that this congress is committed to keeping our national defense a priority. we are a nation at war with men and women fighting in harm's way at this very minute. we need not forget that we face threats throughout the world with enemies bent on destroying our way of life. we have a constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense. i support our troops and i am proud to stand with them as they protect our freedoms. . thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. bordallo: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i hope someday my republican counterparts will be clear about why my amendment was not made in order.

and i hope they'll provide greater information as to why we were promised an open rule this year but have anything but that today. in fact, mr. speaker, my friend mr. bishop voted for this amendment in the last congress. and i want to thank him. but i can't imagine how he could have had such a chame of heart in such a short time. i rise in strong opposition to this rule this rule does not afford the people of guam with an opportunity to make their case about the matter of guam war claims. all we want is a vote. i do not understand why my republican colleagues are so concerned about allowing my vote -- a vote for my amendment

on the floor as is regular order. guam war claims have passed this house five times. i have to repeat that. five times. and each time, with overwhelming bipartisan support. the resolution of guam war claims is so critical to maintaining support for the military buildup on guam. the people of guam are going to bear the brunt of the significant impacts because of this real re-alignment of military forces and it is only right to bring war claims to a conclusion. this is what i hear from my constituents every day. we reached a compromise with the senate on this matter last year, having both chairman levin and ranking member john mccain supporting the provision. however, because of the time we had last congress, it was struck from the bill. due to objection -- mr. mcgovern: i yield the

gentlelady an additional minute. ms. bordallo: we were forced to afree to the defense bill by unanimous consent here in the house, let history note i did not objection to the -- object to the unanimous consent request last year. in fact, chairman mckeon committed to including war claims in this year's defense bill and i do appreciate his support. but the republican leadership would not allow him to honor his commitment to me. this is wrong, mr. speaker, and a drew disservice to the people of guam. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. ms. bordallo: mr. chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent to include the tech of my amendment, number 99, to be included for consideration in this rule. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from utah yield for such request? mr. bishop spb --

mr. bishop: i have a great deal of sympathy for the gentlelady and will work with you on resources committee where that amendment still is, but i will not yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman does not yield. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: let me again express my disappoint with the lack of time we are being allowed to debate important issues that impact everybody, every single person in our country. issues of war, issues of granting the executive branch, the broad authority to go to war any time they want without consulting the united states congress, giving them unilateral powers which i believe is not what our founding fathers ever anticipated, issues involving libya and i could go on and on and on not to mention some of the issues that were not allowed to be brought up at

all, ms. bordallo mentioned one of them, i don't understand why that was not made in order. but in this house of representatives since the new majority took over, we debate trivial issues passionately and important ones not at all. we spent hours debating whether we should defund national public radio but on the issue of afghanistan, what our policy should be in afghanistan, we have over 100,000 troops in afghanistan, we are borrowing over $8.2 billion a month to pay for afghanistan, that is all going on our credit card, that is going -- adding to our deficit, adding to our debt, our kids and grandkids are going to pay for the fact that we're not paying for it now. those issues deserve more than a few minutes of debate. again, i have an amendment on afghanistan to talk -- to encourage the president to rethink our policy and to

develop an exit strategy and i and all the other members who are co-sponsoring my bill, my amendment, are given five minutes. five minutes to talk about this issue. surely we could spend at least another five minutes on top of that, i moan, hopefully even longer, being able to discuss this important issue. and i regret that. i think we need to be debating and discussing what we're doing in afghanistan. i think it is important, i think the american people want us to figure out a way out. and yet we've given -- we're given five minutes to be able to debate this issue. i think that is regrettable. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article that appeared in the nation -- in "the nation" magazine that congressman walter jones and i authored. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the speaker pro tempore: with that, i reserve my time. -- mr. mcgovern: with that, i

reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i would like to clarify with regard to amendment 61 by mr. conyers. mr. duncan of south carolina was inadvertently added as a co-sponsor to conyers amendment number 61, i want to clarify that mr. duncan is not a co-sponsor of that particular amendment. i appreciate the discussion we've had so far. i would like to remind my colleagues that if every amendment made in order in this rule were to have its maximum amount of time, we would have already approved a maximum of over -- we would have a minimum of 26 hours of debate on this particular issue. i am appreciative of the concerns of mr. mcgovern of massachusetts. i also want him to realize there are multiple amendments made in order dealing with this and similar subjects and i am very appreciative that mr. mcgovern, as a veteran of the house, understanding the rules of the house, has been wise enough to use this debate time

also for speaking about that particular amendment which will vastly extend the amount of time he has to cover that issue. that's why -- i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i would again remind my colleagues that on the issue of what our future should be in afghanistan, those of us who want us to rethink our policy and develop an exit strategy are given five minutes. five minutes. we can debate whether we should fund national public radio or not for hours and all the other items on the republican social agenda for hours and hours and hours but when it comes to the issue of war, we're told, you've got five minutes. i don't think that's adequate. mr. speaker, at this point, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from kale, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. first, let me thank the

gentleman for yielding and for his leadership and just say to the gentleman, you're absolutely correct. i oppose this rule pause this is such an important issue that affects our national security but also the economic security of this country. this is an issue that warrants much more deliberation and debate. in fact, mr. speaker, when the authorization to use force to go to war in afghanistan came before us that terrible day, 9/14, there may have been one hour of debate if that long and so i think at this moment, as we are turning the corner, hopefully, we should have a full debate on the direction the time frame which mr. mcgovepb has in his resolution and also a plan to begin to end the war in afghanistan. we must have a political

solution and reconciliation in afghanistan because most military experts told us there's no military solution in afghanistan. we know and we hear if it's going well, we need more money and more troops. if it's going poorly, we need more money and more troops. we need here in the house to have this debate. what should bewe do. how would she -- should we do it. this proposal this amendment by mr. mcgovern, warrants much more than a five-minute the bait. because it's such an important issue to the country, other -- many american people believe it's time to wind down. many of us believe that beginning in july, we should put forth a proposal for a significant and sizable reduction as the president indicated he would do in the past. many believe that we should not fund any more combat operations in afghanistan that in fact we

should only use our funding for force protection and -- mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentlelady one minute. ms. lee: thank you, mr. mcgovern. for force protection and to bring our young men and women home system of what the mcgovern amendment gips -- seeks to do is begin that debate to get us on course an allow the house of representatives to discuss what should come next system of i want to thank the gentleman for yielding, thank you for your hard work. and i want to say that i think it's about time now that we have a rule on such an important issue that allows for this body to engage in debate. our troops deserve that, the american people the serve that and certainly we need to begin to reflect public opinion on this because the public gets it. they know that $100 billion a year is no drop in the bucket in terms of our resources. we have a deficit, we have an

economic crisis throughout the country and we certainly need to find some balance between our national security interests and our economic security interests. beginning to develop a plan to get out of afghanistan warrants a full fledged discussion. thank you again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. delauro: i rise in strong opposition to this rule. earlier this year, we learned of wrongful harm foreclosures on active duty military families in violation of the law and so i submitted a very straightforward amendment that would have directed the secretary of defense in conjunction with the treasury

and the consumer financial protection bureau to prepare a comprehensive strategy to protect members of the armed forces and their families from unfair, deceptive, and abusive financial services practices and to enhance the financial readiness of such families. families who are sacrificing so much today. the amendment would have no effect on direct spending and it was germane. yet, despite the majority's high claims of openness and transparency, an the fact that 152 amendments were made in order, this one was not. one can only conclude that the majority has chosen its dis-- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional minute. ms. delauro: one can only conclude that the majority has

chosen its dislike for the consumer financial protections bureau over protecting military family. attacks against the bureau are now happening in the back alley and yesterday, that back alley was the majority side of the rules committee and the victim, the vims were the brave men and women in uniform and their families. oppose this rule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i don't think we have any other speakers on our side. then i will close for our side. i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern -- mr. bishop: i do have one amendment i have to make if that makes a difference for

you. mr. mcgovern: i'll close and you can do the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts continues to be recognized. mr. mcgovern: let me close with a couple of points, i would urge everybody, democrats and republicans to support the amendment on afghanistan. i think there is bipartisan concern and bipartisan anxiety about our policy. i think there are republicans as well as democrats who believe it's time to rethink this strategy and come up with an exit strategy to bring our troops home to bring them back to their families to bring them back to their communities. we need to make our voices herd. the president has said in july he is going to make an announcement about the draw down of american troops. we're hearing that -- from some sources it may be only a token draw down. we need a real draw down a significant draw down, because if not, we are going to be

engaged in a war that has no end. we are borrowing money like there's no tomorrow to pay for this war, $8.2 billion a month we're borrowing, not even paying for it. to those who support this war, i say if you support it, then pay for it. i will tell you most of the people across the country believe it's time to leave. we' corrupt government because that government is corrupt, no we about it. by every measure they are wasting our money. this is not a man that our service men and women should i could for. we are nation building in afghanistan when we should be doing nation building here in the united states. my district's not unique in its need for more investments in roads, bridges. we need more investment in job creation, put people back to work. people want to invest here in the united states.

national security also means whether or not people have a job, whether or not people can earn a living. i urge, again, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to help me and help mr. jones and others who co-sponsored this amendment, put a little wind behind the president's desk in july so he makes a meaningful announcement, so we can see light at the end of the tunnel, so there's an exit strategy. mr. speaker, let me urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. if we defeat the previous question i'll make in order h.r. 1979 by mr. andrews of new jersey to expand eligibility for concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans' disability compensation to include chapter 61 disability retearees to increase the monthly amount of special survivor indemity of widows and widowers and to enhance the ability of the reserve components who serve on active duty or perform active service in support of

contingency operation or other emergency operations, to receive credit for such service and early receipt of nonregular service retired pay. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i urge all my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question so we can help our veterans, and i urge a no vote on the rule, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i offer an amendment to the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment to house resolution 276 offered by mr. bishop of utah. at the end of the resolution, add the following new section. section 5. notwithstanding any other provision as this resolution, the amendment specified in section 6 shall be in order in lieu of amendment number 5 in house report number 112-88. section 6, the text referred to in section 5 is as follows --

page 113 after line 17 insert the following -- section 317, health assessment reports required when waste is disposed of in open air burn pits. section 317 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2010, public law 111-84-123-2701 note is amended. one, by redesignated subsection c of subsection d. and, two, by inserting after subsection b the following new subsection c. c, health assessment report. not later than 180 days after notice is due under subsection a-2, the secretary shall submit to the committees on armed forces of the senate and house of representatives a health assessment report on each open air burn pit at a location where at least 100 personnel have been employed for 90 consecutive days or more. each such report shall include each of the following -- one,

an epidemiological health risk posed to personnel in the area where the burn pit is located because of exposure to the open air burn pit. two, a copy of the methodology used to describe the health risk described in paragraph 1. three, the operational risk and health risk when making the determination pursuant to subsection a that no alternative disposal method is feasible for the open air burn pit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the amendment and the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the amendment and the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman asks for the yeas and

nays. the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the chair lays before the house the following communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, during the past 11 years it's been my distinct honor to serve as chaplain of the house of representatives. it's been a true blessing for me to come to know you, members of congress, through the years and so many dedicated staff personnel who have come to the capitol to serve this nation

with their daily labor and sincerity of heart. in my duties as chaplain i've tried to be present to all and listen to their needs. hopefully i have offered them guidance and sought counsel when requested and strength in difficult times. i have learned compassion for them and their families. my greatest joy has been to lead the people in the chamber and across the nation in prayer. it is now time for me to retire. i hope you will accept my resignation as chaplain to be effective saturday, april 30, 2011. i trust you will convey to all members of the house my continued esteem for their efforts to shape laws and policies for the common good of the american people and for a better and peaceful world. i think -- thank you for your kindness and patience. i remember you in my daily prayer until the end of my days. signed, with gratitude to you and almighty god, reverend daniel p. coughlin, chaplain. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. the reservation of father daniel coughlin as chaplain, effective april 30, 2011, is accepted. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. dreier: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i want to join all of our colleagues in extending best wishes to father coughlin for his very, very important serve over the past 11 years to this institution to say i am here in privilege to offer a resolution and ask for its immediate consideration welcoming and congratulating the new chaplain of the house of representatives, father pat conroy of washington, a very distinguished alumnist of claremont mckenna college in southern california, a man who has had spectacular service and even greater days ahead with the work that he is going to be doing with every member of this institution.

