? and i have heard discussion here on the floor today about $6,000. you know what? if you don't fix that sustainable growth rate formula, guess what's going to happen to every senior rich and poor on the medicare program? either they won't be able to find a doctor or they are going to have to pay more money. how much more? about $6,000 per senior. but, look, the independent payment advisory board, something like that has never happened in this country. in a free society, we have an unelected board who is going to tell us what kind of medical care we can get, where we can get it and when we can get it and most importantly when you

have had enough and when they say you have had enough, that's it, no more, dyalisis, insulin, doesn't matter, you have had your share. that is the problem with the independent payment advisory board and congress becomes powerless because frequently we do disagree with each other, the secretary will make that decision for us and next year the process starts all over again. i have a great deal of sympathy with my friends on the other side of the aisle because they did not include this language in their bill and we remember a year ago, the very bad process that brought us the act. and what was that process? the senate on christmas eve that passed a house-passed bill that will came back over to the united states house and will the house agree to the senate amendment. you all remember 3590, it was a housing bill when you passed it in the summer of 2009. you did not include the independent advisory board in

h.r. 3200 for a very good reason. the reason is un-american. and now you are left to defend it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: you know, this is a crazy debate that we're having here right now, because you know, the republicans, they keep saying to the democrats, well, what's the plan? and so we say to the republicans, well, what's your plan? your plan seems to be saying to grandma and grandpa that they are taking too much, that they really -- they are taking america for a ride and we have to cut medicare. their health care is too good and grandma and grandpa, they didn't do enough for america. so the democrats we turn around and say, hey, about looking at it this way. before you go after grandma and her medicare, how about you say to warren buffet, how about not

taking those extra tax breaks. and the republicans say, we can't take away any tax breaks from warren buffet and all the other multi, multi millionaires and billion as we don't want to touch their money even though it would give us hundreds of billions of dollars. i say, how about prescription drugs and negotiate the price of prescription drugs for medicare the way we do with the v.a.. they say that would be unfair to the drug companies. we can't touch them either. then we say, well, the war in iraq, the war in afghanistan, it's winding down now, maybe we can look at the defense budget and save a few billions there before we ask grandma to sacrifice on the health care she gets from medicare. and republicans say we can't do that either and can't look at

cuts in the defense budget, because that would be much too hard on the defense contractors. we say how about the oil industry? how about the $40 billion in tax breaks they are going to get, i mean, does anyone in america really believe that they need tax breaks in order to have an incentive to go out and drill for oil when people are paying $3:50, $4 .00. we can't do that. and self-serve gasoline for grandma and grandpa at the pump. what do they instead? they put an oil rig on top of the medicare card so that the oil industry can drill into

grandma's medicare. and pull out it out in order to provide tax breaks for big oil, for warren buffet, for the prescription drug industry, for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. she's the one responsible for all of the wasteful spending in the united states. it's all grandma's fault. let's cut medicare. she didn't do enough for our country through the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's and 1960's. it's all on grandma. this drill rig they are building into the pocket books of grandma in order to find that funding, that's what their plan is all about. it's an oil pipeline into the pocketbooks of the seniors. they want to cut checkups for grandma while they cut checks for the oil companies. they want to cut health care and give wealth care to big oil companies and billionaires and

prescription drug companies. their plan is big tax breaks for big oil and tough breaks for grandma and for the seniors in our country. and the c.e.o. of chevron, he said it's un-american to think about increasing taxes on the oil companies. i say it's unbelievable you could make that argument and even more unbelievable that the republican party would accept that argument and cut medicare for grandma, to privatize it and hand it over to the insurance industry, increase the costs by $6,000 per year even if they say to warren buffet, oil companies, big drug companies, the arms contractors, don't worry, we are going to protect your programs. it's just grandma on the cutting block. ladies and gentlemen, this is a debate of historical dimension and until the republicans come forward with a plan which they don't have in order to make

medicare solvent by raising the revenues out of these other areas from millionaires, you know, from the oil industry and from others, do not expect us to say to grandma, it's your fault. it's not her fault. she built this country. she deserves this benefit and we should not be cutting it. this republican plan to end medicare is just a plan to turn it over to the insurance company. vote no. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york -- oh, the gentleman from connecticut. mr. courtney: i move to strike the last word. i rise in opposition to the underlying bill, which is a bill that would repeal the provision of the affordable care act which was aimed to strengthen the frime mare infrastructure of this country, which is a huge challenge for the medicare program but for some reason, medicare just seems to be the target. i think it's important for people to remember that in 1965,

when medicare was passed and signed into law on harry truman's front porch, only half of america's seniors had health insurance. part of it was because of the cost but part of it was because health insurance industry wouldn't insure that demographic. it was too high a risk to write insurance policies for people who, again, because of nature, carried the highest degree of risk in terms of illness and disease. . to fund it through medicare part b premiums said that we could raise the dignity and quality of life for people over age 65 and extend life expectency but the republican party has been targeting this program over and over again. in the 1990's they came out

with medicare part c, medicare plus choice which is, again, giving insurance companies a set payment who promise to provide a more efficient lower cost product for seniors. and what happened? insurance companies enrolled millions of seniors in medicare plus choice products and realizing in a short space of time that they did not in fact have the funds to create a sustainable product. they canceled coverage for seniors all across the country. i was at hearings in connecticut in 1998 where seniors who signed up for these programs finally got notification that the insurance companies changed their mind and dropped them like a hot potato, some seniors in the middle of cancer treatments and chronic disease treatments were left high and dry without coverage so that program failed. later we had medicare advantage. medicare advantage was sold on the, again, the premise it

would provide savings for seniors. what happened? the department of health and human services had to offer insurance companies 120% of the baseline cost for medicare in order to entice insurance companies to participate in the medicare advantage program. a ridiculous overpayment treating unfairly seniors who were on traditional medicare and paying for supplemental insurance. last year we did something about that unfairness by equalizing payments on traditional medicare and medicare advantage. and today what we have the ryan republican plan which says you get an $8,000 voucher if you're under age 5 a and good luck in trying to -- 55 and good luck in trying to find coverage in a market that's going to be very, very careful about not extending actual coverage because of the risk that's attached to it. now, they rank unfairness of saying that they're going to create a two-tier system for people over the age of 55 and

people under the age of 55 -- it's obvious in my own family. i'm 58 years old. my wife, a pediatric practitioners, she gets stuck with the loser version of medicare upped this program. again, the unfairness of it is open. it's why the american people are turning against the republican jearned. we ask, what's your alternative? look at the report that came out last week. look at it. what it said is the affordable care act in fact extended solvency for the medicare program by eight years. we did suffer some -- some reductions but that was because of the economy. read the trussees language. smart efficiencies which were introduced in the medicare program through the affordable care act in fact made the medicare program healthier. if you look at the ryan republican budget plan, they took every nickel of those

savings from the affordable care act even though that caucus demagogued all across the country, campaigning about so-called medicare cuts in the affordable care act, well, the ryan republican plan incorporated all those changes in the affordable care act but at the same time took away the advantages in the affordable care act including prescription drugs, smoking cessation, all the smart changes the affordable care act made to provide for a smarter benefit for seniors. the fact of the matter is the democrats do have an alternative. we have a program which we passed last year which for the first time in decades extended the solvency of the program. let's preserve it. let's reject the ryan republican medicare plan. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington.

the gentleman from washington. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcdermott: madam chairman, i rise in opposition to this underlying bill. it reminds me, as i listen to this debate, of debates surrounding the vietnam war. i remember a villaged that was bombed by a military unit and the officer who had him do it said -- asked why he did it. he said, well, i destroyed it to save it. now, that's the argument we're hearing today on medicare. we have to destroy it to save it. now, ask yourself -- and there are a lot of people watching, madam speaker -- if i were sitting at home trying to figure what thess all about -- why would representative ryan suggest that a voucher system

is a way to save medicare? because of the rising cost. everyone knows that the cost to medicare and medication and health care in this nation is totally out of control. now, president obama came up with a plan which he brought out here. it wasn't like he created something that nobody had ever thought about before in the whole united states. he looked at the state of massachusetts. it's been a place where a lot of great things have come from. and he saw what governor romney, a republican, a republican thought to have a universal plan for massachusetts. so they passed the law and they covered everybody in massachusetts. now, then came the question -- once you got access for everybody, how do you control the costs? well, then the problems

developed. and the problem was they found in massachusetts they didn't have enough primary care physicians. now, what does that have to do with it? that's what this bill is about. this bill is about the training of primary care physicians. what everybody in this country needs is a physician that knows them and has a medical home. when they get sick they go to that person, the doctor knows them. if they need some preventive care, the doctor takes care of it. the doctor does it in the very cost efficient way before the catastrophes. now, for many people in this country who don't have a primary care physician, they sit at home and say, well, i got to wait until i'm really, really sick and then they go to the emergency room. now, if you have your blood pressure monitored and you take medication, you can live a long

life. but if you don't, you are very likely to wind up with a stroke. now, we spend millions of dollars on stroke victims that could have been prevented by good primary care. and we say to ourselves, well, why don't we have more primary care physicians? well, because the health care system is designed to take care of people after the big event, after they got the cancer we'll spend millions of dollars on cancer treatment. we'll spend millions of dollars on heart problems, on all these things where prevention could have prevented it all and cost less. that's what every industrialized country in the world has done. it's why the swiss are able to provide universal coverage to everybody in switzerland for a little over one half of what we

