mr. mckeon: i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wittman: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. as we debate detainee transfer policies today and try to determine the appropriate path forward, a picture stands out in my mind from a recent trip to afghanistan. the face of a young marine who had been killed by insurgents in kandahar and whose photo was recently displayed on the hero wall for his unit. i'm reminded that the decisions we make here today affect the troops serving in afghanistan and their families. particularly when we talk about detainee transfers. we know the re-engagement rate for detainees is 25% but percent annals aren't informative in and of themselves, it helps to understand the facts supporting them. of.

he was captured in 2001 and sent to gitmo and released in 2007. he directs the taliban's combat operations throughout the country. mr. mckeon: yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. wittman: he has been targeting u.s. forces and directly linked to the deaths of 11 marines. 9 story highlights why it is time to strengthen the review process, not weaken it and congress needs to understand how transfers are negotiated and determining when they are appropriate. this amendment takes away the strength to make sure we are doing the right thing. time to move forward, not backward and join me in opposing this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from california.

mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, at this time, i'm happy to yield my friend, the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for the balance of the time which is three minutes. mr. forbes: we stood on this floor when the minority was in the majority and the language they want to change now is the language they approved now. the chairman of the armed services committee at that time said this, we are in a position to accept this motion. i wish to point out there is no difference between the democrats and republicans when it comes to fighting terrorism. i agree with the motion. what a difference the year makes because there is not such a difference, but a huge gap tweb the republicans and democrats and i never heard so many red herrings, all of these people tried here, very few of them were detained under the

authorization to use military force. most of them were arrested and detained based upon law enforcement. a huge difference. can we hold them here? sure. can we get a conviction? possibly. why would we want to bring them here to trial? there is no investigator who is going to tell you it's easier to convict of one of these detainees trying them in an article 3 court than it is to do it in a military tribunal. who wants it? the aclu? why do they want it? they don't want convictions. they want them released and they know the moment they hit u.s. soil, they will have constitutional rights that they don't have. they know it will be harder to get convictions. one of the trials that took place, the defendant was

acquitted of over 200 different counts. when, mr. chairman, is going to stand up for the rights of the victim of terror here who asks this question, when are we going the to get prosecutions? my good friend from new jersey said we want prosecutors make the decisions and let them go forward. what he didn't point out to you was that was happening. the prosecutors, the special prosecutor working under the current law at that time worked for over 18 months, 56 motions, that prosecutor would have told you he would have had guilty pleas in six months, the entire investigation started from zero and have been 2 1/2 years and haven't prds. mr. chairman, the question for us today is very simple. we have military tribunals. no one is questioning the

constitutionality of those try bunals, but when are we going to prosecute them? and let's keep the terrorists out of the united states and vote against this amendment. and with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: may i inquire how much time is left? the chair: the gentleman has 90 seconds remaining. mr. smith: i yield myself the balance of the time. the gentleman from virginia is right, it would be easier to try them under military commissions. it would be easier to hold them forever. why bother with the trials because over 200 years of country in this country, we have a justice system. military generals will tell you that guantanamo bay has been a major problem for them in the field and major recruiting tool.

having a justice system we depend on matters. but it's not just a matter of what'sesiest to hold them. we wouldn't have courts or military try you buneals. but it does matter. he was convicted and sentenced to life in our article 3 courts. the system worked in that case. we have over 200 years of history with our article 3 courts and they have worked. and by the way, the constitution, as ruled by the court, applies in guantanamo bay. habeas corpus attached. they don't get constitutional rights. the scare campaign from last year worked. people are afraid of the notion of bringing guantanamo bay to this country and shouldn't be. over 300 of them, the architect of the first attack on the world trade center is held here in the

united states of america, safely and without incident. we are tossing aside 200 years of constitutional and judicial history for no good reason. that is not a good idea. let's give the president the option he needs to bring the terrorists to justice. it works. we need to stop implying that somehow our constitution doesn't work to protect us. it absolutely does and it has for over 200 years and i urge support. the chair: jarks. the -- the gentleman's time has expired. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, amendment offered by the gentleman from washington will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 43 printed in