so, mr. speaker, i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 278, resolved, that father patrick j. conroy of the state of oregon be and is hereby chosen chaplain of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to house resolution 269 and rule 18 the chair declays the house on the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 1216. will the gentleman from california, mr. campbell, kindly take the chair?

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 1216 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the public health service act to convert funding for graduate medical education in qualified teaching health centers from direct appropriations to an authorization of appropriations . the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on tuesday, may 24, 2011, a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in the congressional record by the lady from north carolina, ms. foxx, has been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings on that amendment will now resume. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in

the congressional record by the lady from north carolina, ms. foxx, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. foxx of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a 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 will be 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.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 234, the nays are 182. the amendment is adopted. there being no further amendments, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman.

the chairman 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 pursuant to house resolution 269 reports the bill back to the house with the amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further proceedings on this bill are postponed.

>> mr. speaker. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members, please take your seats. members, please leave the well. take your seats. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio, the speaker of the house, rise? mr. boehner: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. the speaker: i want to thank the speaker and thank my

colleagues for the time. one of the most important members of the house community is not a member of the house. the house selected a chaplain to deliver the opening prayer, a continuing a tradition started in the first continental congress. as the house grew so did the chaplain, which they looked for advice and counsel. the chaplain sees to the well-being of this institution which serves people of all faiths and a nation that has always put trust in god. our national motto is an echo of the 16th psalm which in part says preserve me, o lord -- i'll start me over. preserve me, o god, for thee i do put my trust. in many ways the chaplain is the anchor of the house. so it's with regret we bid

farewell to reverend dan, who retired after 11 years of distinguished service. father dan left behind one last blessing. he recommended someone who he felt would be a worthy successor. and to no surprise, father dan was right. father pat conroy comes to us from the northwest. he was born and raised in washington state and spent much of his priesthood in oregon. and next month will mark his 28th year as a jesuit priest. father pat also served here in our capital city. he was chaplain of georgetown university for a total of 10 years. and he has a deep appreciation for public service. and before being called into the priesthood, father pat had a calling to politics, specifically the united states senate. father, something tells me

you'll fit in just fine right here. i think it's important to give the house a sense of father pat's character. and this is from a letter he wrote expressing his willingness to serve as chaplain. it says as follows -- as a jesuit, i believe it a part of my calling to find god in all things. and to discover the spirit of god present in the people i encounter and whom i serve. i wish to say i am ready and willing should those to be served deem me worthy of this ministry. though true of any ministry, the position would call me to a radical reliance upon the grace of god which will also be god's gift. i think it's clear that this loyal servant of the faithful is uniquely suited to serve as chaplain of the people's house.

leader pelosi and i have gotten a chance to know father pat, and we are honored that he has accepted our invitation to serve as chaplain. we're blessed, i think, to have his guidance and wisdom as we discharge our duties, fulfill our obligations to current and future generations of americans. so please join me in welcoming and congratulating the 60th chaplain of the house of representatives, father pat conroy. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the minority leader rise? pelosi pelosi --

ms. pelosi: i ask unanimous consent to speak to the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. pelosi: as the speaker takes the chair, i join him in commending the leadership of father pat conroy. father boehner -- speaker of the house -- at least he -- the speaker: i've been called a lot of things but not that. ms. pelosi: you really have to be a good politician to be called father boehner. in any sense, speaker boehner, his remarks beautifully explained how proud we are that father conroy has agreed to this additional responsibility. i would only like to add that in his ministering to the needs of georgetown as chaplain there, he was engaged in many interfaith ministries. so that serves him well to come here with the diversity of --

within the protestant part of our congress but also throughout the congress. so father pat conroy comes with a healthy respect of what we do, as speaker boehner said. he was -- has been a long-time jesuit and, again, served very beautifully in that capacity. before that he was an attorney for the making of laws of interest to him. that is not to say that he doesn't understand his first responsibility, and that is to minister to the spiritual and personal needs of our colleagues. yes, speaker boehner was correct in saying that one of the last gifts that father coughlin left us was a recommendation that patrick conroy, father patrick conroy would be considered to follow in his footsteps and huge footsteps they are, for 10 years -- more than 10 years

father dan was our spiritual leader and we were blessed with that. and today we are blessed again with the speaker's recommendation to the body of father patrick conroy as the chaplain of the house of representatives. it is a beautiful honor steeped in history, deep will he personal, free of politics and we wish him every success in that job. and father, we pray for you. please pray for us. thank you, father patrick conroy. the speaker: will the chaplain-elect please present himself in the well? the chair will now swear in the new chaplain of the house. if you'll raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you

will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of which you are about to enter, so help you god? chaplain conroy: i do. the speaker: congratulations. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further proceedings on h.r. 1216 will resume with a third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the public health service act to provide graduate medical case in qualified teaching health centers from direct appropriations to an authorization of appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. clyburn: in its current form, i am, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. clyburn of california moves to recommit the bill to the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment, page 3, after line 14, insert the following new paragraph and redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly. two, in section b-2 by adding at the end the following new subparagraph. c, ensuring authorized amounts first provided to indeserved --

underserved areas, i, in general, subject to sub paragraphs a and b in determining amounts payable under this section. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members and staff are asked to take their conversations off the floor. clear the well. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the clerk will resume reading. the clerk: in general subparagraphs a and b, payable under this section to qualified teaching health centers for a fiscal year the secretary shall, i, first make payments under this section to qualified teaching health centers in sunned served areas based on the full amount determined for such centers pursuant to clause ii and, two, after application of subclause i from any remaining amounts appropriated for such fiscal year pursuant

to subsection g make payments under this section under qualified teaching health centers not described in subclause i. ii, determination, for purposes of making payments under clause i, capital i, the secretary shall determine such amounts that would be payable under this section to qualified teaching health centers described in such clause as if the full amount authorized to be appropriated under subsection g for such fiscal year that the amount appropriated to carry out this section for such fiscal year. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members are advised to take their conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> i was going to reserve a point of order. i will not reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is reserved

pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. the house will be in order. the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. the house will be in order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, last month republicans voted to end medicare. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, their plan would raise seniors' health care costs by more than $6,000 per year. doubling their out-of-pocket costs. now, this week republicans want to cut training for new primary

care doctors. this is another part of their attempt to repeal health care reform piece by piece. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from maryland is correct, the house is not in order. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members are advised to take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, there is bipartisan agreement that we need more primary care physicians. yet republicans are bringing up a bill that will make sure that even fewer primary care doctors are trained to meet the growing demand. this is a terrible idea. but not surprising. i oppose this bill because we

need to be training more primary doctors not less. but at a minimum we must ensure that the nation's neediest areas have access to the doctors they need. this final amendment will ensure that training programs in the area most in need of primary care are to be prioritized for funding. this is common sense. my district like so many others represented in this body has some very rural communities. in many areas, families have to drive for dozens of miles to reach the nearest doctor. people living in remote communities travel great distances in search of primary care, and many don't have public or private transportation. this is not just an abtract -- abstract debate about compassion, for many people it

is literally a matter of life or death. madam speaker, we all know that for decades many communities across the country has been left out of the american dream year after year after year. we call these places persistent poverty counties. counties where more than 20% of the population have existed below the poverty level for at least 30 years. approximately 15% of all counties in america qualify as persistent poverty counties under this definition. madam speaker, -- may i have -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. the house will be in order. the gentleman from south carolina may proceed. mr. clyburn: because of a

majority of these counties are rural, they only comprise about 7% of the nation's population. these are the places that this amendment targets for funding. these communities are die verse and spread across the country, including appalachian counties in kentucky and west virginia, native american counties in south dakota and alaska, latino communities in arizona and new mexico, african-american communities in mississippi and south carolina, and urban communities in philadelphia, new york, baltimore, and st. louis. so i say to my colleagues on the other side if you're going to cut funding for training new doctors, let us at least ensure that the communities with the greatest need are placed at the front of the line.

i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this final amendment. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. guthrie: thank you, madam speaker. i claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would note that the gentleman did not reserve a point of order. does the gentleman seek time in opposition to the motion? mr. guthrie: i withdraw my point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. guthrie: thank you, madam speaker. as we began the debate just a minute ago, talking about medicare, we know last week when we left to go home to work in our districts that medicare's actuary said it's going to go bankrupt in 2024. this side of the aisle has offered a plan to make it stable, secure, and sustainable . there's no member, no member as we heard all day yesterday, the greatest generation, that has

any effect. matter of fact, over half the baney boom generation has no -- baby-boom generation has no changes. we are changing medicare to make it work so it's sustainable. if we follow the plan introduced by the president which does raise taxes on the rich but still does not address the sustainability of medicare in the future, my daughter when she's my age, 30 years from now, will wake up and go to work in 100% of the federal income tax she pays will pay for my generation to be retired. the greatest generation provided my generation opportunities and we are working to make sure our children have opportunities as well. on the underlying bill what's interesting is we are -- this bill only takes -- this program back to the way it was passed out of the house in the health care bill. we are doing exactly what the majority passed in the house. it changed to a mandatory program in the senate and was adopted when it came back from the senate. so if this program is important

and has to be mandatory funding as they say it has to be, why didn't they do it when they debated the health care bill before and include the provision that's in this motion to recommit. the health care bill authorizes changes in medical education, this bill, medical education hospitals, teaching hospitals, children hospitals, nurses programs, gare yacht trick programs, there are all sorts, and none of them have the provision that this motion to recommit wants to put on this program. so i say we need to get a handle on the budget so we can have a future for this country. we need to quit putting programs on auto pilot and put them in the process that goes to the appropriations process that can be reviewed. and they can be determined which programs are successful in moving forward. it is important that we have primary care physicians trained at teaching hospitals. teaching health centers.