spend in the united states. because they provide good preventive care in the form of general practice, general medicine. that's true in england, in norway, in canada, in every other country except the united states where we are dominated by specialists. now, in this country if you get sick or you have a pain, if you don't have a primary care physician, a doctor who knows you, you call up your friends and say, i got a pain in my leg? what -- pain in my leg, what should i do? well, i saw an orthopedic surgeon and his name is such. you go to a specialist and that person looks at your leg. he doesn't look at the rest of you. he doesn't know your whole history. when i started in medical school, the -- we were taught at the very beginning was, listen to the patient. he's telling you what's the matter with him. and everybody knows that

doctors are running on a convair belt today running after conveyer belt today because we have not invested in primary care physicians. now, the average kid going to medical school would like to take care of people -- comes out they are $250,000 in debt. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcdermott: this bill is making that problem worse. therefore, it's bad for grandma and everybody else. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. gingrey: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gingrey: i thank the chairwoman. sitting in my office listening to this debate, i can't help but feel like this is a bunch

of demagoguery on the part of our colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle. i take this opportunity to oppose an amendment, but more importantly to ask my colleagues to stop this demagoguery in regard to throwing grandma under the bus in reference to the medicare program and what our side of the aisle has proposed in the republican budget. you know, the average age of this body is 58 years old. almost all of us are grandma and grandpa, and you're running these ads all across the nation, i guess particularly in new york 26, showing a reasonable facsimile of our fantastic chairman of the budget committee pushing grandma in a wheelchair off the

cliff. look, new york 26 is over. you don't need any more votes. stomach all this demagoguery. you've done -- stop all this demagoguery. you've done nothing to the medicare program. what is in the 2012 budget, the obama budget, that has done anything to trying to solve the medicare program which will be bankrupt in 2024 if nothing is done? that is the total irresponsibility and the hypocrisy of this side of the aisle, madam chairman, and the responsible side of the aisle is the republican side of the aisle which says, look, let's save this program for our children and our grandchildren, guarantee, protect and strengthen it for grandma, grandpa, our current seniors. and not only the current seniors who are 65 and already disabled and already on the medicare program, but anybody who will come into the medicare

program within the next 10 years. and, you know, madam chairman, at that point in 2022, you'll have about 65 million programs -- million people on the medicare program as we know it. traditional medicare. they'll be on that program until their natural death. and many of them, because of our great health care system in our country, will live to be 90 years old. so this idea of killing medicare is an absolute misinterpretation, and you know it. you're misleading the american people. this program that we are proposing -- and it's a proposal. it's something we can work together on both sides of the aisle. we can negotiate. you know, it's not set in stone. but what we say, what speaker boehner says, what chairman ryan says is, look, let's try this program in 2022 where

people coming into medicare at age 65, many of whom are working and in excellent health, we will simply give them a premium support but not a voucher in their hands but to send to the insurance company of their choice. let them get their medical care where members of congress get their medical care. let them get the same options to choose from, madam chairman. this is what this is about. if it's $8,000 it will be adjusted every year for inflation and that average $8,000 will be higher for an individual who comes into the medicare program at age 65 that's already sick, that already has heart disease or diabetes or is on dialysis. it's somebody as they get older, that premium support will increase. this is the way we save the medicare program.

and oh, yes, by the way, folks like us, like members of congress, our premium support will be significantly less because we're not warren buffett but we can afford to pay more and we should pay more. if it's $4,000 more, so be it. we save the program for those who need it the most, those who are middle and low-income seniors, and that is the compassionate thing to do. so colleagues, stop this demagoguery. let's get together. let's work together and solve this problem once and for all. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded to address their comments to the chair. the gentlewoman from illinois. >> yes, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> i'm getting a kick out of this debate. i really am. ms. schakowsky: we hear the

republican colleagues coming up saying, end the demagoguery, end the tv ads. i want to remind you, that's the 2010 elections, the republican people went on television and, yes, how about demagogued the issue of medicare saying democrats wanted to cut $500 billion from medicare. well, let's talk about the truth. . here is our plan to save medicare. and that was to say in the affordable care act, yes, we are going to cut subsidies to the insurance companies that were bill beinging the government and the taxpayers and we were having to overpay them and yes, we are going to cut waste and fraud from the medicare program and we

will save $500 billion and not only would we not only cut a single penny from benefits, but we were able to increase benefits while trimming medicare. you scared the heck of seniors, but never mentioned, of course, at the same time we reduce the cost of medicare. we improve medicare by adding to its solvency. we closed the doughnut hole, making prescription drugs more affordable and provided a wellness exam every year at no cost and we provided preventative services with no cost sharing. but nevertheless, on television, those ads warning against those democrats who didn't cut one thing from medicare and improved it. and now you're saying, well, we aren't going to do anything to

people 55 and under. to me that sounds like, 55 and under, you better look out. now, the ads in new york are working because people love their medicare and what they don't want to see, you know all but four republicans voted to literally end medicare. you can call it something else, but you can't call it medicare, because those guaranteed benefits are gone. it makes huge cuts in medicare benefits. seniors that fall under the new plan, would have to pay $6,000 more a year. that's what the congressional budget office says. $6,000 more a year out of pocket for their health care and would put insurance company bureaucrats in charge of seniorso health care, letting insurers decide what tests and what treatments that seniors get, throwing seniors back into

the arms of the insurance companies who have shown no love to them. and so let's look at what the american people think about medicare. well, if you are 65 years and older, 93% of americans say the medicare program as it is right now is very important or somewhat important to them, actually 83%, very important. 55 to 64, 91% say medicare is very important. that's 74% or somewhat important. and if you are 40 to 54, we have 789% of americans -- 79% of americans who say it is very or somewhat important and 18 to 39, 75%. people get it. medicare works. medicare is efficient. medicare is good for our

country, for people with disabilities and for the seniors. and if we're looking to save medicare, we do have a plan. we know how to make that more efficient. we have done it in the affordable care act. and we are willing to sit down and talk about how we make medicare more efficient, but not by ruining and destroying and getting rid of medicare to the point that you got to find another name. it won't be medicare anymore. so they have admitted, it seems to me, that people 55 and younger, you better look out, because that program that will allow our seniors to live perhaps to 90 years old, people who are going to be eligible for medicare as it is right now will no longer be in place. and we aren't talking about rich people. we're talking about poor seniors, middle-class people.

don't support this plan. the chair: the gentlewoman's time is expired. members are reminded not to traffic the well while another member is under recognition. the gentleman from. the gentleman from is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i was sitting back in my office and saw the debate break out on the floor of the house, medicare proposal, the proposal to rescue medicare from certain -- i wonder because i sit on the rules committee and it has the great pleasures of deciding what comes to the floor and i knew that this wasn't medicare reform day. this was the amendment by ms. foxx to protect life and an amendment to a bill brought to the floor by my colleague, mr. gutry which restores

congressional oversight, those things i ran for congress to do. mr. woodall: and i'm in support of the underlying bill, but when i hear this talk about medicare and all the games and what has happened in the past, i have to say i have only been here, this is month number five for me. i'm still brand new and optimistic to believe that it doesn't have to be about sound bites, that it can be about solutions and i want to say to my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle, when you say you came up with a proposal in the president's health care bill last year to deal with medicare, i believe you. i take you at your word. i saw that medicare advantage was removed as an option for seniors. that distressed me. i saw new benefits had been added, madam chair, added to a program that's already going bankrupt. i saw that that is one direction that you can take the medicare

program. now i'm a proud member of the house budget committee. the house budget committee that worked hard and long to produce the medicare reform proposal that we're talking about, oddly enough, here today. and it's a program that saves medicare for everybody 55 years of age and under and provides them with choice. i just want to tell a personal story. i don't consume a lot of health care. i have been very blessed in that regard, but had to go in for a chest ct the other day. i have a medical savings account so i'm responsible for the first couple thousand dollars of my bill. i got on the internet and started shopping around and turns out the difference between the cheapest ct and most expensive chest ct in my home state of georgia, four times. i spent my $4 a gallon of gas to

go to the cheap one. the most expensive one was right next door. folks, when we talk about how, we the united states congress, we, the u.s. house of representatives voted to save medicare in the 2012 budget proposal, we talked about saving it by providing choice. my colleagues are exactly right, we did that in 1997. and can we save it by providing more choice. we added medicare advantage but didn't get much further than that. this is that next step, because we know that choice matters. we know that choice matters. the gentleman who held my seat and been retired used to tell the story of his mother in upstate minnesota and every tuesday she would go to the doctor with a group of friends to make sure everything was ok. just to get checked out. one day, a terrible snowstorm, wind was blowing and snow was

piling up and they got together on tuesday and edna wasn't there. and they called around and asked around and turned out she wasn't feeling well and couldn't be there that day. you make different choices when you are not responsible for the bills. this isn't just a medicare issue, but a philosophical difference between these two sides of the aisle about what kind of america we are going to live in going forward, are we going to live in one where we help you along and make fundamental choices for you. it's clear to me why my constituents sent me to washington as a first-time elected official. this year, it's clear to me with the 2012 budget proposal takes this house and takes this country. i implore my colleagues, we can absolutely argue about your plan as it was introduced in the

president's health care bill and our plan as it was introduced in the fiscal year 2012 budget proposal. but let's not make it anything other than what it is. it is a difference in two visions. your saves medicare for six years, our saves medicare for a lifetime. and we owe the voters no less. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. perlmutter: and i just say to my friend from georgia, who really is my friend, and this isn't about demagogry, sir, and what i would say, madam chair, the issue before us is what got our country into a financial pickle. the republicans want to pick on medicare. but americans know -- i had a government in a grocery this

weekend and an older came up to me and said, why is there such a focus on medicare, something that has been working for 50 years? it's helping having seniors longer and happier lives. 10 years ago this country was running a surplus. running a surplus. revenues exceeded expenses. under bill clinton, revenues were exceeding expenses and then there was a decision under the bush administration to cut taxes. ok, revenues exceeding expenses, ok, that cost us $1 trillion over the next 10 years. then the decision to prosecute two wars, says to me, that cost about $1 trillion, didn't it, mr. congressman? i said yeah. medicare, 10 years ago, we're fine, revenues exceed expenses and now we've got tax cuts for