house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule. the clerk: amendment number 43 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. buchanan of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman from florida, mr. buchanan and a member opposed will control five minutes. mr. buchanan: my amendment requires foreign terrorists to be tried in military tribunals. you have the ability to choose between a civilian court and military tribunal. it is easier to convict in a military tribunal and protect classified information. foreign terrorists can be imprisoned indefinitely. they are not allowed the same constitutional opportunities as

u.s. citizens and military true bineals have been used since george washington. i commend the obama administration for changing its mind in announcing it will send muhammad to military tribunals. this amendment makes it clear a consistent policy moving forward in terms of prosecuting foreign terrorists -- 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 washington rise? mr. smith: claim time in opposition. i yield myself such time as i might consume. this is simply expanding a bad idea and i will point out while it is true it was contained in last year's authorizing act. last year's law is not something we wanted to see happen. there was a lot of things in the

national defense authorizing act which we did support, so we were forced to accept it. this is simply expanding that bad idea and denying people access to article 3 courts. there is a little known fact about the constitution. it just doesn't apply to u.s. citizens. it applies to persons in the united states. so once somebody from wherever they are is in the united states, the constitution applies to them. and simply taking them out of the justice system and putting them in what would have to be the military because the ones who on military commissions. but beyond all that, it's just a bad idea for the same reasons that i stated earlier. our united states constitution works and convicts criminal after criminal after criminal and puts them away for a long period of time. let's not take it off the table.

even the majority party, as strongly as they feel, did not include this particular provision that was in the bill. i think there was a good reason for that. i think we should oppose this amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. buchanan: i reserve. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i oppose this amendment for the reasons stated, but beyond that, this is particularly badly done. anyone who is engaged in terrorist attacks in the united states is subject to a military commission. anyone arrested in the united states for anything is subject to the constitution of the united states. the constitution guarantees an article 3 trial, even if someone is accused of terrorism, if this

amendment is adopted, would you have to have a trial in an article court to determine he was guilty of a terrorist attack before you could transfer him to the jurisdiction of the military tribunal because until a court convicts him of the act of terrorism, he is another criminal defendant and entitled to all the protections of the constitution. either the amendment is read, as it seems to say, that you first have to have an article trial to determine whether he engaged in conduct constituting a terrorist attack and then hand him over or it doesn't say that, in which case it is unconstitutional. this amendment is either unconstitutional or absurd. if it isn't unconstitutional -- the constution nationality can be read to say you have an article 3 court to convict him

of trim so instead of sentencing him send him to the military tribunal. the amendment makes no sense. i urge its defeat. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. smith: how much time do we have left? chirment two minutes remaining. -- the chair: two minutes present range. if you have one more speaker. mr. buchanan: we reserve. mr. smith: i yield myself the remainder of our time. i want to restate the points that were made. mr. nadler made the arguments that need to be made. this does go outside the constitution. it is unnecessary and it further ties the hands of the 79 and department of justice to adequately deal with the very real threat that we face from

terrorism and would tie that process up even worse and i wish we would defeat this amendment and give the president and the department of justice the authority it needs to try people and convict them and take them off the battlefield. i urge defeat of this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. buchanan: i remind that the administration made the change in new york in terms of muhammad and i just think it is the right amendment in terms of moving forward. and i urge support. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. buchanan: mr. smith: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 47 printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk, number 47. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 47 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mrs. maloney of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. maloney: this is about the need to continue to make informing available to the public, keep our uniformed military safe an ensure tax dollars are not wasted on aircraft with serious performance and maintenance issues.