it's also important we have them at children's hospitals that were zeroed out in the president's budget. as we put these programs on mandatory spending, we are losing opportunities to fund other programs. community health centers, they compete for discretionary funding. this is money that will be taken from that area to put on mandatory funding. madam speaker, this side of the house is ready to say to the greatest generation, we are preserving what you have. we also want to tell our children they have a future as great as the greatest generation gave us. madam chairman, i ask my colleagues to vote against this motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit and the question is on the motion. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. clyburn: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is requested.

those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of h.r. 1216, if ordered, ordering the previous question on house resolution 276, and the amendment thereto, adoption of the amendment to house resolution 276, if ordered, and adoption of house resolution 276, if ordered. 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.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 184 and the nays are 236 and the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a 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 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.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 234. the nays are 185. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 276, and the amendment thereto in which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 40, house resolution 276. resolution providing for further consideration of the bill h.r. 1540, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction, to proscribe military personnel strength for fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. 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.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 236. smoo

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 239. and the nays are 181 and the previous question is ordered. the house will be in order. the house will come to order. members will take their seats. members and staff are advised to take their conversations off the floor. members will clear the well.

the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members will please vacate the well. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for the purpose of a schedule announcement. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker. as members are aware, three critical provisions of u.s.a. patriot act expired midnight on thursday. it is critical to our national security that we extend these provisions as soon as possible. at this time, though, a bipartisan agreement on a four-year extension of each expiring extension is still pending in the senate. unfortunately, the senate will not vote on cloture until some

point thursday morning. further, the clouchure vote limits -- excuse me -- the cloture vote initiates up to 30 hours of postcloture debate before the senate can vote on final passage and send the bill to the house. if all time were used which is currently not known the senate would not clore their bill until friday morning. therefore, madam speaker, members are advised to make contingency travel plans for thursday and friday. it is likely that the house will be in session and voting past 3:00 p.m. tomorrow. further, it is possible that the house could also be in session and voting on friday. we will update members on the senate's progress as we continue to move through the week, madam speaker. i thank members for their patience and i know doubt share in their unspoken thoughts about the other body. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment to house resolution 276 offered by the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. and those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on the adoption of house resolution 276, as amended. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for a recorded vote, the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, 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.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 243, the nays are 17240e678 resolution is adopted. -- are 170. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourn today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent -- to correct the vote, i recorded as having voted yes on h.r.

216, it should have been a no. i ask unanimous consent that the record so indicate. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's statement will appear in the record. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent -- mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent to correct the record with reference to two votes. i was in room 2103 of the rayburn building and the electronic buzzer did not go off. i missed the vote on the democratic motion to recommit on h.r. 1216, had i been present, i would have voted yes, and on final passage of h.r. 1216, had i been present, i would have voted no. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's statement will be entered into the record. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks

and include extraneous material on h.r. 1540. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 276 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 1540. will the gentlelady from michigan, mrs. miller, kindly take the chair? the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further 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 fiscal year 2012 and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on tuesday, maye 24, 2011, all time for general debate pursuant to house resolution 269 had expire. pursuant to house resolution 276 as amended, no further general debate shall be in order. the amendment is in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill, shall be considered as an original bill for purposes of amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 112-88 or section 12 of house resolution 276, and amendments en bloc described in section 6 of that resolution. each amendment shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be

debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. all points of order against amendments printed in the report or against amendments en bloc described in section 3 of house resolution 276 are waived. it inthal in order at any time for the chair of the committee on armed services or his designee tufere amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the report not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc pursuant to the section shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled of the chair and ranking member of the committee on armed service, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for the division of the question. the original proponent may insert a statement in the congressional record immediately before the disposition of the amendment en bloc.

it is now in order to consider amendment number one printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the chair: amendment number 1 prinned in house report 112-88, offered by mr. wittman of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wittman: i thank chairman mckeon for bringing this to the floor and i want to recognize ranking member smith for his everies. this is a long and arduous

process and i know the hours to come on the floor will be fruitful, i'm sure, for everybody to have the opportunity to speak on this billism rise today tufere an amendment to address how we build ford class aircraft carriers, our nation's next class of nuclear powered carriers that will sail throughout the 21st century. this amendment simply grants the secretary of the navy the authority for advanced purchase of major components for the next two aircraft carriers. this would allow the navy to achieve cost savings and would ensure critical skills in the aircraft carrier industrial base are maintained. furthermore, this amendment ensures that carriers are constructed on a five-year psychle with continuous and incremental funding for carrier procurement. given these tight budgetary constraints, we need to be looking for ways to spend taxpayers' dollars to support our national defense in the most efficient way possible. madam chairman this amendment allows us to do just that.

it allows us to properly space construction and allows us to get out in front opurchase tefrls when we can purchase them in the most cost effective manner possible. so i would aurge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> thank you, madam speaker. i claim time in opposition to the amendment though i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. courtney: i support this amendment. it gaves the navy the flexibility it should have to make sure it gets the best deal for the taxpayer providing the mechanism to support the industrial base my friend from virginia and i co-chair the shipbuilding caucus, a bipartisan caucus, one of who's main goal is to strengthen and

preserve america's shipbuilding industrial base and that's precisly what this amendment will do. again, it aligns the construction schedule with, again, statutory empowerment to the secretary of the navy to achieve those goals. with that, mr. speaker, i -- with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: madam chair, i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2, printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-88 offered by ms. woolsey of california. the chair: pursuant to -- the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. woolsey: in the current budget debate i often hear from any republican colleagues that everything should be on the table. that -- by that, they mean that every program that helps working families make ends meet should be on the table. but if everything is on the table, it has to include expensive weapons systems that failed to contribute to our national security, like the v-22 osprey aircraft. that's why i'm offering this amendment. to the national defense authorization act which will

eliminate funding for the v-22 osprey aircraft. the osprey's mishaps are practically the stuff of legend. if -- it's a poster child for the excesses and inefficiencies of the military industrial complex. its safety record is abysmal. 30 americans have been killed during v-22 training exercises. most recently, madam chair, during a public demonstration in new york last spring, its prop loaders knocked down tree limbs an injured 10 civilian bystanders. the marine corps itself has been -- has even concluded that leaving the engine idling could generate such high temperatures that the entire flight deck could melt in 10 minutes. a 2009 g.a.o. report gave the

osprey mediocre marks and questioned its ability to perform all the functions of the helicopter it's supposed to replace. from its ability to operate in high threat environments to carrying troops and transporting cargo, the osprey underperformed across the board. i'm still trying to figure out what good it is to have a combat plane that doesn't operate well in high threat environments. that's like having a coat that doesn't do well in the cold. if you had one, you'd stop wearing it. and you wouldn't spend more and more each year on the same flawed coat. the v-22 osprey is a boondoggle. one aspect of its maintenance even ivencludes a special lightweight paint that costs $75,000 per aircraft. and we thought $600 toilet seats at the pentagon was a ripoff.

at a time when americans are being forced to tighten their belts they don't want to pay $75,000 to paint a plane that has done little to keep the country safe. it's the job of the pentagon to protect the american people, not to make defense contractors rich by perpetuating systems and programs long beyond the point that they failed. that's why the co-chairs of the fiscal commission,ers kin bowles an former senator allan simpson recommended canceling the v-22. that's why a former defense secretary named dick cheney wanted to terminate it at least 20 years ago. the v-22 osprey has been given more than enough time. time to prove its worth. it's been over a quarter century. it has cost taxpayers $32 -- over $32 billion, money we

could have been spending on programs the american people need and for the sake of our national defense and in the name of fiscal discipline, this v-22 must go. so i urge my colleagues, support this common sense amendment and i yield back -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from california reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. for five minutes. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> will rogers is quoted as saying, it ain't so much what a man doesn't know that causes him problems but what he thinks he knows that just ain't so. mr. thornberry: there are so many arguments about the v-22 now and in the past that just ain't so. i suggest that members have some responsibility to learn the facts themselves.

some of those tact facts are that as of february, 2011, v-22 has exceeded 100,000 total flight hours since the program's inception. for the marines over the last 10 year the v-22 has the lowest class a mishap rate of any currently fielded tactical roe toe craft. the un-- rotocraft. the unrefueled -- it's more than twice that of any it is replacing. it was v-22's that went in to rescue the air force pilot who went down over libya and the list goes on and on. the v-22 is performing very well, previously in iraq, and right now in afghanistan. madam chair, i don't know if any of the members are particularly interested in learning the ground truth of what's going on with the v-22 or have talked with marines or

special operations forces about how it's performing, but i would suggest if they want to know the real facts, go talk to the people who really fly it. because that way, they will learn about what is really happening. a month ago, i did have the opportunity to fly in the v-22 in afghanistan and i did talk to the pilots about how it's performing, about any maintenance issues they had and a whole variety of things, all of which they thought was performing very, very well. madam chair, the most memorable experience i had was talking to a marine who lost a buddy of his because the helicopter that was trying to get his buddy to the hospital couldn't make it there to the hospital in that first hour after he was wounded. and that's the critical time. and this young marine told me, i keep -- he said, i keep thinking if we had the v-22's available at that time my buddy might had made it there in time. now the bottom line is this

aircraft is saving lives, it is enabling marines and special operators to do the mission that we've asked them to do. it is on target as far as cost, production schedule, the rest. it is doing more than we expected, and such amendments to remove it at this stage are short sided at best. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. ms. woolsey: madam chairman, i wouldn't blame the gentleman from texas for supporting the v-22 when a great bit of it is built in his district and he needs to defend it. but i'd like to just repeat so that people ups this. so far the v-22 has cost over $32 billion. when it was initiated in 1986 it was estimated to cost $39

billion. today it's estimated to cost $53 billion. terminating the v-22 would save $10 billion to $12 billion over the incomes 10 years. actually, it would -- the next 10 years. actually, it would save $2.5 billion in procurement for the navy and air force just this year alone. with that, madam chair woman, i'd like to say you're talking about everything on the table, look at this. it had its turn to 20, 30 years to prove itself and it's time that we end this relationship. thank you very much. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from california yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: it's all about saving lives and completing the mission, i yield to my colleague from texas, the ranking member of the air, land

subcommittee, mr. reyes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for -- mr. thornberry: as much time as he would like. the chair: as much time as he may consume. mr. reyes: i thank the gentleman for yielding. just in fairness, none of the manufacturing of this great aircraft is in my district. so what i'm saying is based on my experience and what i know about the capabilities of this great aircraft. first of all -- first and foremost, if we had the osprey when we went into combat in tora bora we wouldn't have had the casualties that we suffered there because it's got much better capabilities than even the upgraded ch-47's that we were using at the time. secondly, in february, along with the chairman and another member of our committee, we flew the nv-22 in afghanistan.