millionaires and billionaires, $1 trillion, two wars and then this big crash on wall street. well, we lost revenues and we lost -- and we had bigger expenses, that was a couple trillion dollars, wasn't it, sir? i said that's about right. he said that turned our budget upside down and why are we focusing on medicare, why blame medicare for $4 trillion of losses to the united states? it wasn't medicare that is harming the financial success of this country. so why all the blame when this program really has been working for seniors for so long? so i would say to my friends on the republican side of the aisle, this is a program that my friends haven't liked since its inception -- in a second i will yield to my friend from virginia georgia. but this is a program that

republicans haven't liked from its inception. so to turn the target into medicare and not have tax cuts for billionaires and millionaires and should be part of the equation of balancing our budget or taking away the incentives and tax benefits to oil industries but say no we are going to focus on medicare, in minimum, that's just wrong. i yield to my friend from georgia. mr. gingrey: i would ask him, maybe he would want to answer, how much of the windfall profit taxes, if you will, against big oil, big farm or big anything are you going to put back into the medicare program? and by the way, how much of the medicare advantage cuts that came from obamacare are actually going back into the medicare program as we know it? mr. perlmutter: taking my time

back, if those tax benefits are taken away at $100 a barrel, we can put them into medicare and balance the budget. my other friend from georgia said this is what's causing the bankruptcy. that's just not true. you know, this country was running a surplus, for goodness sakes, and americans understand that. they know what got us into trouble financially and it wasn't medicare. so now to take it out of medicare and take it out of our senior citizens where a program is actually working, the goal of that program is so americans could live longer, healthier lives in their senior years. it's working, but, no, let's blame that, instead of the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, let's forget about those wars and the cost to the country and the crash on wall street. my friends on the republican side of the aisle say, this is a perfect time to go after

medicare. we haven't liked it before, we still don't like it. let's get it. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. weiner: i'm waiting to be recognized. now it sounds like you're proceeding to shut down debate. i say that it is in violation of the order of the house as decided by the rules committee to permit members to speak for five minutes on this matter. it's early in the evening, many members are waiting to speak. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the chair may resume proceedings on a postponed question at any time. mr. weiner: point of parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry. mr. weiner: so the chair is deciding, even though a member is standing here, not to mention members are here seeking to be recognized, i believe of both

parties, the chair is choosing at this moment that this is the moment to cut off debate early in the evening when we have plenty of work to do and members seek to speak and offer amendments, is this the deciding arbitrarily or is she given guidance by the republican leadership who don't want to hear any more critique? the chair: the chair is exercising her prerogative to resume proceedings at any time. mr. weiner: i take this as a yes. this is a travesty in the way we do business. >> order. the chair: the gentleman is not recognize the. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in the -- mr. weiner: i make the motion we do now rise. i move we do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion to rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. weiner: roll call vote, madam chair, i insist upon it. the chair: the gentleman requests a recorded vote? mr. weiner: yes, he does. the chair: a recorded vote is requested.

all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. mr. weiner: pending that i make a point of order, a quorum is not present. i think you want to rule that the vote is in order. the chair: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in the congressional record on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 2 by mr. tonko of new york, amendment number 9 by mr. cardoza of california. the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first electronic vote in this series. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

prohibited by the u.s. house of without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: mr. president, we're nearly ten years after the attacks of september 11, 2001. every one of us in the senate know america continues to face threats of terrorism. we wilfor the rest of our life, as do a lot of our allies. and the president's success

after dogged pursuit of bin laden, success earlier this month doesn't mean we can become complacent. we have to remain vilan we have to make sure the men and women of our law enforcement intelligence agencies have the tools necessary to protect our naon, the american people. but as every vermonter knows, tools are only useful in they're regularly checked and intained. otherwise, they become blunt instruments that can do harm rather than accomplish the job. congress recognizes this -- recognized this basic notion in 2001 when we wrote the u.s.a. patriot act. i worked with the en-republican house majority leader, dick armey. we included sunsets on ctain survllances in the bill. it is something, even though we had vastly different political

philosophies, we both agreed we had to have sunset provisions. in 2006, when congress reauthorized the u.s. patriot act, i worked to ensure certain sunsets were renewed and added audits on the usef powers to unnecessarily intrude on the privacy of americans. we want america to be protected but we don't want to give a blank check to anybody, not to republican administration, not to a democratic administration, not to anyone. we are, after all, americans who believe in our individual liberties. having granted the goverent broad authority to gather vast amounts of information about t daily lives of americans, i want to do what we could to ensure information gathering didn't occur at the expense of americans' basic constitutional rights and their civil liberties. the sunsets and audits provide congress an opportunity to examine whether patriot act tools are being used appropriely. and if not, let's sharpen them

or refine them or restrain these tools accordingly. the audits we added in 2005 and 2006 proved to be very helpful because they identified there were abuses in the way the patriot act was being used. abuses were with respect to national security letters and the use of exigent letters. if we hadn't hadversight, if we hadn't had the sunset provisions, we probably never would have found out about those abuses. we found out about them and we worked with the f.b.i. to correct those matters. now, that brings us to today. the senate has the opportunity to reexamine, refine key patriot act pvisions, and i think we should take that opportunity to make improvements to our current law. i've led the senate judiciary committee to diligently consider these matters with hearings and meetings and as a result the

committee responded by reporting improvements both last yr and agn this year through bipartisan legislation. they're good measures and we've worked to ensure they would not compromise the effectiveness of our law enforcement intelligence capabilities. in fact, much of the language was derived after consultation not only with the administration but all within and including the intelligence community. the attorney general and others have repeatedly assured us the measures to enhance oversight and accountability, such as audits, public reporting would not sacrifice -- and to quote him -- the operational effectiveness and flexibility needed to protect our citizens from terrorism. he added, or undermine the collection of vital foreign intelligencend counterintelligence information. in fact, the attorney general has consistently said th the llassed out by the senate judiciary committee struck a

good balance. it extded the patot act authorities while at the same time it added accountability and seufpl liberties protections -- and civil liberties protections. i refer senators, we had a senate report in the bill, a report on this, it was the senate judiciary committee senate report number 112-13. i ask that a december 9, 2010, letter from the attorney general to me ming these points be included in the record along with a february 19, 2010, letter from the director of national intelligence to house leaders. i ask consent that those be included. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: unfortunately, t bill before the senate tay merely extends the expiring authorities to june 1, 2015. regrettably, these authorities haven't been refined since 2006.

if this means the case, through the extensions contemplated by this bill, it means we'll have nine years having this bill and we're not able to find any legislative improvement? i think most of us undstand we can do better. the amendment that we're offering today seeks to improve that, improving the patriot act, changing the fact it's gone without these improvements. and i appreciate the efforts made by the majority leader to craft a compromise. i'm sorry that the republican leadership and the congress has insisted on an extension of authority without any improvements. the amendment i have filed and wish to offer along with senators paul, cardin, binge moon, coons, shaheen, wyden,

gillibrand, and akaka makes significant improvements to current law: promotes transparency, praoeuf circumstance civil -- praoeuf circumstance civil liberties safeguard. i ask unanimous consent to place a sectional analysis in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: one of the improvements congress should make is to repair a constitutional infirmity in the current law. three years ago in doe v. mccasey, the u.s. courof appeals for the second circuit found the nondisclosure in the statute authorizing issuance of national security letters was constitutionally defective. we don't make a change, that constitutionally defective part of the national security letter provision would continue. so part of the comprehensive set

of reforms in the bill reported favorably by the judiciary committee, i propose a simple statutory fix which would enable the f.b.i. to obtain the information it needs, but at the same time addressing the constitutional concerns. this proposal has never been controversial. in fact, during the last congress senator sessions, senator bond and the ranking republicans of the senate judicial intelligence committee cosponsored a bill that incorporated the legistive remedy i propose. it is a straightforward matter. it needs to be fixed. the underlying bill does not fix the problem. our amendment would. i would trust the senators would not want to proceed to vote on an unconstitutional law, one that violates our fundamental charter as a nationnd, of course, the liberty of all americans. no one who claims to honor the

constitution should proceed in so cavalier a fashion. if we're to restore the constitution under the authority, let's adopt this needed improvement. i'm also troubled by the republican leadership's refusal to agree to periodic audits on the use -- use by government of the u.s.a. patriot act surveillance autrities. when i speak of the leadership, i want to mention that is not uniform within the republican parties. there are many republicans who feel we should have these periodic audits. basic transparency, mr. president, basic accountability, they are vital to ensure that government does not overstep its legal authority. we give a lot of authority to our government. we give a lot of things they can do. but we do it usually with a sense that somebody can watch what's going on, that if they

overstep the authority, you've got the power to bring them back in line. it's only because the audits are mandated by the 2006 patriot act reauthorization bill, the american public became aware of some of the abuses and misuses of the national security letter. and they were significant. and without that public accountability, without that congressional oversight, i believe the f.b.i. would not have made improvements to a system of tracking n.s.l. issuance. but becae of those audits, we are more confident today that f.b.i. agents are following proper procedures for obtaining private information about americans rather than improperly using exigent letters to circumvent the rules or using postit notes to track the records. the underlying bill, the one we

want to amend, omits audits in public reporting. our amendment includes important auditing requirements, public reporting to provide accountability and ptect americans' rights without the public accountability. i'm not sure what we have. no one can seriously contend that audits by an inspector general of past operations present any operational concerns to a law enforcement intelligence agent. all it says, you've got accountability and you have to follow the rules. mr. president, you and i and 98 other members of this body have toollow the rules. certainly those in law enforcement have to follow the rules. and these have been demonstrated to be vital oversight tools.