it would simply narrow section 1081 of the act under consideration and would ensure the military cannot hide subpar maintenance of military aircraft or other preventable shortcomings from disclosure under the guise of keeping important tactical information from our enemies. it ensures an adequate balance between the defense department's appropriate need to protect tactical information while ensuring the public can learn, for example, when the military is not putting our pilots in the best maintained aircraft in the world. just ask the parents of geoffrey smith with whom i've spoken, one of 45 pilots who died in noncombat accidents in hairier jets. the -- in harri embing r jets. "the los angeles times" reporter kevin zapp pored over

records obtained under the freedom of information act to show that investigators believe a small shard of plastic clogged the fuel line of his jet as iter to down the runway, leaving it to crash at the end of the ruppway. they showed other problems with the harrier jet, eventually winning a pulitzer prize for national reporting. such reporting does nothing to reveal tactical or strategic advantages to our adversaries but it could save the lives of our pilots. it goes a long way to ensure our air men an women are given the very best equipment to protect our nation. this amendment simply allows effective public oversight. and yet h.r. 1540 would allow the military to exempt or hide exactly this kind of information. the exemption to the freedom of

information act in section 1081 is extremely broad and would block access to information of public interest, unnecessarily. as in the tragic death of geoffrey smith, some of this information is of important public interest, the public also has a vital interest in understanding how well the aircraft, their taxpayer dollars buy are performing. the uniform military also benefits from public scrutiny of complicated multibillion dollar weapons systems in which they trust their lives. this amendment is supported by many good government groups an my amendment makes a simple but critically important clarification that the information from the military flight operations quality assurance systems that exempted is information that would reveal flight patterns, tactical techniques or tactical procedures. my amendment would exempt the

truly sensitive information that allows reconstruction of flights that cowl reveal detailed flight tactics and the parameters of aircraft flight envelopes to enemies that could adapt accordingly. it appropriately narrows the exemption to apply particular criteria to strike the right balance between safeguarding military flights and tactics and the public's right to know if the equipment is faulty as was the case of the ha rmbing rier jets. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> once again the gentlelady -- mr. forbes: once again, the yealt rises good points. we are concerned about transparency and as the chairman of the subcommittee on readiness, i can tell you i live every day examining and being concerned we have our

fleet in a ready state to defend this country. but mr. chairman, i'm also concerned about this, we fight often times to keep our adversaries from gaining all the information they try to gain about our military. we fight to protect our computers and sometimes we don't succeed but we also at times, we just have to step back and say, we just give away way too much information. and the gentlelady is right, there is a possibility, however remote it might be, that we could find something in this data that may save a life that is a possibility. but the far more likely scenario is that we will give away crucial information that could jeopardize our pilots, jeopardize our fleet and also jeopardize our men and women that they fly to protect. we could jeopardize, disclose fleet readiness rates, critical parts failure rates and other logistics an sustainment data we shouldn't be giving out.

so mr. chairman, while i whole heartedly agree we this gentlelady's concern about transparency and readyness, i also realize that to -- readiness, i also realize that to run the greatest military in the world, for some pieces of information, some data point, we don't want to make available to those ho may use them against us. i think this is one of those. i hope we will defeat this amendment and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. maloney: i appreciate the gentleman's sensitivity. i certainly share his concern in protecting data points that would in any are -- in any way reveal information abour aircraft and the way that people could combat our aircraft. but the gentleman represents, i know, many military families and i'm sure you know as i do many military people who have died in aircraft that had faulty situations, for example,

the harrier aircraft that had 45 crashes because of faulty equipment that if the public and others had known about, the military, i believe, would have been brought to stop the use of this and to save their lives. so i feel that we have the same goal. i certainly want to protect information that is very critical to our flight patterns and our military but for information that is not such as that, but faulty equipment, that should be made available and we feel that we've got that balance in this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. >> could i inquire how much time is left? the chair: the gentleman has