i had the opportunity to talk to the pilots and talk to the crew chief mainly because that's what i did when i was in the army. i was in aviation. i wanted to get a sense from them as to what they felt about the aircraft. all of them said this was a great aircraft with great capabilities. a technological marvel. but the bottom line is, is it effective and not so much have we paid for it but how many lives have we saved with it and how many lives will we save because of it? i think in closing, madam chair, i want to submit for the record a letter from the commandant of the u.s. marine corps and i want to read a paragraph from that letter. it says, this aircraft is safe and survivable. it's effective and efficient. the nv-22 has operated

successfully in extreme environmental conditions, extreme environmental conditions like the ones we were at when we were in afghanistan. during nine combined deployments in iraq, afghanistan and onboard shipping. it has the lowest class a mishap rate of any united states marine corps recorded vote craft in the past 10 years. in -- the chair: all time for debate has expired and that question will be covered under general leave. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the no haves -- noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. ms. woolsey: i ask unanimous consent that we have a vote. the chair: does the gentlelady ask for a recorded vote? a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentlelady from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: madam chair woman, i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment en bloc. the clerk: number 1 consisting of amendments number 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 29, 34, 35, 36. printed in house report 112-88, and amendment number 5, as specified, by section 6 and house resolution 276 offered by mr. mckeon of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, will each control five minutes. and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: madam chair, i ask unanimous consent that

amendment number 5 be modified in the form i placed at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mckeon of california. page 113 after lane 17 insert the following -- after line 17 insert the following -- mr. mckeon: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the modification be dispensed with. the chair: without objection. mr. mckeon: madam chair -- the chair: and without objection, the modification is agreed to. mr. mckeon: madam chair, i ask unanimous consent that amendment number 34 be modified in the form i placed at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the modification. mr. mckeon: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the modification be dispensed with. the chair: without objection, the modification is agreed to. mr. mckeon: madam chair, i ask he can that that amendment number 36 be modified in the form i placed at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: amendment offered by -- mr. mckeon: i ask unanimous consent that the modification be dispensed with.

the chair: without objection and the modification is adopted. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: madam chair, i urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority. and madam chair, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from illinois, mr. schock. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. schock: thank you, madam chairman. i want to be reminded what an american hero is today. you don't have to search far within the ranks of our military to find one, and today i'd like to share the story of a couple of such heroes. in fact, a family of them. army specialist ron gabire was killed by an i.e.d. in iraq five years ago. ron's wife, bethany, also served as an army medic. at the time of ron's death, they had a 9-month-old, gauge, a young son, and bethany had just received orders to deploy

to iraq herself. her orders would have required her to leave well before ron was scheduled to return home from his service in iraq. recently ron's mother-in-law contacted me. she asked me to stand up for these duel military families to ensure children like gauge don't grow up as orphans or have to go through the experience of having both mom and dad being deployed at the same time. today i'm offering an amendment that would give these duel military family with children some flexibility, knowing they have an option to defer concurrent deployment into a war zone. we need to ensure that these families don't have to choose between serving their family and serving their country. specialist ron gabour gave the ultimate sacrifice, and i offer this amendment in his honor. with that 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, madam chair. i support the amendment being offered and with that i yield

one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. tonko: thank you. thank you, madam chair. the -- my amendment the d.o.t. medical research program to use the most advanced research technology possible when advancing diseases. they have made advances in diagnosticing relative to breast cancer and prostate cancer but drug therapies have had limited success. breakthroughs in r.n.a. treatments -- current medicines are only able to target a number of proteins. this would increase the effectiveness of drug treatments for these devastating illnesses. sciences and technical breakthroughs have advanced therapeutics. including d.o.t. to use this technology would make an invaluable contribution to the eight medical research programs. finally, madam chair, this new technology can help by

identifying medical candidates in ptsd, including depression. with those returning from home from iraq and afghanistan with ptsd and depression, we owe it to these brave americans to use every technology we can to help ease their transition here at home. madam chair, i ask my colleagues to support me in this amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: madam chair, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. sessions: thank you, madam chairman. i appreciate the young the gentleman from california recognizing me for two minutes. madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. mr. sessions: madam chairman, i'm sorry. i have been advised it's in the

en bloc package. currently private health care providers are treating brain injuries with remarkable results. surprisingly, many of these treatments are not currently available within the military and veteran military medical facilities for our heroes suffering from traumatic brain injuries, known at t.b.i. in an effort to fix this delinquency, i introduced the t.b.i. treatment act and i'm offering it as an amendment today. it establishes a five-year paid for performance pilot program, private health care providers are authorized and reimbursed to provide proven treatments with no cost to the patient. my amendment helps expedite these groundbreaking treatments to our nation's veterans and active duty soldiers who are suffering from traumatic brain injury. i ask everyone in this house join me in supporting this

amendment to the mdaa and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, madam chair. i now yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. becerra. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. becerra: i thank the ranking member for yielding. i thank the ranking member and the chairman for their work on this particular set of amendments that have been put together en bloc, and i want to just say i have an amendment here that i hope that we cannot only use in the future but will help america continue to seek out the best and the brightest both in the ranks of our troops and also as our officers. as we all know, one of the great privileges we have as members of congress is to nominate the future leaders, the officer corps of our military, and through the military academies that we have we have an opportunity to train young men and women to be our future leaders in our military. but more importantly our future

leaders of america because many go on beyond military service to become future leaders in the civic world. and so this amendment makes sure that our military academies have an opportunity to go to every corner of our country to find the best and brightest. some areas have been harder to reach out to than others. working with our members of congress, through their nominations process we hope that the pentagon and our military services with their academies can reach out to all those young people who are ready to serve, and so i thank both the chairman and the ranking member for making this amendment part of the en bloc series of amendments, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: madam chair, i yield one minute to my friend, the colleague, the gentlelady from new york, ms. hayworth. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for one minute. ms. hayworth: thank you, madam chair. the amendment i've offered, number 202, adds a sense of

congress that the federal government should not be in the business of competing with its citizens in private enterprise and as such, the federal government should not carry on activities if they can be procured more economically from a commercial source. what we're talking about here is insourcing of activities that ordinarily should be available commercially, such as food services, mapping, audiovisual services and we have an example in our own district in the food services area. unfortunately, in-sourcing does not produce net savings in such cases. it is often the case that higher costs, lower quality and less support for local businesses are the case. we want to make sure our armed forces have everything they immediate to be asesquive as they can be so this exempts positions that are inherently governmental in nation but i hope we give favorable consideration to our local contractors and local economies

and not have the federal government compete with local businesses. i thank you. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. >> i yield one minute to the gentleman, mr. holt. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. holt: over the last two years, america has lost more toops to suicide than combat itself. yes, you heard my correctly. these painful facts were ignored last night when i offered the amendment. this amendment that i offered passed the house previously an would have provided badly kneed suicide prevention services to over 123,000 guard and reserve combat veterans who currently have no established suicide prevention net work. my amendment proposed a tested, effective approach to -- approach to counseling. the message to these veterans is unmistakable. if the intrusive memories of the horrors you have witnessed

in war are too much for you and you're thinking of ending your own life, you are on your own. yes, i'ming anly. blocking this amendment is an insult to service members and families who have lost a loved one to suicide. the deliberate exclusion of this -- of this badly needed suicide prevention by itself is a compelling reason to vote against this bill. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i reserve our time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from washington, mr. baca. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. baca: i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 1540. i would like to thank chairman mckeon, ranking member adam smith and their staff for their hard work and added my amendment to the series. as a vietnam veteran i'm upset with witnessing the alarming rates of suicides among our

military ranks. in my visit at walter reed i had an opportunity to speak firsthand to many soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. my amendment enhances the suicide prevention program at the department of defense by requiring that each branch of the military include suicide prevention training, recruit training and pre-separation counseling. each suicide prevention training rub -- run by various military service shall include a minimum method for recognizing risk factors for suicide, protocol involving responding to crisis situations, information available to members including a toll free hotline and other resources. this is supported by the american foundation for suicide prevention, i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment so that we will

hopefully reduce the number of military suicides. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cuellar: i rise in support of my amendment that makes available to the department of defense the same equipment that's used overseas. the assault on our southern boarder is a national security threat. they dig tunnels unch the border, fly ultra light craft an try to breach our borders. my amendment brings state of the art military technology to bear on this problem and it looks at the other side of the boarder to make sewer the department of defense briefs congress on our efforts to build capacity to combat this organization this dual-pronged approach brings our technological advantage to bear

on the southern threat and puts additional constraints on criminal organizations. this will be a true way to make sure we face the threat that we face on the border and again i urge all colleagues to support this amendment. thank you, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield one minute to ms. waters. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: i rise in support of my amendment, waters number 29, offered en bloc by the services committee. my amendment provides a preference for potential department of defense contractors that kary out certain investment and philanthropic activities to bolster education, training, employment, science, technology, engineering and mathematics, the stem disciplines. my amendment is to promote

public and private partnership to strength tissue strengthen our nation's stem pipeline and ensure the united states continues to produce heegly skilled stem professionals that are both diverse and innovative. water amendment number 29 will signal to potential contractors that the federal government is serious about improving stem education and creating a pipeline that will protect the nation's economic future. i urbling my colleagues to support passage of this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: we have no further requests for time, we are prepared to yield back if you are. i yield back the remainder of our time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i encourage acceptance of the amendment en bloc and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendments en bloc as

modified by the quelt from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes visit. the en bloc amendments as modified are agreed. to it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed this house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam chairman, i have an amendment i would like to discuss on whistleblower protection marked on my page as number 125. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 125 offered by mr. carter of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. carter and a member opposed each will control five minute. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: this is an amendment to extend whistleblower protection for

american soldiers. for the protection of american soldiers both at home and abroad. the pot tom line is, this amendment would extend protective communications covered under the whistleblower protection act to include ideologically based threats or actions. that reporting -- if a service member reasonably believes that the actions of an individual could be counterproductive or detrimental to the united states' interests or security, they would be able to report these urn the whistleblower protection act. the fort hood shooting which unfortunately was in my district taught us a service members have become increasingly afraid to report questionable incidents for fear of reprisal. despite numerous red flags concerning major hasan and his dangerous tendencies no

negative personnel action was taken, he was promoted to the rank of major and he was allowed to provide psychological counseling to battle weary soldiers. our military personnel asserted because major hasan's muslim heritage that they feared adverse actions would be held against them and be -- that they would be accused of profiling major hasan. coming forward about potentially dainls situations should never be considered profiling. while no one should be targeted solely on their religious affiliation, all service members should feel free and safe to report dangerous behavior. i will tell you that it was reported to me by more than a dozen soldiers in the training command and in medical school that this dangerous behavior was discussed constantly an