they should be incorporated. the language in our amendment is the product of more than a year and a half extensive negotiations with republicans and democrats, the intelligence community, the department of justice. this year the senate judiciary committee got support of senator kyl and cornyn and was reported favorably to the senate. the bipartisan bill we seek to offer is a reasonable package of reforms that preserves the ability of the government to use the patriot act surveillance tools, b at the same time with transparency, accountability and oversight. it does not make it more difficult for our intelligence authorities, our law enforcement authorities to keep us safe. all it means is that they have to follow the rules each one of us expect in our own lives.

now, the senate should not shirk its duty to reexamine carefully and critically the provisions of the patriot act and to consider ways to improve the law consistent with our core constitutional principles. that's what i've tried to do. that's what vermonters expect. i intend to vigilantly guard americans' privacy and civil liberties while doing all i can to keep all americans secure. we expect in vermont, but i have to assume we expect that in the other 49 states. without a single improvement of reform, without even a word to recognize the importance of protecting the civil liberties and constitutional privacy rights of americans, the underlying bill represents a missed opportunity. let us provide our law

enforcement, intelligence professionals the tools they need and give these professionals the security and certainty they need to protect our nation. let's at the same time -- let's faithfully perform our duty to protect the constitutional principles and civil liberties upon which this nation was founded. on which the american people depend. mr. president, most americans, the vast majority, 300 million americans are law-abiding, honest men and women. we shouldn't suddenly lump them in a catory that they're potential lawbreakers and, therefore, we can just go ahead and search their homes or their businesses or their personal things without ever telling them and with no proper reason. you know, we fough a revolution

in this country to stop that from happening. and it's no different today. one of the things that's kept us so strg as a nation is we protect the individual rights of all americans. we can get the the chair: the yeas are 14 and nays are 397. the motion is not agreed to. unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in congressional record by the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. tonko of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] minutes.

the chai recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may nsume. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. guthrie: i rise today in support of h.r. 1216, the health care bill that spent over $1 trillion last year and empowered federal bureaucrats more than it did the american people. as a member of the energy and commerce committee, i have been working on legislation that takes steps -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. chairman. take steps to peal back a few of the many mandatory programs instituted in the health care law and limit the federal government's unprecedented power. section 5508 of the health care law, authorizes the health and human services secretary t work teaching health centers and appropriates $230 million from 20 to 2015. h.r. 1216 amends the public health service act to convert funding for graduate medical education and qualified teaching

health centers from direct appropriations to an authorization of appropriations. this bill is not about the merits of graduate medical education or teaching health centers, everyone agrees there are strong needs for more primary carehysicians in our health system. but picking and choosing one program over another to receive automatic funding is irresponsible. makinghese programs mandatory spending is unfair to all of the other health care programs that have to be -- compete every year to continue to receive funds. for example, as h.h.s. secretary said during her testimony before the house energy and commerce committee earlier this year, the president's f.y. 2012 budget eliminates graduate medical education for children's hospitals. while children's hospitals must go through the regular appropriations process to fight for funding, teaching health centers will receive an automatic appropriation. are a $14.3 trillion in debt and our deficit for this year will approach $1.5 trillion.

congress is making difficult decision abouts which programs to fund and whic to reduce . we must prioritize and i find it unfair that some programs are unshielded and do not have to have merit to continue their funding. i urge my colleagues to vote yes and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the house will come to order. the committee will come to order. the committee will come to order. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: without objection. mr. green: i rise not in support of h.r. 1216. the affordable care act authorized a five-year program

to support a credited primary care residency training operated by community-based entities including community-based health centers. this training takes base in settings such as community health centers. research shows that c.h.c. trained physicians, for example, are twice as likely as their nonc.h.c. counterparts to work in underserved areas. it makes sure that training takes place, which is mandatory funding for programs help do. it will help strengthen the primary care work force in underserved areas, specifically those that are hard to russ taint work. it includes peed at ricks, gynecology, psychiatry, geriatrics. it's hypocritical for i or the republican colleagues to take

away this funding. they continue to argue there is not enough physicians to provide care to people who need themn primary care services. this program is designed to help address this very program, but they keep trying to have it both ways in the health reform debate. this is just another example. today, the majority is going to say they have an obligation to share this program is subject to appropriations process. duto the need for transparency in our spending process and current budget process. let me remind the majority we are not the only party who's directed mandatory funding for programs. the majority must have supported autopilot spending as representative foxdescribed it, the teaching health program when they passed a modernization act of 2003 which required mandatory funding for transitional programs. i suppose at that time the majority certainly felt they knew better than the appropriators that the m.m.a. was a worthy program and deserved mandatory program. even though they passed it under the cover of -- with a

lot of arm twisting. i can't understand the opposition, particularly from my republican colleagues, they have repeatedly and inaccurately complained we do not do enough to prohote health work expansions and now they are going to cutre the health work expansion. it will make it challenging for these 11 programs that have already made the decision to participate in consultation with key stakeholders like teaching hospitals and their boards and based on that continuing funding will be available. to move this to discretionary funding will deter others to expand residency training since funding over the next few years could be subject to the annual appropriations fight. this will be a another political stunt by the republican to defund health reform. this is playing games to i can -- several weeks ago they couldn't stop talking about the chair: on this vote the yeas are 186, the nays are 231, the amendment is not agreed to.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in the congressional record by the gentleman from california, mr. cardoza, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. cardoza of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support for the request of a recovereded -- those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. . a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

improve with the ryan budget because it provides states with block grants under their mecare program. how great would it be to give seniors vouchers to purchase health insurance? and this week we're busy taking away funds to make sure we train physicians to make sure that all americans have access to affordable care. once again, the republican majority is wrong in this. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his

time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. guthrie: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, the chairman of the subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. pitts: i'd like to thank the gentleman from kentucky for his leadership on this issue. it authorizes the secretary to award grants to teaching health centers to establish newly accredited or expanded primary care residency programs. the new health care law, hi packa, provides a mandatory appropriation of $230 million for this purpose for the period from f.y. 2011 through f.y. 2015. you may recall that in the president's fiscal year 2012 budget he eliminated funding for training athildren's hospitals. because of this i and the ranking member of the health subcommittee, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, have introduced h.r. 1852, a

bill to re-authorize the children's hospitals graduate medical education program for an additional five years at the current funding levels. while the administration couldn't find money in its budget for training at children's hospitals, hipacca had an additional $230 million for other health centers without any input or approval required by congress. if it did this with a number of funds, appropriations. the bill before us today, h.r. 1216, simply converts the mandatory appropriations to an authorization subject to annual appropriations process. just like the children's hospital g.m.e. program, making it discretionary. passage of the bill would also save $215 million over five years. i urge support of the bill and i yield back the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back his time. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my colleague from the energy and commerce committee, congresswoman capps. the chair: the gentlewoman from is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague for yielding, and i rise in strong opposition to this reckless bill. i caot count the number of times members on both sides of this aisle have decried shortages in the primary care work force of our communities and working often in bipartisan manner to develop ways to crease the primary care ranks. and yet today, the next victim in the republican obsession with repealing the affordable care act is a program that doesn't deal with these shortages. it ireases our primary care phician ranks and trains them with special expertise in serving the community. the bill before us would defund this program, taking many qualified americans out of the primary care work force before they even have an opportunity

to join it. moreover, cutting these training programs would affect already existing jobs at the 11 community-based entities that have already extended their programs to train these new doctors. take i way this funding would force possible layoffs and would have a chilling effect on other sites developing this type of program. yes, it is paid for under mandatory funding but that's not unheard of or even unusu. the graduate medical education program which has had measured success in strengthening our health care work force is a mandatory spending program. thprogram the republicans are trying to cut today is simply a complement to this g.m.e. program. focused on community-based care and prevention. the choice on h.r. 1216 is clear. if you believe we do note have a jobs -- not have a jobs problem and we'll have all the ctors we need, then go ahead and vote for this bill. if you think we need to create jobs and we need more primary

re providers, you must vote against h.r. 1216 and protect this very important program. we can't have it both ways. i ge a no vote and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from california yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: i yield four minutes to my friend from tennessee, representative the chair: on this vote the yeas are 182, the nays are 232, the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? the gentleman is recognized. >> 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. the ayes have it. the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1216 and has come to no resolution thereon.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. pursuant to house resolution 269 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 1216.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 1540. the chair: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 269 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of

the union for the consideration of h.r. 1540. the chair appoints the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 1540, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for 2012 and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: i rise in support of h.r. 1540, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012, which overwhelmingly passed the committee on armed services on a vote of 60 to 1. in keeping with the committee's bipartisanship, ranking member smith and i worked collectively to input members opinions and provide the proper care and logistical support for our fighting forces and help us meet the challenges of the 21st century. it authorizes $553 billion for the department of defense base budget consistent with the president's budget request and the allocation provided by the house budget committee. it also authorizes $18 billion for the development of energy's

defense programs and $118.9 billion for overseas contingency operations. the legislation we will consider today makes good on my promise when i was selected to lead this committee that this committee would scrutinize the department of defense's budget and identify inefficiencies to invest those savings in the higher national security priorities. we examined every aspect of the defense enterprise, not as a target for arbitrary funding reductions as the current administration has proposed but to find ways we can accomplish the mission for providing for the common defense more effectively. the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012 achieves these goals by working to ensure our troops deployed in afghanistan, iraq and around the world have the equipment, resources, authorities, training and time they need to successfully