three minutes. mr. forbes: i can tell you overwhelmingly, when you talk to families, one of the things that came out recently as we had the situation with the operation that killed bin laden, over and over and over again, those families were telling me the same thing, too many people are given too much information and saying too much and they're not protecting the people in our family who are fighting to defend this country and ill agree with the gentlelady that we need to be on top of this readiness issue but it's not just our aircraft, it's our ships an the vessels we have there and i can assure uh her that our subcommittees on the armed services committees are ding just that to make sure the vessels are safe to make sure the information is available when it's needed, but at the same time, mr. chairman, to make sure that we're not giving out fleet readiness rates to people who could use them against us. critical parts failures to

people who could use them against us and other sensitive logistics and sustainment data which her amendment does not protect. with that, mr. chairman, once again, i hope we will defeat this amendment, protect the sensitive information and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. maloney: can i inquire how much time is left? the chair: the gentlelady has 30 seconds. mrs. maloney: i support this amendment. instead of blocking access to all information a more reasonable approach is to allow the d.o.d. to perform these tests to maintain effective and safe aircraft and tactical information without unnecessarily withholding information about the safety, in this case of aircraft, that the public and the pilots and others have a right to know. so i support this amendment and i urge my colleagues to likewise support it. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. forbes: i renew my

opposition to the amendment, i hope we will defeat it, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. maloney: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment by the gentlewoman from new york will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 48 printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: amendment number 48 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. mack of florida. the chair: the gentleman from florida, mr. mack, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. mack: the purpose of my amendment is the clarification

of the sunken military craft act. the fundamental objective of the act was to protect sunken united states military vessels, aircraft and spacecraft. this technical correction will make clear that the term sunken military craft will only include vessels, warships, naval auxiliaries or other vessels on military, noncommercial service at the time they were sunk. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. chip the gentleman reserves. -- the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. who seeks time? >> i seek time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman and thank my friend for offering the amendment. mr. andrews: we are inclined to oppose the amendment on the following grounds. in 2005, the congress enacted the sunken military craft act an the principal purpose of

that law was to preserve u.s. sovereignty and department of defense sovereignty over sunken vessels and abandoned aircraft in hawaii for strategic and economic purposes, also to protect the remains and property of those who may have perished on those sunken vessels. it's my understanding that this amendment draws a distinction between such vessels that were in noncommercial service versus commercial service. and although i think i understand the justification for that distinction, here our concern with the consequence of that. it is our understanding there is pending litigation between the nation of spain and a private venture over the disposition of rights to a sunken vessel that at least at one time, at the time it was sunk, may have had some claim

of the united states. i don't know if that's the case. our concern is that by taking statutory action here, we may be in some way interfering with the outcome of that litigation or the process of that litigation and i would yield to my friend the author of the amendment to ask if that's his intention. mr. mack: thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mack: the amendment is clearly to clarify that we're actually talking about military craft as it's a military craft. in other words, if it's involved in commercial activity, it wouldn't be regarded as military craft. so it's really to make the distinction, which is why the act was put in place in the first place, it's not for commercial craft. it may at one time have been but it is for actual military craft when they are sunk.

mr. an truse: i think the gentleman's distinction makes sense. we spoke to the navy about this and their objection is predicated on the concern that there could be impact on the litigation that's pending and perhaps claims of other sovereign nations, reluctantly we would be inclined to oppose the amendment but be willing to discuss with the gentleman ways our concerns could be addressed. for present purposes we are in opposition to the amendment for the reasons stated. i reserve the plans of our time. the chair: the quelt from florida. mr. mack: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the gentleman for expressing his reservations. i would tell the gentleman in this body that i think it's clear that the understanding of this act is to protect military

craft that is sunk. but when that military craft is no longer involved in the military but now is used for commercial activities, then it's no longer a military craft. so the purpose of this amendment is to clarify that distinction and with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. andrews: it's our intention to yield back at this time, i yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. mack: this is a good amendment, the intent is to clarify what is military versus commercial and with that, i yield back the balance of my time an request -- or not request, but hope that i can get the support of the members. thank you. . the chair: all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ayes have it. mr. andrews: we would ask for a roll call vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 49 frint printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 49 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. langevin of rhode island. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: i rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in support of my amendment to help secure our nation from cyber

attacks. it would coordinate federal information security policy by creating a national office to cyber space, update our federal emergency management practices and ensure protection from cyber attacks. this amendment passed the house of representatives last year without observation. in the intervening year, the threats that we face in cyber space have multiplied. the director of the c.i.a. told the congress that there could be a cyber attack. "los angeles times"" reported that a hacker added chemicals to the water. with a few mouse clicks he could have rendered the water undrinkable for millions of homes. mr. speaker, my amendment would secure our government-owned i.t.