they were all concerned about reporting it. the whistleblower act already provides for guidance on what should be reported as a -- as -- in terms of violations. it extends to military personnel protection from negative reporting. it protects the serviceman on his ability to communicate misuse of funds, abuse to congress and the chain of command this would further extend protected communications to include ideologically based threats or actions that the reporting service member reasonably believes could be counterproductive or detrimental to the united states' interests or security. this amendment does not target any specific belief, religion, or otherwise. this amendment seeks to instill

the confidence necessary to protect our armed forces from further attacks from within. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i rise to oppose this amendment. i'm sympathetic to the direction the upon sor is headed, that we need to make sure if people see something that's a threat to them, our service, to the national interest at all, they should feel prix to report it. the problem i have is current law protects that. we have a current statute with whistleblower protection that clearly says if you have any reason to believe that something is going on that's counterproductive or detrimental to united states security, you are free to report that to appropriate superiors. i will agree with the sponsor that people nonetheless are reluctant to come forward and

provide that information but what we need to do is educate people about that protection being there in the current law. what this amendment does is broadens that to the point where it's going to sweep a lot of stuff up that we don't want to harr about. it isn't necessarily going to make it more likely that what we want to hear about is going to be reported by saying ideologically based threats or action which is beyond broad, almost beyond definition, it is the ability to say anything about anyone at any time which i don't think we want. the current law makes it clear. if you're a service member who sees a threat, perceives a threat, ideologically based or otherwise, i don't see whether it makes any difference whether it's ideologically based. report it. we need to make sure that emp, not just service members but everyone feels prix to support such threats to the authorities. this amendment is overly broad

an would cause more trouble than it would solve. i oppose the amendment and urge the body to do so. i reserve this eperhaps of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: rechaming my time, i would point out to my friend that 13 american soldiers died, 13 people died, 12 american soldiers and one civilians, an 43 people were wounded by an individual whose ideological preaching was well known to the medical community, in the school community where he studied and at fort hood. and almost every soldier that he talked to, he preached his ideological belief about the wrongness of the american action. and -- but it's clear that each of these service members were concerned enough to talk to

other service members about it, but they were afraid to go up the chain of command, strictly because of the nature of the environment we function in today. and we need to make it clear to them it doesn't matter what the ideological bent of anybody is, if they're talking about things that are detrimental to the american serviceman they have a duty to report that and the whistleblower act will protect them. they knew about the whistleblower act but they were afraid it would not protect them because there happened to be a politically correct, if you will, faction in this whole issue that they were afraid would change the view of their superior officers on their promotions. i don't like the idea of having to do it this way, either but i don't like the idea that there are dozens and i would say more than dozens of american soldiers that could have prevented this if they'd

stepped forward and all of them feared, because of the environment of political correctness that seems to be rampant in this country, they were afraid to come forward. and therefore i think we ought to clarify that i don't care who you are on what your background is, if you're talking something that is detrimental to the american soldier or his mission, it has to be reported and there will not be sanctions against you. that's the purpose of my amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, madam chair. i now yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen of the house, i share my friend from texas' goal, but i don't share his way of meeting that goal. i certainly think that any

uniformed person who reports something that they're reasonably suspicious of should be protected by the whistleblower act and should not be worried about political correctness or any other standard. but i think that's already the law. the whistleblower law that already exists frankly says, if you blow the whistle on someone for doing something wrong, you are protected. it is wrong to plan to shoot people in the military base or commit treason against the country. but it is not wrong to lock a certain way or be a certain way or think a certain way. so i think that the whistleblower protection, as it exists, protects the situation that my friend from texas wants to protect and i believe we all want to protect. while i'll share his objective in this matter, i think that this amendment is not necessary because present law solves that problem and protects that whistleblower. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time -- the gentleman from

washington. mr. smith: i agree with the gentleman's remarks. if i thought there was a tiny, little bit possibility that this amendment would prevent the type of tragedy at fort hood i would support it. i don't believe it will. the concerns, the back and forth of whether or not to report something that's concerning, they exist, they need to be dealt with. they'll exist whether or not this amendment will be passed. making it ideologically based i think opens up more problems and shifts the focus away from what we need. and what we need is whether the threat is ideological or whatever the cause, we need to encourage people to go to their superiors, report it and make sure they're better safe than sorry. i encourage that. i don't think this amendment does that. i urge a no vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. as many as are in favor will

signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. hunter: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. hunter of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman from california, mr. hunter, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. hunter: thank you, madam chair. this amendment's very simple. the most important asset we have in our united states military are our personnel. the men and women we move around, that get moved around. they don't have a choice where they move from base to base and camp to camp. and this amendment specifically covers those ladies and men that protect us that have special needs children. those children that would be

covered under the idea, the disability act for kids, ensuring them a good education. however, these parents don't always know where they're going and what this would do would start a pilot program for up to 250 kids to allow them to choose whatever fits their school needs best whether it is private school, charter school, public school, to see if that helps alleviate some of the pain that the families face as they travel from base to base, as they go overseas to iraq and afghanistan, so we can take care of their kids here at home. it's a pilot program. i'd like to say on our side the only issue we had with this amendment is its funding source. i've spoken to the chairman from california, the chairman of the armed services committee, and we're going to pull the funding source out of d.o.d. and find another funding stream for this in conference. so with that taken care of, i'd like to yield two minutes to my good friend from arizona, mr. franks. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two

minutes. mr. franks: well, i thank the gentleman. madam chair, all of us are grateful to the men and women who put themselves at harm's way between the benevolent and the innocent for the sake of this country. we need to remind ourselves, they don't fight because they hate the enemy or hate what's in front of them. they fight because they love what's behind them. they love us, they love our country, they love the cause of freedom and they love their families. they love their families more than anything, madam chair, and they want to make sure that their children have the very best future that they can give them. and, madam chair, this amendment that i'm so thankful for mr. hunter bringing forth would allow parents an extra option for their children, especially when they're special needs children. in the midst of all the travel that the armed services people have to take, they need this option, madam chair. i think it's unbelievable we wouldn't support them. fundamentally one of two people will choose the educational values, the educational

substance of our children's future. it will be one of two. it will be a person who doesn't know their name or a person called a parent who would die for them in a moment. i would submit, madam chair, that that decision is best left to the parents, notwithstanding the opposition from the teachers union, that parents are the best ones to be able to choose the school that their children go to. and nothing will shape the future of america more than the values and the academics that are in the hearts and minds of our children, and that should belong to parents, especially those who are fighting and dying for this country and they have a special needs children. we should give this to them. i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from arizona's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: i rise in opposition for a couple reasons. first of all, i'm curious we're not going to fund it out of

d.o.d. we'll find the money somewhere else in conference argument because it's funded out of d.o.d. right now. unless this is now being offered as a sense of congress with no money attached to it, in a minute i would be curious to hear exactly how that works. but beyond that this is not what's in the best interest of the children of our service members. to give them a $7,500 voucher to go get special needs education is a license for them not to get the education they feed. if anyone in this body knows the cost of special needs children can be as much as $100,000 a year to our public schools. there are some children out there who have very, very strong needs. fortunately because of the idea, the public schools in this country are 100% obligated to meet that need. talk to any school superintendent that has to deal with this, it's an enormous cost but an enormous benefit to our children. they have to meet those needs and if it's not it's the parent

who has the law on his or her side to say the public school must meet that requirement. you give them a $7,500 voucher and send them to whatever private school is out there, they are not subject to those same requirements. they do not have to meet that same dollar value, and what you are doing is you are undermining the education for these special needs children in a way that could be very detrimental to our families. now, with a very long debate on this in the armed services committee. this amendment was defeated on a bipartisan basis in committee for a variety of different reasons. and i want to make it clear, it was stated throughout, you know, how can you not care about the children of our service members, and more than one member on our side said we do. this is not what this is about. we absolutely care about the children of our service members. we want them to get the best education possible. giving families a $,7,500 -- $7,500 voucher is not in the

best interest of parents with special needs children. it simply isn't. they are not getting the type of protections they have under the law if they go out in that situation. i would strongly urge a no vote on this amendment. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from california -- mr. hunter: i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from california and the chair. the chair: the gentleman is recognized 30 seconds. mr. mckeon: i'd like to get this pilot program going for the parents that have special needs. one of the things that's kirch between the military and other people is they are moved often and they don't have time to get the help they need. this would help them. it's a pilot program. i encourage adoption of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself the remainder of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: the last argument is interesting.

they move around a lot, that's true. i say that is a challenge, and they don't have time to make all these decisions but they do have time to take a $7,500 voucher and search across all the different schools to see which private schools are going to take it because keep in mind that's another critical aspect of this. private schools do not have to accept a single solitary student. you show up with their $7,500 voucher and say, sorry, your child will cost you more than that. they say, no, move on. public school do have to fund them. this is a step in the wrong direction. and the cost is also going to be an issue. we're going to find the money for it somewhere. it's not going to improve the education or the lives of our service members and their family. it is going to wind up costing money. again, i would urge a no vote and yield the remainder -- sorry -- reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. hunter: i'd like to inquire how much time i have left? the chair: the gentleman from california has two minutes remaining and the gentleman

from washington has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. hunter: thank you, madam chair. i would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from washington. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i appreciate the gentleman from for yielding and i rise in support of mr. hunter's amendment. we recognized idea and prior to idea one out of five children were denied access to a quality education through the public school system because of a disability. and idea has changed the opportunity for education, but the reality is for many special needs students it is still requiring an attorney in order to get the education they need. from the time that a special needs student begins their education, a family needs an attorney. in fact, we were hired, i was hired or i was encouraged to hire an attorney to navigate the educational practice for my son, cole. but picture this scenario for the men and women who serve our

country, many of whom are parents of children with special needs. between deployments and transfers, our service men and women don't have the time to go through litigation nor should they. most don't choose where they live and they don't get the choice when it comes to their schools but the amendment we're offering today would allow these families to recognize the opportunities of idea, authorize scholarships for military families with special needs to be able to choose the school that best fits the needs of their child. whether it be a public school, private school or charter school. this initiative will provide valuable information and data for congress as we move to reform and re-authorize idea and address this issue over the long term. there's no doubt that idea is flawed. this would help us get the information to make it better for all children with special needs. i would reserve the balance of our time at this point. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from california has 15 seconds

remaining. mr. hunter: thank you, madam chair. i would obviously urge a yes vote on this amendment and 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, madam chair. i yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has 1 1/2 minutes. mr. andrews: i thank my friend for yielding. i think there's universal agreement that we all want the finest quality of education for all children, and in this case, for special needs children. i actually think that the effect of this amendment is to narrow educational opportunities for special needs children in the following way. the provision sets up a $7,500 subsidy each year that the parents can choose to use as they see fit. that i think narrows the choices already available under the individuals with disabilities education act, idea. presently what happens if is service member family is

located in a certain community and they have a special needs child, the school district in which that child resides is under a federal legal obligation to provide the highest quality education, the least restrictive educational environment for that child. and if the parents disagree with the choice that is made by the school system, by the child study team, they frankly have a right through the federal law to appeal it and change it, so i think what actually happens here by limiting the level of financial support for these families we're limiting the educational opportunities for the child whereas the idea puts the force of federal law behind the best outcome for that child. so i think we all want to accomplish the same thing. i respectfully believe that the present law accomplishes this better than the amendment would. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no.