complete their missions and return home safely. provide our war fighters and families with the resources and support they need, deserve and have earned. invest in the capabilities and force structure needed to protect the united states from current and future threats. mandate physical responsibility, transparency and accountability within the department of defense and incentivize competition for every taxpayer dollar associated with funding department of defense requirements. mr. chairman, i know there have been many questions raised by the aclu and others relating to a provision in our bill dealing with the 2001 authorization for use of military force. i would like to address some of those concerns now. section 103-4 affirms that the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against nations, organizations and persons who

are part of or are substantially supporting al qaeda, the taliban and associated forces. it also explicitly affirms the president's authority to detain certain individuals who qualify under this standard i just described, which congress has never explicitly stated. it's important to note that the u.s. supreme court has accepted the president's authority to detain individuals as within the powers granted. the language in section 1034 is similar to the obama administration's interpretation of the authorities provided pursuant to the amuf, in particular, march 13, 2009 filing filed in the united states district court for the district of columbia. while they have accepted the administration's interpretation of the amuf, it is under constant attack and litigation relating to petitions filed by

guantanamo detainees. because of these ongoing challenges, the administration's interpretation may receive less favorable treatment over time if congress refuses to affirm it. section 1034 is not intend todd alter the president's existing authority pursuant to the aumf in any way. it's intended to only reinforce it. i believe there are men and women in uniform deserve to be on solid legal footing as they risk their lives in defense of the united states. finally, some have suggested section 1034 was in included in the dark of night. i note this language was included in the detainee security act of 2011 and discussed during a committee hearing on march 17. we have sought input from the administration as well as ranking member smith, his staff and numerous outside experts. the process used to craft this

legislation is historic in its transparency. in fact, a copy of my mark was distributed to committee members' offices five days before our markup. the legislation including the funding tables, was posted online nearly 48 hours in advance of our markup. it is noteworthy that there are no earmarks in the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012. every member request to fund a defense capability was voted on and includes language requiring merit-based or competitive selection procedures. to those who are concerned that members may undual influence the department of defense to direct funds to a particular entity, i can only recall the words of the former chairman of the committee, congressman skelton, who would say, read the amendment. what does it say? if d.o.d. chooses to violate the

law in a text of the provision requiring merit-based selection, the armed services committee will take them to task. i thank the chairman and ranking member of the rules committee, for working with us to bring this measure to the floor. i urge all my colleagues to support passage of this bill. in partnership with you, we look forward to passing the 50th consecutive national defense authorization act and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in support of this bill, 2012 national defense authorization act and i begin by thanking the chairman and staffs inputting together this bill. i think mr. mckeon has more than risen to the level of the bipartisan tradition of our committee and upheld the tradition held by our predecessors that this committee should work together,

republicans and dem cats and be an open and transparent process and we feel good about the open process we have had. we do not agree on everything that is in the bill but where there were disagreements, we had open and honest dialogue and votes in the committee and now votes on the floor and the chairman, members of both parties and staffs have put together a very strong bill that will protect our national defense and meet the primary duty of this congress and that is to provide for the national dens and national security of our country. i thank the chairman and his staff for that work and i look forward to continue to work with him throughout this process. i want to note one of our members who was not able to be there during the course of our markup, but nonetheless, contributed greatly to the process. we all miss congresswoman giffords presence on the committee but worked with her staff on issues and priorities that have been important to her during her time on the committee and she and her staff are contributing to this process.

i thank them and we look forward to gabby coming back to this body and putting this work. there are five main priorities we should focus on. whenever we have troops out in the battlefield as they are in afghanistan and iraq and also spread out in a whole lot of other countries, priority number one has to be make sure that we give them the support, the equipment and means necessary to carry out the mission we have given them. this bill prioritizes them both within the base bill and the overseas contingency operations funding to make sure our troops have the equipment they need to carry out the mission we have given them. second, the counterterrorism and the fight against al qaeda must be a top priority of this committee and i believe we strongly support that once again. we all learned as a nation and the world with the killing of osama bin laden, how effective our special operations command can be. we need to be mindful that the job is not done and we need to

continue to fund those priorities and i want to commend the folks at special operations command. i have the great privilege of chairing the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the special operations command for three years and they do a fantastic job for our nation and everybody saw that in the case of getting bin laden and do it every day in many ways that many people do not know or recognize. so i thank them for their outstanding work. we have a huge challenge with the budget. finding efficiencies in the defense budget is going to be critical. as we have heard over and over again, we have a massive deficit. we have a deficit that is over 33% of what we spend. the defense budget is 20% of the overall budget. you cannot take 20% of the overall budget off the table and effectively deal with the deficit of that size. we are going to have to look carefully of where we spend our money in defense just like everywhere else, to make sure we are getting the most for our

dollar. we have done that effectively in this bill. but i believe in going forward, that task is going to get harder, not easier. we must find ways to find ways to save money. our policy in afghanistan is going to be critical. we fund our troops in the effort that they are performing right now in afghanistan, but going forward, we are going to need to begin those troops home to complete that mission. we will have some amendments that address that issue during the course of this bill. i look forward to that bill. this congress needs to play a strong role in concluding our role in afghanistan. and lastly, one thing that is very important is detainee policy and aumf. the chairman identified this as a clear priority and congress' voice should be heard on these very, very important issues and we have worked closely on that and we have some areas of disagreement. the biggest one, we will have an amendment on this, is the idea

whether article 3 courts should continue to be available for guantanamo bay detainees and those who would be captured in similar situations in the future. i believe we should and always have them in article 3 courts. military commissions has its place. but article 3 courts have served this country for over 200 years. we have tried and convicted over 400 terrorists in article 3 federal courts. right now in the united states of america, we have over 300 of them safely locked up. we can do it. it's an option we should not take away from the president. i thank the chairman for a very open process. bipartisanship is the tradition of this committee and he has upheld this very well and i look forward to working with him as we go forward in this process and i reserve the balance of my time. >> i yield three minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee on

tactical error and land forces, the gentleman from maryland, mr. bartlett. the chair: the gentleman from maryland voiced for three minutes. mr. barton: thank you. i rise in support of h.r. -- mr. bartlett: thank you. i rise in support of the national defense authorization act of 2012. our jurisdiction includes approximately $78 billion of selected programs within the army, navy, marine corps, air force and office of the secretary of defense procurement and research and development accounts. i first want to thank the subcommittee's ranking member for his support this year in putting the bill together. ours is a truly bipartisan effort as it is for the full committee under the leadership of chairman mckeon and ranking member smith. the committee's focus is on supporting the men and women of the armed forces and their families, providing them the equipment they need and the support they deserve.

our first priority, of course, is in providing the equipment to support our military personnel serving in iraq and afghanistan. the bill adds no additional funding for the department of defense programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. the bill however reallocates approximately $1.5 billion from canceled, delayed or otherwise lower priority programs to higher priority requirements. first an additional $425 million is provided for modernization of tanks and badly fighting vehicles. the army budget request would result in a costly redux rate for these two -- reduction rate for these two programs which could last from one to three years. these production lines cannot be turned on and off like a light switch. the unique skills of the work force cannot be put on the shelf. for the apron production alone, there are almost 900 suppliers. 75% of these suppliers are small businesses. based on the information we have

received today, it is more efficient to keep these lines warm than it would be to shut them down and start them up again. second, an additional $325 million is provided for the national guard and reserve equipment account for equipment shortfalls. thirdly, the bill increases funding at army and air force ranges by $209 million. the pentagon has recently acknowledged that its appropriated large fiscal year 2012 reductions in the army and fair force -- air force could lead to unintended consequences and acknowledge the need to readdress this issue especially in regards to complying with the acquisition reform act. finally, acquisition and sustainment of the engine for the f-35 arke over its lifetime is estimated to cost well over $100 billion. the armed forces committee has believed and -- delete and continues to delete the acquisition and sustainment should be done on a competitive basis. that is why on a bipartisan basis the committee has strongly supported the final development

phase of the f-35 competitive engine program since it began nearly six years ago. although the committee's bill provides no additional funding for the f-35 aircraft competitive engine program, the bill takes strong bipartisan action that was spossed -- supported by a recent vote of 55-5 by the committee to enable the competitive engine contractor to continue development of the competitive engine at no expense to the government or the taxpayer. we strongly urge all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill's innovative approach to continuing the f-35 competitive engine development program. mr. chairman, i want to thank a truly sue per lative staff and thank the people for the assistance on a really good bill. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, the ranking member on the air, land subcommittee, mr. rase. the chair: the gentleman from texas voiced for three minutes. raserase thank you and i'd like to thank the gentleman from -- mr. reyes: thank you and i'd like to thank the gentleman for

yielding and compliment both the chairman and ranking member for setting the tone to work on a bipartisan basis as has been mentioned by all three of my colleagues that have spoken here this evening. mr. chairman, each year the technical air and land forces subcommittee is charged with conducting oversight of hundreds of thousands of dollars in department of defense programs that total more than $135 billion. all the members of the subcommittee take this task very seriously because the troops in the field depend on congress to provide them with what they need. conducting this oversight is a challenge because the budget as we get it from the department of defense is often far from perfect. it is the subcommittee's responsibility, therefore, to identify any wasteful spending, very critical at a time when the budget is understressed, find unexecutable funding and also find redundant programs. in addition the subcommittee

must also consider pressing d.o.d. needs that are not addressed in the budget. that's the role of congress. during all of that, while making sure equipment continues to flow to the troops in the field, therefore it is sometimes no easy task. despite these challenges i am pleased to report again this year under the leadership of our chairman, chairman bartlett, the subcommittee has put together a very well-balanced product that cuts waste, reallocates funding for more critical -- excuse me, priorities, and ensures that our troops will continue to have the very best equipment available. i am also pleased with how the bill supports the army and marine corps' -- marine corps in tick. these two armed services have borne the heaviest burdens over the past 10 years of war and this mark does an excellent job, i believe, of helping them to rebuild combat power and prepare for the future. h.r. 1540 fully supports and funds the army's number one