networks against massive data breaches by implementing implementations, which i co-chaired last year committee work on government reform and several recent white house proposals. mr. speaker, my amendment focuses on coordination of efforts to secure our federal networks, develop smarter cyber policies and protect critical infrastructure like the power grid and establishes a national cyber space office in the executive office of the president. this amendment was included in the national defense authorization act of 2011 and renewed action on this critical issue. so much under way in the executive branch and in the other chamber, i believe it is critical for the house to once again take a stand on this issue and make the investments necessary.

i would note here that my estimates is based on previous estimates which will be lowered once it is rescored. this cost is dwarfed by the stremmedous cost of inaction. if a successful cyber attack could result in hundreds of billions of dollars in losses. last year alone, researchers recorded 66 breaches at large companies or federal agencies that left 16.2 million records exposed. allowed them to prey on companies and citizens and these threats don't come from criminals. there is prl 1.8 billion attacks on our servers every month and the cyber snepts have targeted

some of the most sensitive national sensitive data and allowing them to gain a beach head on our classified and unclassified network. a larger investment, which has been initiated at the direction of the white house would yield huge efficiencies for our i.t. systems in the long run while protecting information critical to our security. no matter how frack issues the debate becomes, we have put aside partisanship when it comes to protecting the american people. cyber attacks pose a clear and present danger to the national security of the united states. and this legislation takes significant steps towards stopping these threats. i urge your support of this amendment to keep our nation safe from cyber attacks. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his

time. who seeks recognition? >> i rise time to claim time opposition in the amendment. mr. thornberry: thorn mr. chair, i oppose the amendment because this is the wrong he bill and the wrong time to consider it. but i should say that there is no one in this house who has more respect from both sides of the aisle on cyber issues than the gentleman from rhode island. he and i, i know, started working together on cyber issues as far back as 2003. we continue to work together in leading the emerging threats subcommittee as well as both of us being members of the intelligence committee. but the gentleman from rhode island has been one of the country's leader, co-chairing the commission on cyber, which is an important contribution to the proposals and the urgency

with which this issue must be dealt. and i would say that he and i are in total agreement on the importance of this issue and the necessity of this count thri and this government and this congress taking action on cyber. he and i are largely on agreement on the things that should be done. but having said that, i must remind everyone that just a few days ago, the white house sent to congress a substantial list of proposals on what it believes should be done on cybersecurity. i think the thing that makes most sense is for us to take a little time and look at what the white house proposed and look at what the gentleman from rhode island has proposed and there are some other suggestions out there that need to be considered and need to be in the mix. it is certainly true that some sort of organizational reform

may be needed here. but if so, it extends far beyond the department of defense and that is the subject of this bill, which is one of the reasons i believe this is an inappropriate place to take up the wide-arranging proposals that the gentleman from rhode island has put us before us today. other than the fs mmp a language that needs to be updated, most of the language gentleman has proposed is outside the department of defense and therefore not appropriate to this bill. the gentleman's amendment does come at a cost and the offset of the amendment is to reduce the o and m funds by 1.5 billion and we are making the department of defense be the bill pair for the rest of the government to get its act together.