and the question -- in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. mr. smith: madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i'd ask for a recorded vote on that amendment. the chair: the gentleman from washington asks for a recorded vote and pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. the chair: it's now in order to consider amendment number 19 printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 19 printed in house report 112-88,

offered by mr. carson of indiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman from indiana, mr. carson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana. mr. carson: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carson: mr. speaker, my amendment seeks to address shortfalls in the current department of defense mental health assessment process. currently, our service members only receive mental health assessments prior to deployment and after returning home. my amendment simply requires the department of defense to provide mental health assessments to our troops during deployment, improving chances that post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, depression and other mental health issues are detected and treated early. the amendment also requires that medical records from past

unit assignments and the v.a. be reviewed whenever possible. currently, these records are rarely considered. as we all well know, our troops are under a constant threat while deployed in iraq and afghanistan. many are injured or see their friends injured or killed. throughout it all, they perform amazingly and should be commended. but these are the exact experiences that lead to serious mental health issues. yes -- yet, despite this ongoing explosion, mr. speaker, most do not receive a mental health assessment until they return home from combat. often coping with ptsd, t.b.i., or depression for months without receiving treatment. by the time they return home, the stigma attached to mental illness keep miss away from pursuing treatment at all -- keeps many away from pursuing treatment at all. of those what do, many still fall into drug and alcohol

abuse, knicks violence and suicide. tragically, the oversights have impacted my congressional district. army specialist chancellor kingsley committed suicide while deployed in iraq. his commanders never knew that he had been placed on suicide watch by a previous unit and had been treated for mental illness by the v.a. upon reassignment to a new unit and redeployed to iraq, records from his past tour and from the v.a. were never reviewed. during deployment, he was never reassessed. chances -- chance's father greg reviewed my amendment and believes it could have saved his son's life had it been in place in 2009. this is one example of the tragic implications of unaddressed mental health issues in the military. there are countless examples from my district and across

this great nation that i could provide as evidence of why this amendment is so critical and necessary. some of these terrible problems can be avoided, mr. speaker, and i believe lives can be saved by comprehensively addressing mental illness in our military at its source during deployment. so mr. speaker, i encourage all of my colleagues to support the improved mental health for our troops by voting yes on the carson amendment. i reserve the mans of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: i claim time in opposition to the amendment though i'm not opposed to the gentleman's amendment. i reserve the blaps of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized and reserves the balance of miz time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. carson: i yield as much time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i believe the case for my amendment is clear. many of our men and women in

uniform are living through months of deployment with mental health issues lick ptsd, t.b.i. and depression going completely undiagnosed. my amendment simply calls on the d.o.d. to help our service members and catch and treat these issues through early assessments during deployment. this is a very important step that will save lives and help our men and women in uniform build productive lives for themselves on returning to civilian life. i urge mr. speaker -- i urge, mr. speaker, a yes vote on theament. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, we continue to reserve. we are expecting another speaker. the chair: the gentleman from indiana has yielded back his time. is the gentleman from california prepared to yield

back in mr. mckeon: i want to commend the gentleman for bringing his thoughtful amendment to the floor. i encourage also that our colleagues support his amendment. with that, i yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mckee kwon: pursuant to -- mr. mckeon: pursuant to h.res. 276, i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate. the clerk: amendments en bloc consisting of a 54, 52, 76, 79, 0, 1, 82, 83, 91 printed in

house report 112-88 offered by mr. mckeon of california. the chair: pursuant to the house -- mr. mckeon: i ask unanimous consent -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith each will control 10 minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: i ask that amendment number 6 be modified in the form i have at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the modification. mr. mckeon: i ask that reading of the modification be dispensed with. the chair: without objection, ordered. without objection, the amendment is modified. mr. mckeon: i ask that amendment number 73 be modified in the form i placed at the desk. the chair: the clerk will

report the modification. the clerk: modification to en bloc amendment number 2 offered by mr. mckeon of california. mr. mckeon: i ask unanimous consent that reading of the modification be dispensed with. the chair: without objection, so ordered, and the modification is agreed to. mr. mckeon: i ask that amendment number 72 be modified in the form i have at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: earment number 72 -- mr. mckee: -- mr. mckeon: i ask unanimous consent that reading of the modifications be dispensed with. the chair: without objection. mr. mckeon: i yield to the gentleman from new jersey, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for two minutes. >> i want to speak on the rogers-lobiondo amendment that helps repay trait heroes killed in the fight against piracy in lib yasm mr. lobiondo: they were killed by the commander of the intrepid. they have unser moans youly been buried in mass graves without the military tradition we have in foreign countries. this amendment seeks to right a wrong that's been in place more than 200 years and somers point, new jersey, a town in my district, is where commander richard summers hailed from so it's extremely important to all the united states of america, the american heof the united states has endorsed this amendment and i urge all the members to strongly support it

and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. we have no speakers at this time. i support the amendment but i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. garrett: i thank the chairman. i stand hoar to introduce this amendment to the national defense authorization act to clearly set out congressional intent with regard to military operations in lib yasm the amendment is simple, it clarifies that this authorization bill does not serve as congressional authorization for any military operation in libya. the constitution explicitly grants congress the sole power to declare war. the war powers institution was enacted to give the president the ability to commit forces to

defend the american interests in an expedited manner before seeking congressional authorization. subsequent military engagement must be authorized by the congress. despite that fair standard, presidents have routinely disregarded the constitution and the war powers act and the role of congress. as you know, president obama consulted the u.n. and the arab league of nations before engaging in hostilities. however, the whole of congress was not consulted nor authorized and to date has not authorized any military action in libya whatsoever. i do believe firmly that the president must come to this congress for authorization to continue any and all u.s. military actions. so i encourage members of this house to support this amendment and i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington.

mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as i appreciate the cooperation of the ranking member and chair on a couple of items we placed in this en bloc amendment. one of them deals with the necessity of providing energy efficiencies that could save billions of dollars. it requires the department of defense to evaluate energy efficiency benefits and recommend how to deploy them. fuel is carried on expensive supply convoys that travel through indefensible areas. one out of every four represents casualties. we're spending $4 billion a year to protect convoys to

forward operating bases in afghanistan. and $6 -- and 65% of all electricity on bases is for air-conditioning and heating leaky tents. reducing this fuel use is a simple way to reduce fuel convoys which reduces costs and casualties. this amendment requiring reporting energy efficiency, on site renewable generation will expedite the energy efficiency deployment across the armed services. additionally, there's an amendment i co-sponsored with mr. schrader of oregon that will deal with what happens with contracts of -- that are issued from -- on defense activities where the federal government has provided indemocratnyification. we've been dealing with an issue that involves the oregon national guard where we really can't understand exactly what

elements were related to this, we can't get the full information. when the government agrees to shoulder financial responsible for a contractor's risk may be necessary but ambiguities in the current law do not have, i think, the best interests of our troops or taxpayers in mind in terms of making sure that this is very limited in nature. this amendment would require the secretary of defense to notify congress within 90 days whenever the department enters into or modifies -- mr. smith: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: would require the secretary to notify the department of defense when they modify such an agreement. the more limited these provisions can be, theless likely that we're going to have contractors who don't really have the full financial

incentive to make sure that they are acting in the best interests of our troops. i've seen examples that really give me pause, include -- the inclusion of this amendment will make that less likely and i appreciate it. thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington reserves his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california continues to reserve the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: we don't have any more speakers on our side. i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. mr. mckeon: we have no more speakers, mr. chairman. with that i would encourage our members to support this en bloc amendment, it will make the bill stronger and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the question is on the amendments en bloc as modified offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the en bloc amendments as modified are agreed to.

it's now in order to consider amendment number 24 printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 24 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. sarbanes of maryland. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 27 , the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. sash sash thank you, i thank the chair -- mr. sarbanes: thank you, i thank the chair and appreciate the opportunity to speak to this amendment. i want to thank the co-sponsors, representatives hanabusa, langevin, loebsack and reyes.

this amendment is designed to preserve current law. with respect to the service contracts and outsourcing activity of the department of defense. current law now has in place a requirement that before the department of defense can do more outsourcing, can do more privatization of service contracts they have to do an inventory of the contracting activity that's already in place and this makes perfect sense. this is really a good government proposition, if you think about it. it's important enough that it was included in the 2010 defense authorization act, so it is part of current law. unfortunately the proposed bill, the new defense authorization act, would remove this

requirement and if you remove that requirement you're really undermining the public's stake in making sure that government is functioning in an efficient manner. now, this, the impetus for having this kind of requirement in place and the amendment that we're putting forward here today would maintain the requirement that's currently in law, the impetus came from a lot of research that showed that in many instances the cost to the government and therefore to the taxpayer of outsourcing these various services of the federal government, particularly within the department of defense that this is directed at, the cost did not justify the activity and in many instances you didn't get better performance when you had this outsourcing. in fact, you got worse performance.

so when those studies were done and that research was done, that was move to make sure that the department of defense would conduct and inventory and the current law says that no further contracting can occur until the secretary is certified to congress that a contract or inventory has been developed, reviewed and integrated into the budget process. thatic -- makes a lot of sense -- that makes a lot of sense. our amendment would restore this provision and therefore keep current law in place with respect to this contracting activity and inventory. with that i will reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i thank the gentleman for his amendment but, mr. chairman, most of all i think the chairman of the committee and the ranking

member of the committee for doing what many people often think is impossible in this house and that is bringing forth a bipartisan bill, 60-1, 60-1 in the committee this bill passed with this provision in it. mr. forbes: and one of the keys with bipartisanship is that the american people realize it's important when we come to national defense that we have both republicans and democrats supporting in the same direction and the key to that oftentimes is the word balance which is not always a sexy issue but is so important. and, mr. chairman, i will tell you, when it comes to work force, there's some people who don't like the word balance. they either want every single employee to be a government employee and hired by the government, some on this side, some on this side, but then, mr. chairman, there are other people who want everybody to be in the private sector and i think the beauty of this piece of legislation is it struck the right balance for the national defense of this country because it struck a balance and it said,

what we realize is from every general, every admiral, everyone who testifies, we can no longer do it with just all government employees, we can't do it with all military employees, we can't do it with all contract employees, but every single one of them would tell you, we need that mix. and the wonderful thing about this piece of legislation, that this amendment tries to take away is that it creates a comprehensive approach to work force management and a total force management which is what we need to do the most important thing this legislation does which is to defend and protect the people of the united states of america. so, mr. chairman, i hope we will reject this amendment, that we will keep the bipartisan approach that came out of this committee's work, that we will keep the balance, we will not remove this tool from the arsenal that the department of defense needs and we'll reject the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves.