development program, the ground combat vehicle. this bill provides ancrease of $425 million for additional m-1 abram's tanks and bradley fighting vehicles and keeps the production line open. the budget request assumed that a three-year shut down of both the aprons and the bradley production lines that would cost the taxpayer $1 billion and eliminate thousands of jobs and diminish the united states' defense industrial base was the way to go. we changed that. so rather than spending money to lose american jobs, this bill provides funding that will protect those american jobs while it also provides the army with better and more modern equipment. well, this issue will not be fully dealt with in one budget year, i do believe that this bill lays down a better, a smarter and a way that will maintain the army's ground

combat vehicle critical to the needs of both the army and the marine corps. finally, the bill fully funds the marine corps' $2.6 billion request for procurement of ground combat vehicle and support equipment. for those reasons and many more, mr. chairman, i urge all members to support h.r. 1540 and it's the right balance and a great bipartisan product. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to my friend and colleague, the vice chairman of the armed services committee and chairman of the subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities, the gentleman from texas, mr. thortonberry. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i thank the chairman for yielding and, mr. chairman, i first want to commend him, chairman of the committee and ranking member smith for their leadership in shepherding a complex and important bill to this stage of

the process. a 60-1 vote coming out of committee is a significant achievement. and it is a testament to the attitude of putting the national security interests of the whole country first which has been the hall mark of this committee and -- hallmark of this committee and their leadership exemplifies the best of that in my opinion. mr. chairman, the emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee is charged with with looking ahead at those national security threats that are coming at us and also helping to develop new capabilities to meet those threats. we oversee the special operations command and counterterrorism efforts now throughout the country -- efforts. now throughout the country there is a greater appreciate appreciation, i think, for the capabilities within the command after the successful raid on osama bin laden. but i think it's important to emphasize that those folks in that command conduct that sort of raid just about every night

somewhere with the same sort of precision and professionalism that the country now appreciates from the osama bin laden raid that got all of the attention. but they do much more. they are also responsible for helping train and advise other militaries, building up the capacities of these governments to defend themselves and they are doing very impressive work in all parts of the world including afghanistan where among other things they are helping to train the military and train local police to help provide security for the individual villages. our bill provides a mod -- modest funding increase for this command as well as meeting some real unmet needs that they have. our part of the bill also deals with research that leads to future capabilities in tight budgets it's always attempting to cut research and development, -- tempting to cut research and development, but it's a mistake to do so. and this budget, the funding for

such programs at least holds steady with some added emphasis and some key areas that are important. the largest dollar amount in this subcommittee's portion of the bill is with d.o.d. i.t. and cyber. this area may actually be the preeminent area of emerging threats in warfare, this mark takes some important steps forward in dollars and policies but, mr. chairman, i think we should all acknowledge that there is a lot more work with for this congress and for this country to do in the area of cyber security. not all of its -- cybersecurity. not all of it's military, but the military is affected as are we all. mr. chairman, a lot has changed since september 11, 2001. al qaeda has is a changed organization and with the death of osama bin laden it will change further. but i think it's important to emphasize that this congress must fulfill its

responsibilities to affirm and update the authorization for the use of military force to deal with al qaeda. there's been some wild exaggerations about the attempt to do so in that bill. i think if members read the exact language and look at exactly what we're doing and why, that they will support it and agree that it's a fulfillment of our responsibility. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i now yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez, the ranking member on the strategic forces subcommittee. the chair: the gentlelady from california voiced for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. chairman. and i'd like to thank my ranking member and chairman mckeon for really a great bipartisan bill. so i'm feeling pretty good about this one. actually, in my committee with chairman turner and all our subcommittee members, we were really able to come together and make a very good contribution

and i thank mr. turner for his leadership and it's pretty exciting to have a subcommittee like this in the new session of the congress. overall we agree on so many of the provisions, encouraging fiscal responsibility, protecting national security, we come together on a lot of issues on this subcommittee including improving satellite acquisition, encouraging efficiencies and showing sufficient development, testing production and sustainability schedules for missile defense and for our nuclear enterprise. for conducting oversight of very large scale construction sites that we have, building on good programs relating to improving our efficientsy -- efficiencies at nuclear sites and of course implementation of the new start nuclear reductions. i also want to highlight the work that our subcommittee did with respect to nonproliferation programs and working on that. this is so incredibly important to our security. it's not just about how many weapons people have, but really

about what old weapons, what the weapons need to be, turned in, where weapons are, how we safeguard weapons around the world. so we really came together on that. and one of the areas that we disagree and you'll see some amendments along the way is this whole issue of our ground-based missile defense. quite frankly the pentagon and the president's budget we feel was enough money to continue our work of research and development and testing in that arena and unfortunately the republican side of the committee wants to put more unnecessary funding into that and of course i oppose the provisions that restrict the president's authority over nuclear weapons, including implement menting reductions in the number of -- implementing re-it -- reductions in the number of nuclear weapons. all which i personally believe undermine our efforts to reduce the danger of nuclear weapons.

the statement of administration policy noted a potential veto threat because of those provisions we could not agree upon. but again, i'd like to reiterate my thank you to chairman turner and all our members of our subcommittee and i look forward to this debate and i yield back to the gentleman. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from missouri, mr. akin. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. akin: mr. speaker, mr. chairman, i rise in support of house resolution 1540, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012. in review of the portions of the president's budget request relevant to sea power and projected forces, the

subcommittee held hear option the navy shipbuilding plan and on the amphibious warfare along with briefings for the ohio class ballistic missile submarine, the expeditionary fighting vehicle and the new long range strike bomber. being a maritime nation, we must support our troops with supplies delivered by sea and by air while maintaining the global reach to do so. protection of the sea lanes of communication, projection of credible combat power, forward presence and humanitarian assistance all are capabilities supplied by forces for which the subcommittee has oversight and where it must focus. this bill prorides for a multiyear procurement of destroyers, it funds 10 ships in the president's budget request. it also has provisions which would inject discipline in

programs just starting such as the amphibious vehicle which will replace the canceled expeditionary fighting vehicle and the navy's unmanned carrier launched airborne surveillance and strike system. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. i wish to thank the members of the subcommittee, particularly my ranking member, mr. mcintyre, i yield the floor. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from washington. >> i'm pleased to yield two and a half minutes to the gentleman from rhode island the ranking member of the scommow. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two and a half minutes. mr. langevin: i want to thank chairman mckeon and ranking member smith as well as the chairman of my subcommittee,

chairman thornberry for putting forward a bill that supports our men and women in combat, ebb ha -- enhances our national security and is in keeping with the true bipartisan history of the house armed services committee. while i don't agree with every provision, of course, in the bill, i am proud that both parties work together to reach compromises on many measures that support our national defense. as the ranking member of the emerging threats and capability subcommittee, i'm pleased to support our armed forces' unique global reach around the world and in cyberspace. i'm also -- i've also been a longtime supporter of our special operations forces and the raid on osama bin laden's compound a few weeks ago is a true testament to their patriotism, traping, strength and dedication. i commend them for their incredible worg. these brave men and women are -- incredible work. these brave men and women are an -- a unique asset.

this bill strengthens pr visions to protect our nation from insider threat, analyzing threats to military readiness, vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure and increasing cooperation with international allies and domestic partners. regrettably, there are also separate provisions included that deeply concern me. from attempts to derail the kelf repeal of d.o.d.'s don't ask, don't tell policy, measures tying the president's hands about our nuclear arsenal and the closing of guantanamo bay. it is my hope these measures would be further considered by the conference committee. however, overall, this bill reflects the refleck of the congress of the incybill -- incredible sacrifices our brave men and women in uniform make for our country every day. i'm honored to be part of this

process and i look forward to supporting this bill as it moves through the legislative process and into law. again, i want to thank chairman mckeon and ranking member smith for their leadership as well as the chairman of my subcommittee, mac thornberry, who worked in a truly bipartisan fashion. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield three minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee on readiness, the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. forbes: thank you. mr. chairman, i'd like to thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership in bringing this very bipartisan bill to the floor. over the last several month the armed services readiness subcommittee has attempted to answer one question -- are we ready? i believe this bill makes several significant improvements to the readiness posture of our armed forces and remedy miss of the shortfalls we found. the bill takes steps to ensure that u.s. troops are properly

trained and their equipment is properly maintained so they can seed in their missions and have the facilities and services they deserve when they return home. it makes needed adjustments to policy and promoting energy security and ensures that projects offer think best return on investment to the taxpayer. the bill supports the president's request for expanded training as well as continuing to increase the reset of damage to army and marine corps combat equipment and military and family housing of. the legislation makes notable investments in navy ship and aircraft depot retainment, guard and reserve flight training and air force weapons systems sustainment. to increase the readiness of our post, the bill includes several recommendations included in the study of the maintenance depots direct lid the duncan hunter national authorization act, fiscal year

2009. we have no greater responsibility than to ensure our men and women in uniform are fully trained, equipped, and ready for the challenges they face every day. i believe this bill fulfills that commitment and i thank the chairman and ranking member for their work and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mcintyre who is the ranking member of the sea power subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcintyre: i thank my friend, ranking member smith, as well as full committee chairman mckeon and the subcommittee chairman and my good friend todd akin for their hard work in helping us not only on this full armed services bill but also the sea power and projection forces portion of this bill, passed with strong bipartisan sort support in our subcommittee and in the full committee. the work of the subcommittee continues a long tradition of

providing support for the men and women in uniform. the projects authorized in this bill are critical to our country's ability to project power anywhere in the world at any time. the bill includes $14.9 billion for ship building that would thars 10 new ships, including two virginia class submarines, a destroyer, four combat ships, one san antonio-class amphibious ship, one mobile landing platform ship and one joint high speed vessel. this also authorizes $1 ppt 1 billion for the national defense sea lift fund. there are a number of provisions included in this bill aimed at providing a more secure way to provide accepts systems. it includes several positions that will ensure they stay on schedule and on cost. in particular, this bill reveals the comptroller yen to conduct an annual review and report on the progress of the kc-46 tanker program.