given the appropriate equities involved that that would be a mistake. i want to be clear that the gentleman from rhode island has been a, if not the leader in the house on putting forward important proposals to improve our cybersecurity. i think his proposals need to be considered, but in this bill, it is inappropriate and at this time, i also believe it would be premature. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. langevin: i want to thank the gentleman from texas for his kind comments and supportive comments of the work i have done on cybersecurity and likewise, i want to acknowledge his leadership and the cooperation that we have had on this issue and many others both on the armed services committee and house intelligence committee. i clearly respect the work gentleman has done, his passion and hard work on protecting the

nation on cyber and i look forward to work together. i would respectfully disagree that we should hold off and actually take steps to act on this critical issue now as i have worked as the gentleman has noted and studied this issue for quite some time. and this is a moving target, moving faster than what we have prepared for in terms of how we are defending ourselves. we are too vulnerable. our enemies are too aggressive and too far ahead and need to have more response. and this amendment would get us further down the road. i would urge my colleagues to support and i yield to the ranking member but i guess my time has expired and with that i would urge passage. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i would just say that there are provisions in this bill related to cyber security. it is not as if we are doing nothing. but as i noted in the comments i made in general debate, the portion of this bill, there is much work ahead and i have no doubt the gentleman from rhode island as well as the other members interested in cyber will be participating in that as i mentioned in the beginning, however, this is not the proper bill nor the proper time to take up this very comprehensive, 55-page amendment, thoughtful amendment that the gentleman has offered and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18,

further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 50 printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 50 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. amash of michigan. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. amash and member opposed will each control five minutes. mr. mckeon: i ask that the debate time be expanded by 10 minutes and such time shall be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from michigan and myself.

the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. amash: i reeled myself such time as i may consume. it deletes section 1034,. section 1034 contains the broadest authorization for use of military force congress has ever considered and in doing so, it delegates nearly all of congress' all war powers to the president and expands congress' use of force to include associated forces. under section 1034, associated forces don't need to be connected to 9/11. associated forces don't need to have fought against the united states and may include american citizens. there is no limit to the authorization. force may be used worldwide at the president's discretion. please support amendment 50.

i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who seeks recognition. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield myself such time as i may consume in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: section 1034 of the national defense authorization act would affirm the 2001 authorization for use of military force and the ability to go after terrorists who are part of or substantially supporting al qaeda, the taliban or associated forces. i want to be very clear. this section does not alter the way the war on terror is currently being fought. our members and staff have spent many weeks and months discussing the proposed text of section 1034 with ranking member smith, his staff, outside experts and legal scholars. in the end, we decided to use the same interpretation used by

the owe combalma administration so as not to -- obama administration so as not to confusion that our military is currently operating under. that is my priority first and always, to ensure our troops have congress' expressed affirmation that they are fighting the war in our defense on solid legal ground. while courts have accepted the administration's position, this could change any day. i'm not willing to take that chance when it comes to something as critical as defending the united states against terrorism. . as form attorney general michael haden said to me, and i quote, we'll send a powerful state optometrist those on whom we depend for our defense. press on with our support. yet also -- it also sends a powerful message to our

adversaries in this conflict. the american people remain united in their resolve to see this through to success, end quote. i stand in strong opposition to this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> at this time, i'd like to recognize the distinguished gentlewoman from california for one and a half minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one and a half minutes. ms. lee: i rise in strong support of this amendment which strikes the dangerous, far-reaching section 1034 of this bill. i thank my colleague mr. amash for his work on this. after the horrific events of 9/11, the authorization was brought to the floor. i voted -- i voted against this because it was overly broad and amounted to a blank check to wage war any time, anywhere,

any place. it was the most difficult vote i have cast because i was the only one to vote against this resolution. i will always remember that sad evening when we returned if the national cathedral memorial services for the victims and families of 9/11, the spire couldn'ty was angry and in mourning for the senseless loss of life and injuries resulting from such a brutal terrorist attack. there was very little debate on this resolution then, which took us to what has been the longest war in american history. so let's be clear. section 1034 goes even beyond that original authorization and amounts to a declaration of war without end anywhere in the world regardless of whether there's a dangerous to the united states. if the original authorization was a blank check, section 1034 amounts to an entire checkbook of blank checks this sweeping provision is dangerous, it should not be included in such