the gentleman from maryland. mr. sarbanes: can i ask how much time is remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman from maryland has two minutes, the gentleman from virginia has three. mr. sarbanes: thank you. well, i couldn't agree with what my colleague said more. we do want to have a balanced approach, nobody's arguing, certainly i'm not arguing that we should eliminate outsourcing or the privatization of certain services where that makes sense. in fact, what the amendment that we're proposing here would do is keep in law a process whereby the department of defense looks at its contracting activity through a commonsense lens and determines whether continued outsourcing in some instances makes sense, whether additional outsourcing makes sense. right now there does not exist a

comprehensive inventory of these contracting activities. so how are you going to make a commonsense judgment about where to allocate your resources going forward if you don't have that at your disposal? that's why the requirement was put in place. i think it's very bipartisan in that sense because it's saying, let's get as much knowledge as we can so the government can run efficiently and make these decisions in an efficient way which is very much in keeping with what the public wants to see these days. so this is about good government, it's about having good information at your fingertips. we think that the requirement to do this kind of inventory ought to stay in place. the underlying bill right now would remove that commonsense requirement and this amendment would put it back and that's why we're putting the amendment forward today. with that i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i thank the gentleman and i don't think the gentleman is on the armed services committee so oftentimes he might not have heard so many times the people who meet with us and tell us the importance they need for this overall comprehensive approach. and i just point out to the gentleman as he mentioned the need for an inventory, it's in the bill. the second thing i would tell you is the inventory alone doesn't do anything unless we go the next step which is in this bill which is to say it that -- say that we're going to develop a policy from the inventory. we can have all the inventory, all the statistics in the world, but what's wonderful about this bill and what this bill does is it takes all of that information and it creates a total force management approach which is exactly what we need for the national defense of this country. mr. chairman, for the life of me i don't know why we'd want to -- want to try to skew that one way or the other and take away opportunities for the department of defense to get the right balance between military, civilian and contractor personnel.

the bill that came out of the committee, again, 60-1, overwhelmingly supported by the people who have been in all the hearings, heard all the testimony, is a bipartisan approach, strikes the right balance, this amendment would skew that balance. i hope we'll reject the amendment and, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland has 15 seconds. mr. sarbanes: in closing let me say in support of this amendment that i'm not on the house armed services committee but what i understand is the report that was approved last week by the committee criticized the department of defense for failing to inventory service contracts which is what we're trying to accomplish here. that's why we're supporting this amendment. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: mr. chairman, again, i yield myself such time as i might utilize and, mr. chairman, i would just say to the gentleman, he is right, that's why we have the inventory included in here, that's why we require the policy. all that's included in here. it's just that the approach that

the armed services committee has done is a much more balanced approach, it's one that gives the department of defense the tools they need and with that i yield back the balance of my time. and hope weep defeat this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. and the amendment is not adopted. mr. sarbanes: i ask for a recorded vote on that. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 25 printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? mr. murphy: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 25 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. murphy of connecticut. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 276, the gentleman from connecticut, mr. murphy, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you very much, mr. chairman. the amendment before the house now is a relatively simple one. we have over the last 10 years lost 42,000 factories in this country. we have lost five million jobs in manufacturing. and we've got a long discuss here in this congress over the past three years as to what we can do to stimulate that engine of middle class job growth and security. this amendment seeks to increase our defense industrial capacity without spending any additional money. what the amendment before us simply allows is for the federal government to be able to consider at their leisure the amount of jobs being created here in the united states by a

particular bid for u.s. defense work. frankly most of my constituents think this already happens. most of my constituents think that there is an ability for the federal government today to factor in when awarding a particular bid which bid is going to create more jobs here in the united states versus overseas. this amendment is purely permissive. if it was up to me i would make it mandatory. but this amendment which in bill form came out of the government oversight committee last congress unanimously allows an individual contractor in their bid submission to state how many american jobs they're going to create and then simply allows the contracting agency to factor that into their bid award and then requires a report back to congress as to how often that information, that job impact statement was used. this seems like commonsense to me. the reason to make sure that our taxpayer dollars are spent

through the defense department on u.s. jobs is certainly economic in nature. at 9% unemployment, we should be better stewards of u.s. taxpayer dollars. i'm making sure that to the extent possible they are spent on u.s. jobs. but it is also very important strategic defense policy for this nation. as our supply chain for d.o.d. gets internationalized by a daily and weekly basis, we're putting this country at jeopardy. in my own district i have one of the last, in fact the last american company that makes copper nickel tubing for the sub fleet. because there is one foreign manufacturing that is on the verge of putting them out of -- manufacturer that is on the verge of putting them out of business, we're about to lose our own domestic capability for the component of that sub fleet. it makes sense to give them some capacity to at least make the case to the u.s. contracting agencies that this work should stay here.

i think this is an important amendment for job creation but just as important for strategic purposes. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i do oppose the gentleman's amendment on the grounds that it's bad policy. having spent several years working with the acquisition system, that is relatively complicated throughout the department of defense to add one more layer of considerations to that is in my view wrongheaded. mr. conaway: while the information allows for punitive teeth in the amendment that should a contractor either in good faith or bad faith overstate the number of jobs created or retained, then that contractor would be debarred from being table participate in

the acquisitions process. at the end of the day, at the gipping of the day, whatever part of the day you want to talk about, acquisition in the department of defense should be about buying the gear, equipment and goods and services our war fighters need at the time they need it at a price that is appropriate to the taxpayer to pay. and while jobs get created under that circumstance, that should not be a consideration as to what the war fighter needs, how it's acquired. my colleague said this is simply a suggestion. that's how you get to mandatory he already said if it were up to him, it would be mandatory. we put this in as a discussion -- suggestion, the next step will be for him to ask that it be made mandatory and then we drive higher costs into the system because the criteria isn't is this the good or service we need, and which of these use the most number of people to do that, that's

counter to getting the best deal. i want the contractors to use the appropriate number of people to build a piece of equipment that we need at a cost that the american taxpayer can afford. at a time when we're going to squeeze the department of defense, to force higher costs through this policy, in my view is wrongheaded. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut has two minutes remaining. >> first, the amendment does not require the contractor to be debarred, it simply allows the possibility of debarment if they have significantly undersold or oversold, frankly, the amount of jobs that are going to be created. mr. murphy: it's an ability that would be allowed under current law. sec, i think my constituents are reflective of most constituents here, i think they expect when they send taxpayer dollars to washington there will be a premps for u.s. jobs.

most people i talk to are surprised it's not a factor. third, we have to look at the holistic cost of outsourcing to the federal government. it may be so that a particular part far jet engine costs 10% cheaper to buy frit a chinese shop than an american shop but when the american shop goes out of business, it costs the american government more money, not less, because we have to pay unemployment compensation an lose all the tax revenue. we likely have to pay other social safety net costs. we have to start being smart about how we use taxpayer dollars and recognize when we buy something oversea the contract price may be 10%less but the overall cost to the u.s. government is much more. with that, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. conway: thank you, mr. chairman. i would simply respond that again the value for the taxpayer at the end of the day is what we immediate to do. we have to cut costs across the

government and that means supreme to do something different than they've done in the past. to say that american manufacturing jobs should have absolute preference over getting the best deal for the taxpayer doesn't make sense. we have a complicated acquisition process in place right now. it reminds me of headlines the last couple of days of the number of folks who got money from these stimulus plan whose sole purpose was to create jobs, unlike acquisitions for the military, the department of defense, whose sole purpose is to provide the goods and services and equipment needed for our war fighters at a point in time they need it at a cost that makes sense for a taxpayer. the job creation for the stimulus plan was flawed in the extreme, i don't believe that adding that emphasis to defense acquisition will make for a better acquisition process or will make for a better piece of equipment that we get and the analogy that the company that goes out of business costs all these other kinds of things, that's basically hyperbole.

i don't believe my colleague has any facts to associate that with. at the enof the day, it's the private sector that drives the economy. you can't gre the economy by growing government jobs. the private sector does it best. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from connecticut has 45 seconds. mr. murphy: i think it's an important debate to have, to show who is really focusing on the best use of taxpayer dollars for the creation of u.s. jobs. i appreciate the opportunity to have this debate on the floor of the house, and with that i yield back. the chair: the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. murphy: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings an the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut will be postponed.

it is now in -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 26. it is now in order to consider amendment number 27. as printed in house report number 112-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 27 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. kohl of oklahoma. the chair: -- cole of oklahoma. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole and the gentleman opposed each will control five minutes. mr. cole: thank you, mr. chairman. last month a draft executive order was circulated that would

require companies to disclose all federal company contributions as a condition for submitting aed by on a federal contract. if implemented, this executive order would effectively politicize the federal procurement process. companies and their bids would run the risk of being judged on the basis of politics as opposed to their professional capabilities. the danger of that is obvious. it's never a good idea to mix politics and contracting. my amendment would prevent the president from implementing his proposed disclosure requirements and it's worth noting for the record, congress actually considered something similar in the 111th congress, the so-called disclose act and chose not to pass that particular legislation. this is in effect a back door effort to implement something that congress has priestly decided not to legislate on. -- has previously decided not

to legislate on. it -- it's worth noting that current laws would remain in effect. however we do prevent the administration from taking that extra step and killing the first amendment rights of companies and corporate executives. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman -- for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> i claim the time in on sig. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the amendment is nothing more than a legislative attempt for a draft execive order that would provide for increased disclosure of political cricks of government contractors. mr. cummings: the draft executive order being drafted by the obama administration

would require them to disclose more information than they currently provide. particularly those contributions given to third-party entities. some said they oppose this effort because additional information could be used nefariously to create a quote fix sonian-type enemies list, end of quote. -- a nixonian-type enemies list, end of quote. i have a fundamental problem with this. under this logic, all campaign disclosures would be bad, not crust new ones. government contractors already disclose contributions and expenditures by their p.a.c.'s and those who contribute to them. contributions by the officers and directors of government contractors are also required to be disclosed. should we eliminate those provisions too? of course not. a sec argument made by the opponents is that contracting

officers might review political conversations -- contributions in order to reward allies or punish foes. by awarding or without -- withholding government contracts. again, this could happen now. under current disclosure rules. but federal procurement law prohibits this. the draft executive order also reiterates that, and i quote, every stage of the contracting process must be free from the undue influence of factors extraneous to the underlying merits of the contracting decision making such as political activity or political favoritism, end of quote. a third argument is that the draft executive order violates the first amendment. that's also grossly misplaced. even in the recent decision of sit zepps united, eight of the nine supreme court justices agreed to campaign disclosure rules are consistent with the first amendment because they do