all these provisions plus others represent the commitment to ensuring that all major programs receive the proper oversight to ensure that tax ier -- taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and effectively. this bill is a balanced authorization of programs under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee and meets the needs of our men and women in uniform. again, i want to thank chairman akin for his hard work and i urge all my colleagues to support this bill. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield two minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee on military personnel, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. wilson: thank you, mr. chairman. con garagelations, mr. chairman, on your leadership, achieving a 61 favorable vote on the legislation we're considering this evening. we're grateful for the professionalism of our forces for killing mass murderer osama bin laden.

it was a proud day for all americans, especially our military, their famries and veterans, that justice was achieved. the military provisions of the national defense authorization act of 012 are the product of an open, bipartisan process. some of the more important personnel provisions are the following. a 1.6% increase in military basic play. a revised policy for measuring and reporting unit operations tempo and personnel tempo reflecting the committee's continuing concern about stresses on the force, especially at a time when we must consider our resolve for victory in the current mission requirements. another important initiative is reform of the military recruiting system to include graduates of homeschooling, charter schools and virtual schools. i see military service as an opportunity and fulfilling, and these are extraordinary patriots. the bill clarifies the legal authority for the administration oversight of arlington national cemetery.

i believe the bill is strong dealing with child custody, mental health, brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. i want to thank ranking member davis and her staff for their contributions in support of this process. we benefited from an active and informed and dedicated set of subcommittee members. their recommendations and priorities are clearly reflected in the bill. additionally i appreciate the dedicated military subcommittee staff. john, mike, deb, jim, and i also want to thank congressional military legislative assistant brian isley and sam cunningham m thank you, mr. speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from guam, ms. bordallo, the ranking member on the readiness subcommittee.

the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. bordallo: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of h.r. 1540, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012. this bill works to ensure our men and women in uniform are well trained and equipped and i am proud that the house armed services committee through this bill continues to close the readiness gaps created in our armed forces by a decade of o-- of continuous deployment this bill thofferses $23 billion for training of all active duty ooped reserve forces to increase readiness as troops experience longer periods at home following the iraq drawdown. including $1 billion to support the army's planned rurp to full spectrum training. also, funding for the navy ship and aircraft depot level maintenance and upkeep of the department of defense facilities. we fully fund the president's budget request for the reset of

army and marine corps equipment an for the sustainment of air force weapons systems. we provide adegreesal funding to meet the full requirement for upkeep of our military facilities, increased funding to operate army base and authorizes $14.7 billion in military construction. i am pleased that this bill includes a number of initiatives that focus on reducing operational and installation energy consumption while improving military capabilities. it also reflects the priorities in the area of energy conservation of our colleague, gabriel giffords, who has been -- gabrielle giffords who has been a champion of these issues. it puts missions first and i also note we have included a provision that includes the act coverage to state owned national guard fa ill silties and enables development and implementation of integrated

natural resource management plans for state owned national gart installation,. the bill con ours committee' tradition of providing stringent, comprehensive oversight of the buildup on guam. the committee remains committed to understanding the importance of the realignment of forces in the pacific through full authorization of construction funding. further, this bill continues to demonstrate its keen understand og they have strategic importance to guam in responding to the growth of traditional threats in the pacific region and the freedom of movement that guam provides our military forces in responding to regional nontraditional threats. i'd like to take this opportunity to thank our chairman, mr. mckeon, and our ranking member, mr. smith, of the armed services committee and also to the chairman of my subcommittee, mr. randy forbes, for conducting the meetings in a very bipartisan manner.

and i ask my colleagues to support this very important measure. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields her time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee on strategic forces, the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for three minutes. mr. turner: i thank the gentleman from california, our chairman, mr. mckeon, for his leadership in this bill as it's moving through the house and ranking member smith. i would also like to thank all of my colleagues on the strategic forces subcommittee and in particular my ranking member, loretta sanchez, and the staff for their work on this year's strategic forces mark and i'd like to thank our director. this bill builds off a strong bipartisan and bicameral consensus and fully funds the nnsa, the national nuclear security administration, and supports continued modernization of our nuclear forces and infrastructure. it also supports robust oversight of the administration's implementation of the new treaty and

establishes prudent measures to slow down the rush toward nuclear disarmament. the bill responds to the affects of prior cuts by this administration to missile defense, providing an additional increase of $110 million above the president's request. it adds these funds to fix the system that protects the united states' homeland from long range ballistic missile threats. it also provides an increase in funds to support the implementation of the administration's phased adaptive approach, an important cooperative effort with japan and israel while recommending reductions in future capabilities that are less viable. equally important, this bill advocates on behalf of service members and their families. i want to thank chairman wilson and ranking member davis for incorporating bipartisan language from the act that seeks to enhance sexual assault protections as well as improve training requirements to better protect service members. i also want to thank chairman which willson to -- wilson for his support, this bill includes provisions that would protect the fundamental child custody rights of mill tar parents and

makes sure -- military parents. this provision corrects an injustice and has the full endorsement of secretary gates and the department of defense and i'd like to thank lieutenant slusher from kentucky who has been working diligently in this fight. lastly, i would like to note earlier today the president issued a veto threat on several provisions contained related to nuclear modernization and objections related to missile defense. this is curious because these provisions are consistent with the administration's own stated policies and in a of our nato allies. by this threat is the president saying he doesn't intend to implement the new modernization guarantees that were part of the new stark treaty? does the president intend to withdraw nuclear forces from europe? does the president want to share sensitive data of missile defense technology with russia? and does the president intend to strike deals with russia to limit our missile defense cableabilities? the answers to these questions is no no and the administration should have no objections to these provisions. if on the other hand the answer

to these questions is yes, it is all the more reasons to make these provisions law. i urge the passage of this and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from california, mrs. davis, on the ranking member on the personnel subcommittee. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mrs. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 1540, the national defense authorization act of fiscal year 2012. as the ranking member of the military personnel subcommittee, i want to recognize chairman mckeon and ranking member smith for their leadership as well as subcommittee chairman wilson for his bipartisan work to enhance the quality of life for our service members, retirees, survivors and their families. as americans, it is our responsibility and our privilege to support our men and women in uniform and their families,

given the enormous sacrifices they make to ensure the security of our nation. these men and women have volunteered to give their lives to protect and defend what we hold dear, liberty and freedom. nothing can substitute for their commitment and sacrifice. and i'm proud to support a -- 1.6% pay raise in our bill. our service members have earned this pay raise and deserve no less. i am also pleased that this bill include authority for the secretary of defense to establish apprenticeship programs to help service members transition out of the military. far too many of our brave men and women are returning home and finding it a challenge to become or remain employed. the number of homeless veterans in our younger generations continues to grow and

apprenticeship programs could provide these individuals the skills they need to succeed. while this bill allows for a modest increase in tricare fees, it does protect military retirees and their dependents from future significant hikes by limiting increases to military retiree cost of living allowances. and lastly this bill continues the efforts by this subcommittee over the last several years to reduce sexual assaults and harassment within the services. this is an important issue that has a direct impact on military readiness. and i want to thank congresswoman slaughter, sanchez and sonkas for their hard work. mr. speaker, while there are many good provisions in this bill, i must raise my extreme disappointment with several sections that were included by the majority that seek to delay and prevent gays and lesbians from serving in uniform. one of the liberties that we as

americans hold dear is that we are all created equal. these individuals should be entitled to serve their nation in uniform and should not be denied the opportunity -- 20 seconds, mr. chairman. mr. smith: i yield the gentlelady an additional 20 seconds. i'll yield her an additional 30 seconds, actually. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional one-half minute. mrs. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. a nation that values democracy cannot discriminate against an individual because of their sexual orientation. but i must say, mr. speaker, ultimately i do support this bill, i encourage my colleagues to do the same and i want to thank the many staff members who have worked very hard on this legislation and we look forward to this being signed into law. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to my friend

and colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee on oversight and investigations, the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman. the chair: the gentleman from virginia voiced for two minutes. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank chairman mckeon for his leadership on the national defense authorization act and also recognize ranking member smith for his efforts in what i believe is an extraordinarily good bill. i'm pleased today to support h.r. 1540. it recognizes the need for fiscal constraint while at the same time ensuring our nation's security in fulfilling our sacred obligations to our brave men and women in uniform. the bill also strengthens protections against ill-considered efforts to release detainees held at the guantanamo bay detention facility. in december the director of national intelligence reported that 25% of those formerly held at gitmo were confirmed or suspected of returning to the fight against us and our allies. this rate is alarming and

unacceptable. i'm concerned that the government did not conduct significant due diligence when identifying detainees for release and if this failure has potentially grave ramifications for our troops serving on the battlefield. h.r. is a 1540 strengthens our protections in several important ways. first it prohibits transfers to foreign countries where there are known cases of reengagement. it requires careful consideration of established criteria before other transfers are accomplished and mandates that government agencies provide congress the information we need to properly assess the threats our nation and our troops face from detainees who have rejoined the fight and continue to commit terrorist acts. h.r. 1540 also ensures continued oversight of arlington national cemetery and it directs the timely establishment of the oversight council and creates a date certain for record