a massive bill with once again little or no debate. it should be removed. i urge every member of the house to consider carefully the ramifications of destroying the balance of power that exists to protect this democracy and our nation. i urge an aye vote on this amendment and i want to mank mr. amash once again for trying to strike this so we can move forward. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. lee: so we can end the longest war in american history. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. forbes: i rizz in opposition to the amendment. i understand we've got folks on both sides of the issue but i think if we ask these five questions we vote against this amendment. do we need to use military force against al qaeda, the taliban and people supporting

them? or don't we? there are some who said they didn't support using military force at the begin, don't support it now. i respect them. i just think that we're not going to defeat these forces through our words or by ignoring them. i think the sans clear. we need to use all the force that's necessary and appropriate to defeat them this legislation does that. second, should congress write the language to authorize that or leave it solely to the executive and judicial branches? i think we ought to do it. third is this the right language? it's the exact same language the judiciary put forward, we're marrying them together. four, the question, does it go too far? clearly it doesn't go too far. all the red herrings there and the language if you go back and read the language, it clearly says it does not supersede or change the war powers act. the war powers act is violate then and violated now with the language. the final question is simple. should we adopt this amendment? and the answer is just as simple.

not if we want to do everything necessary to defend and protect the united states of america. against terrorist attacks. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: recognizing that this aumf goes beyond the ornlal aumf, i would like to recktize the gentleman from north carolina for one and a half minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. >> i would like to ask madam speaker condition sent to submit my entire wriletting -- writing for the record? the chair: without objection. mr. -- mr. jones: i was so concerned about this provision that i contacted a professor i know very well, jules loblee, a noted professor at the university of pittsburgh and at my request he provied me the

foreign analysis of this. i cannot give all the analysis pause of limited time but i want to read this point to you. section 1034 authorization for the president to use force against any group or individual that he determines is associated with al qaeda or the taliban is overboard and could potentially permit a president to expansively use force against terrorist groups around the world. under international law you cannot kill someone anywhere in the world simply because of their association with an entity against which you are at war. although under certain circumstances you can detain them if captured. but again this authorization is too vague an it's too expansive and i hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will look at this very carefully and join us in trying to strike this provision. again, i thank the gentleman from michigan for this time. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized.

mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to insert into the record a letter from former attorney general of the united states michael b. mukasey, just one short thing, he says your new legislation would not confer new powers but would add order and rational toy -- rationality to what has been an improvizational exercise by judges who did not the facts. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered urn general leave. mr. mckeon: i yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, mr. west. the chair: the gentleman is recognized of. mr. west: i rise in opposition to this amendment. there are few members in this chamber who served on a 21st century battlefield a battlefield comprised of nonstate, nonuniformed belligerents. all this amendment in 1034 section says is that we affirm we are engaged in an armed conflict.

it is a very narrow definition and looks at the global conflagration which we're in. it also addresses western be seeking to remove the belligerents off the battlefield. i had the experience in 2003 in iraq, hade the -- i had the experience in two and a half years in afghanistan and if we allow an amendment such as this to go forward, it would have precluded us to go -- from going in and killing the world's number one terrorist, osama bin laden. if this amendment is allowed to pass we will not be able to go after al-alawi or plue omar, the head of the taliban, we will not be able to go after the person in charge of the islamic terrorist network. it will not allow us to go and deny this enemy sanctuary. there are two west point cadets serving with me. if we do not have the courage to affirm and declare an enemy, how can we send them.