not prohibit contributions and do not prevent anyone from speaking. for all these reasons, a broad coalition of dozens of open government organizations strongly supports the administrations draft executive order, more than 30 groups including nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations like democracy 21, the project on government oversight, public citizen and many others have concluded that the draft executive order would enhance transparency and decrease corruption. these are not the only groups that support the draft executive order. two weeks ago a coalition of institutional investors and investor coalitions collectively managing $130 billion in assets also wrote to express their support. in their letter, they explained that corporate political activity presents significant risk to shareholder value and transparency allows investors

to put together a more complete picture of the various risks of our investments. as "the los angeles times" said in a recent editorial, disclosure is a solution, not the problem. i firmly believe that to be the case and i urge members to defeat the amendment and with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of miz time. the gentleman from oklahoma. >> i couldn't disagree more strongly with the gentleman from maryland. the information that this executive order would extract from companies is not necessary to evaluate any bid they've made. mr. cole: it's a political quest not a quest for better information. it raises legitimately political fear of retaliation. we've seen time and time and time again in history where politics have been linked to contracts. this is yet another effort to do it. i also dispute my friend about

whether or not this -- it's appropriate for the executive branch to consider this in the first place. it's not the yb of the executive branch to legislate. that's our job in this body. if we want to add additional requirements, we can do so. we chose requirements very much like this last year in a congress controlled at both ends of the building by my friends on the other side of the aisle and did not pass it. i think this raises even more concerning fears. all i'm asking is that we leave the law as it is, the disclosure requirements as they are an frankly keep the executive branch from engaging in fishing expeditions and potentially in punitive political activity against companies and individual whors simply exercising their first amendment rights. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland has one minute. mr. cummings: how much time do

i have? the chair: one minute. mr. cummings: thank you very much. i don't know what we're afraid of? what are we -- what we're afraid of. what are we afraid of? this is about the american people knowing what these people are spending. that's what it's about. and so it's not about trying to make decisions on contracting, i just told you, i just said, mr. chairman, that the law is very clear, that they cannot do that. it's about the american people knowing what's going on. i think we have to guard our democracy and one of the best ways to guard it is through disclosure. so if folks aren't doing anything, there's nothing to be afraid of. so why do we want to hide? we need a transparent democracy, that's what this is all about, transparency. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: mr. chairman, if the

information isn't necessary for the bid or the evaluation of the bid then it's not necessary for the executive branch to have it and for us to run the risk that it might be misused. so with that i would urge the adoption of the amendment and i'd yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. those in favor of the amendment say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. mr. cummings: i ask for a roll call vote on that. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma will be postponed. mr. cummings: thank you very much. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 28 printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. garamendi: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 28 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. gar mendy of california. the chair: -- mr. garamendi of california. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. this is a very simple amendment. this is about local jobs for local companies. many of us have in our districts military facilities of large and small size. all too often those facilities and the work done on those facilities performed by contractors, often national contractors, and totally ignoring and providing no or little opportunity for local subcontractors. this amendment would simply require that for prime contractors on military installations across this nation they would be required to allow 40% of their contract by dollar value to be available for local subcontractors.

not a bad idea, it seems to me. i know that in my area, traffic i.r.s. air force base, -- travis air force base, there are constant complaints from local contractors that the big boys come in, hog all the work and leave nothing behind except a few moreburgers bought at mcdonald's. not -- more burgers bought at mcdonald's. not good enough. so this deals with that issue by providing local contractors, often republican contractors, the opportunity to have work in their communities. local is defined within 60 miles of the base. i'd ask for an aye vote and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i claim the time in opposition, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm going to have to oppose the gentleman from california's amendment. mr. conaway: while it is straight forward, it's bad policy, quite frankly. at first blush, where's the 60 miles? it just says military installation. if you go to fort hood, there are a lot of places around that

are way further than 06 miles away from the west edge on the east side of the state. so the amendment doesn't even say from the flag poll to what central location, where do you measure the 60 miles? it's a straight forward problem there. it also doesn't provide for historicalized businesses. so you've got historical underutilized businesses that are outside of the 60 miles, they would be excluded under this provision from competing for that 40% because they are in an arbitrary 61 miles, 60 1/2, whatever the criteria, it is unstated in this amendment. so you can't do that. i understand folks don't like to compete. this morning at baseball practice for the republicans, we had a bunch of new guys out of the 1987 and the coach said, folks, all nine positions are up for competition. i'm number two in the deck chart, i'm not real happy about that but it spurred me to compete better for that position.

competition works, it works for the big guys, it works for the little guys and to arbitrarily set a 60-mile perimeter around a military base and say everything has to be provided, 40% of it has to be provided for folks inside that is wrong headed and i oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: i'm shocked. absolutely shocked that my republican friend didn't stand firm for small businesses in their communities. would you like 61, 60,000 miles? whatever it is, we want the small contractors to have a shot at it, be happy to amend to whatever mileage you would like. i'd like now to yield a minute to the ranking member of the committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. this may not be the best way to get at this problem, but this is a problem. there's nothing wrong with competition, but what's happening right now with a lot of d.o.d. contracts is not competition. the d.o.d. has gone in a very arbitrary way, picked large

contractors from a long ways away and not even allowed in many instances local contractors to compete for that work. this is a very real problem, this is a bipartisan problem. mr. smith: we had a republican member testify before the armed services committee about his concern for this. they're drive work away from local contractors and away from local workers, not allowing them to compete for that work with by showing a bias in favor of a large, one-size-fits-all contractor. not good for the department of defense. and also with all of our bases, the local community is a critical support structure for that base. once you take that out, once you take local workers, local contractors out of the equation, it makes it that much more difficult to get the local community, to give the base the support that it deserves. this is not competition as it's currently constructed. i applaud the gentleman for offering his amendment. i urge support and i urge that this committee look more closely at this issue. the chair: the gentleman from

california reserves the balance of his time? mr. garamendi: i do. the chair: the gentleman from california. >> may i inquire to the time remaining on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from texas has 2 1/2 minutes and the gentleman from california 2 1/3. the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i thank the gentleman from texas and i rise in opposition to this amendment. we on this side of the aisle do stand with small business. but this is not -- this is an arbitrary amendment, sets up arbitrary mileage, dollar amounts, that is not going to get at the heart of the problem. i agree with the ranking member that the big boys one-size-fits-all doesn't always work but we have to figure out a process to put in place that is going to stream line the process for small business, not set up as i said arbitrary mileage and dollar amounts that are going to i believe hurt small business. there will be small businesses that are outside that 60-mile area that can't come in and compete and when you reduce competition you drive up costs. we want to see competition.

this amendment -- there's no waiver in it to provisions or any consideration for special needs for the d.o.d. including urgency of mission or direct support to the war fighter. it adds additional steps in contracting process, it requires the d.o.d. to devote additional time and resources to monitoring contractors. shuftshuft once again driving up costs -- mr. shuster: once again, driving up cost. contractors must have more time to expand resources on reporting compliance, driving costs, further up on these costs. this is not going to again help small businesses. i believe it's going to hurt them. the requirements work against the established business practices and programs and will not garner additional benefits to small business. again, driving up costs, stopping small businesses that are 61 or 62 miles outside that have circle, drives away competition and hurts those folks that could compete, that are small businesses. but i agree with the ranking member and in principle with the

gentleman from california. we have got to put in processes that support small businesses and i intend to work with the committee, with other members of the committee, to try to figure out how we put those in place in a reasonable and sound way that drives cost down and allows our small businesses to participate in the process. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: how much time? the chair: 2 1/4 minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you. i'm delighted to hear that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree there's a problem. and i would suggest to them that we put this amendment into the bill so that we have the opportunity in the weeks ahead as this bill matures in the two houses and in the conference committee that we deal with it. there's nothing special about 60 or 61 miles, but there's certainly something special about providing local contractors with the opportunity. as i understand, fort hood is very, very big facility.

perhaps you'd like 63 1/4 mile from the outside edge of the perimeter of the facility. whatever. the problem remains. i would really urge my colleagues to allow this amendment to go forward so that there is a basis for negotiations in this legislation. otherwise we're going to wait a year before we'll be able to come back with to deal with this and in that period of time thousands upon thousands of small businesses will be excluded. there is a problem, we know there's a problem, move this amendment along and then spend the next month, two months, until this bill matures and then we can work out the appropriate language but let's all recognize there's a problem and we need to get to so let's move the bill. with that i reserve whatever moments i may have. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from of texas has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. speaker. if i thought there was a mileage issue that made sense, then the

proponent's amendment might make sense, but i don't believe that's the case, as my colleague from pennsylvania said, if we need to streamline the processes within the department of defense acquisition to allow small businesses to compete regardless of where they are for this -- for some of this work, let's do. that but quite frankly there is no -- and my colleague made the point by saying, well, it could be 60, 70, 60,000, that would be a bit of a stretch, but miles away, you can't use a miles fence so i'm going to oppose the amendment because that's not the way. all of us are for small businesses. there's not anybody who is going to say they're not for small businesses. we want small business to be able to compete if there aristic ibbling -- systemic issues and barriers for them to compete, let's fix that as opposed to some sort of an artificial tone of protection around a particular set. the other piece i'd like to make, the other point, is what if the subcontracting work that needs to be done is greater than -- would eat into the 40% is not

available within the 60 miles? so we just that have that work not be done because we couldn't find a contractor. the other thing this would promote is the artificial circumstances where they will set up a shot within the 60 miles with the post office box or whatever in order to comply with this artificial restraint of competition. so if we need to fix the way public fence goes at it, fine, this is not the way to get at it and i would urge opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california voiced for one minute. mr. garamendi: thank you. i thank the gentleman from texas -- i think the gentleman from texas missed the point. it's not about mileage, about giving local contractors the opportunity. the offer i made to my colleagues on the left, right, whatever, my republican colleagues, is, put this amendment forward so that we have with the opportunity in this legislation to work our way through this. we all understand there's a problem, we all want our local contractors, whatever that means , to have an opportunity at these jobs.

there is a problem, the large national contracters are taking it all, they're coming into our communities and walking away with all of it. that's a problem for all of us that represent any military facility in this nation. so let's move forward with this, put this amendment in and then we'll work it out. maybe mileage isn't the best way. local, maybe that's not -- maybe that needs to be defined. 40%, 39%, we can pick a number or maybe no number at all. but we do know there's a problem and we ought to be addressing it in this legislation this year. i would ask for your support. if you care about small businesses, then don't wait another year to solve a problem. ask for an aye vote. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor of the amendment say aye. those opposed say no. the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. garamendi: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed.

>> i move the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion to rise. those in favor of rising say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it and the committee does now rise. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the the chair: mr. speaker, the committee on the whole house on