digitization. with that i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1540 and i would like to end with thanking the staff, including michelle pierce, for their great work in the oversight and investigation subcommittee. thank you very much and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i am now pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: i thank the chairman. 23 nights ago a focused and brave group of young americans climbed into helicopters and focused on their mission. over three weeks ago a group of american leaders met in the situation room of the white house focused on their mission. and over a 10-year period a group of intelligence analysts and signal intelligence

specialists and brave americans all over the world focused on their mission, to eliminate the menace of osama bin laden from this earth. they succeeded in eliminating that menace and they succeeded in capturing valuable intelligence that will help us track down his co-conspirators and stop them and they sent a powerful message to any other evil rich person that wants to target the united states of america that such targeting is an act of suicide. we should salute those with that focus here tonight. and we flect on the fact that our focus as republicans and democrats in passing this bill is to give other focused americans in the military, our intelligence community and those who support them the tools they need to do their job. i am proud of the work that chairman mckeon, ranking member

smith and all of the subcommittee chairs and ranking members did on this bill. there are controversial aspects of this bill but this is a work that is focused on the defense of our country in the same tradition as those who so nobly served us 23 days ago. we should all vote and join in a yes vote for this bill because it continues that tradition of our national security in a bipartisan sense. i urge a yes vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. chairman, and i rise to engage in a colloquy to discuss an issue that i believe is imperative to the financial accountability in the defense and intelligence community. mr. chairman, i've been working with my colleagues in various congressional committees on language that would improve the

ability of the defense intelligence elements to be properly audited. while we aren't to the finish line, i want my colleagues to be aware of this issue as we work on the n.d.a. this week. mr. mckeon: i thank the gentleman from texas for raising this important issue. as the gentleman is well aware, oversight of d.o.d. financial accountability issues is of high importance for our committee. we continue to work with the department to ensure they continue aggressive measures to get the department to a point where we have confidence in our financial statements. mr. conaway is a c.p.a. and brings great expertise to the congress. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. chairman, for those kind words. while i'm disappointed we weren't able to work out an agreement that would include this agreement, i do understand that there have been issues raised with the amendment as currently writ than may not proceed proy the focused solution that we need to track disbursements and better accounting in the intelligence community. i look forward to continuing that work on this and other provisions to provide sufficient and yet directed authority that

would approve the financial accountability of the department of defense. it is our responsibility, mr. chairman, that the american taxpayer, to the american taxpayer, to ensure that the intelligence community has the proper management tools to manage our precious resources that we provide to them. mr. mckeon: i applaud the gentleman from texas on his continued efforts to shine light on financial responsibility at the pentagon. the language he's working on is certainly needed by the intelligence community. to meet the financial accounts standards we require the rest of the federal government. if all committees can agree upon language, i would welcome the opportunity to support such an amendment. mr. conaway: i thank the chairman for the colloquy and urge adoption of the underlying ndaa and i urge a yes vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you. i yield one minute to mr. langevin. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, while i support the underlying bill, i rise in opposition to the language in the national defense authorization act. that exempts the department of defense from section 526 of the energy independence and security act. there are critical energy security provision which also supports the development of domestic alternative fuels. now this exemption, mr. speaker, will derail the d.o.d.'s efforts to strengthen national security through reducing dangerous greenhouse gases. now the current chairman of the joint chiefs of staff recentlyly warned that climate change will have a significant affect on increasing competition for water and food, potentially causing humanitarian crises that could lead to failed states. further, this concern is not new to d.o.d. in 2008 the defense science board recommended to avoid investing in processes that exceed the carbon footprint of petroleum. what this provision proposes to do exactly that.

i would hope that we would like to renew this language and allow the department to experiment and use alternatives that would not exceed the current limit on current carbon footprint on greenhouse gases. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckee yop: i yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. runyan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. runyan: thank you. thank you, chairman mckeon, for your leadership on this issue. it is an honor to serve with both of you. mr. speaker, as a result of the 2005 budget, the installation in my district was made into

one installation from three bases. currently a joint base which used to be -- the fort dicks and mcguire maces, and the lakehurst side, the people doing the same jobs are paid at a new york local rate. while they've indicated they want to resolve this issue, no change has been made. the language in the bill will work toward fixing this by requiring o.p.m. to work with the d.o.d. to make the recommendation with respect to the department of defense federal wage system employees working at all military installations. additionally i want to recognize my colleagues on the house armed services committee, congressman an truse and congressman lobiondo for their work on this issue, as well as

congressman smith of new jersey who has been active in assisting employees a thelt joint base. thank you, chairman mckeon and ranking member smith for your forth son this and i want to ex-ps my strong support of hfment reform 1540 and our neigh's war fighters. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has ex-chired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield 30 seconds to mr. courtney for purposes of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speakering thank you, mr. smith. mr. andrews, who i would like to enter into a colloquy with, during the full committee markup, you offered and the committee supported an amendment that would, quote, enshoe -- ensure that the secretary prorides support and allows crews of such equipment for a contractor of the f-136 enswrin if such activities are

self-fund by the contractor. mr. andrews: that's correct. >> and the gentleman has no intent that be further government funding for that. mr. andrews: i do not intend any further government fuppeding for that the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield one minute to the gentleman from indiana, mr. young. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. young: mr. speaker, as a former u.s. marine, i understand the importance of a strong national defense, especially in this time of war. that's why i'm glad to rise in support of this national defense authorization act of 2012, it provides our troops with the resources they need and enables them to carry out the missions we've asked of them. i'd like to thank chairman

mckee whereon for his leadership in this process, i cap say as a freshman he's taking great time and attention to the issue of how we do our quad renall defense rerue. we said we need to take a further look at this in the future. this, i believe, is the key to ensuring we spend our defense dollars as we look to ne year's bill but this pill addresses the military issues we days face todayering it does so in a responsible hanner and it's being offered with an eye to improvements in the future. that's why i support the national defense authorization act. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one mifpble mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. there's much in this bill to recommend, particularly the way in which it deals with the

member and women in articles, the benefits they receive, the care they receive following their service. however, i must oppose the bill, there's an opportunity to change the direction of the war in afghanistan, a war that seems without end an a war that seems to be perpetual. a successful raid and the successful taking on bin laden is an opportunity to pivot and we are missing that opportunity in -- opportunity in this pill an continuing to spend over $1 hurning billion in that war in afghanistan. also in this bill is next 134, a continued authorizing afor the quse of fore. for those reasons i oppose this legislation an i yooled back my tie. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckee kwon: i yield one minute to -- two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr.

neugebauer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. neugebauer: thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. mckeon for allowing me to speak today. i rise in support of the b-1 bomber. my home district is home of 5,000 military and 1,000 civilian personnel at mcdyess to air force base. they represent 36 of the 66 remaining b-1 lancer bombers. azekeffed -- testify last month, i'm concerned about the proposed cuts to the b-1 fleet. let me tell wru why. the b-y has floup over 70 pk of the bomber combat missions. before combat in lib ark the b-1 bomber was the only one to be used in combat since maye of 2006. well the bmbing-is deployed in the middle east almost every day. the bmbing1 has flown 8,000

sorties and logged over 93,000 hours in iraq and after fap stan in the last decade. last year alone it flu 1,253 missions and dropped 741 bombs. any any -- by any measure the b-1 is the back bone of the bomber fleet. i'm pleased the committee has desaied to change based on the recommendations and i look forward to working with you to make sure america's bombing fleet is the cutting g edge of the future. we don't have a replacement for the b-1 so it's important that we maintain the fleet we have too because particularly thing before-1 is one of our most used weapons in the systems in iraq and afghanistan. i look forward to working with the chairman and the committee as we make sure that america's security is never compromised. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington.

mr. smith: may i inquire how much time both sides have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from washington has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. smith: i yield myself the balance of my time. i want to thank the chairman and the staff for putting together an outstanding bill. this is no small enterprise, it's $691 billion, it's critical plcy to provide for national security for our country and mick sure that our troops and their families are properly taken care of and have the congresswomen and support she needs. i think mr. mckeon, the members of the committee an the staff have dope a good job. i want to mention there was a prong strong bipartisan commission on this committee, mr. skeltonup held that very well and mr. mckeon has dope so as well. it was an honor to work with mr. skelton, i appreciate his

leadership and guidance for those of us on the committee. i want to make one announcement, with regard to the energy amendment contained in this bill i think it's critical we give the department of defense the ability to 3ur sue -- pursue alternative sources of nrnl that improve our tgs position in terms of greenhouse gas and in material os rf increasing our ability to use clean burns sources of fuel. the theme that would attach to this would ahow the use of fuel that really aren't, not clean burning or renewable, i think it is imperative we strike that provision from this bill but overall i'm supportive of the bill. i appreciate the chairman's leadership and look forward to working with him over the next couple of days as -- as we deal with the amendments coming our way and as we go into conference with the senate to

get this bill done. it is critical to our national security interests that we do that. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield myself such time as i have left. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckee whereon: one of the great things i've known while serving on the committee, including getting to no mr. smith much better. 6 and the of -- and the staff that work sod hard and diligently to get us to this point. last week or the week before when we marked this up in full committee, we went from 10:00 in the morning to 2:30 the next morning and everyone was at work again the next day, ready to go. we get to meet with the troops, we get to see the young people, some that are not so young, serving us around the world to

preserve our free toms and freedoms of other peoples. our job is to do all we can to help make their job easier. to help make their job, as i said earl requester -- earlier, give them the taining, equipment, and home and all the resources they need to come home safely to their families. i feel good about the members of the committee and the hard work they have done to get us to this point, i look forward to working on the amendments and turning out a final finished project and hopefully then we can encourage the other body to get their work done and we can get this bill as our 50th bill to the president for his signature. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. under the rule, 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. 1540 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports the committee had you should consideration h.r. 1540 and has come to no resolution and has come to no resolution thereon.