the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. amash: recognizing that osama bin laden was killed under the old aumf, not the new, broader language, at this time i'd like to recognize the distinguished ranking member of the house armed services committee for one and a half minutes. the chair: thank you. >> i think we do need to go after these folks militarily. clearly -- mr. smith: it would be better if congress spoke but i woneder if this goes too far and expands that authority. i disagree with the arguments of mr. west of florida. the president has the authority for the bin laden raid as mr. amash pointed out within the existing branch of authority. i want to compliment the chairman of the committee for his hard work in working on this issue. i think it would be an important thing for the armed services committee, for this congress to speak on what the

authorization of military use and authorization would be beyond linking it back to 9/11. when you put in associated forces and when you don't have any end date, it does confer on the president the potential for a great deal of power over a long period of time and it is important to point out, the president right now, forget the original aumf, the president under just the interpretation of the constitution and laws of the country absent of that has a great deal of authority. president clinton was the first person to take a shot at osama bin laden back in 1998 when we launched cruise missiles at a compound where we thought he was in afghanistan. there was no aumf at that point. the question is whether or not this language broadens that authority to the point where we all have to be concerned about the level of power we are turning over to the executive. that's the balance we're trying to strike here. congress should speak but

congress should also not speak in a way that gives the executive branch too broad of authority. i believe this -- the language in the bill foes too far in that direction. therefore i support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i would like to insert another record into -- another letter into the record. this is from michael haden, former c.i.a. director. i quote in part, those who we charged with protecting us need clarity in their mission and the legal underpinning to justify it. this act does exactly that. i yield one minute at this time to the gentlelady from -- or the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. griffin: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to this amendment. the u.s. has been detaining individuals pursuant to the authorization for use of military force which was passed by congress, signed into law, we've been detaining those

individuals for almost 10 years now. the u.s. supreme court has accepted that the aumf provides the authority to detain these individuals. congress, however, has never explicitly recognized this detention authority. in a march 13, 2009, memo, the president stated he has the authority to detain persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist acts that occurred on 9/11. and persons who harbored those responsible. it also stated that the president has the authority to detain persons who were part of or substantially supported the taliban. al qaeda, or associated forces. the affirmation from congress that section 1034 provides is essential to supporting the president's own interpretation of his detention authority and will clarify for the courts the legal authority for the deteng of these individuals. congress has been silent for nearly 10 years. silent for too long on specifying the president's

authority to detain these individuals. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mckeon: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. >> the military relies on the same interpretation when deciding whom it can lawfully target or detain in the mill -- and the military deserve a clear and concise interpretation from congress. mr. griffin: it is time we give them a clear interpretation. i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: may i inquire as to the time remaining? the chair: the gentleman has four and a half minutes remaining. mr. amash: ill like to recognize the distinguished gentleman from new jersey for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: we support those

who -- the ability to hunt down those who attacked us on netch but we do not support the ability to have the president to wage war anywhere at any time. i believe that's what the upside lying bill does. the underlying bill says you can engage in the curn armed conflict against a nation that's substantially supported al qaeda. there is a record that suggests that iran has substantially supported al qaeda in iraq. i don't think the members of this body think that we have the power to attack iran without further congressional action. there's evidence that hezbollah has supported i-- al qaeda and similarring ornyizations. i don't think the members of the body think we have the right to attack lebanon and hezbollah without further action of this congress. we should never relent in going after those who attacked us on 9/11 but we should never ignore the constitutional perogfive of

-- prerogative of this house an the nat to engage in the declaration of war. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: i would like to recognize the distinguished gentleman from new york for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank the gentleman. i support this amendment to delete section 1034. section 104 is the equivalent of a new declaration of war. but contains no clear objectives, no longer would we be seeking out those responsibility for the attacks of -- responsible for the attacks of september 11. all references to september 11 re-- are removed. mr. nadler: it doesn't say why we're at war, it it doesn't say what we are trying to achieve, it doesn't even mention an identifiable whom with whom we are at war.

unlike the 2001 aumf, it does not contain any description of harm that has occurred what -- occurred or that we are seeking to defense. how will we know when we have won the war? section 1034 expands the targets of military action from those responsible for the september 11 attacks to all members of al qaeda, the taliban and associated forces and those who directly support associated forces but associated forces is undefined and so is the directly support. you had no means of knowing that they were a suicide bombr in the future? does the president have unfettered discretion to take this country to war against any country or any group he deems associated with the taliban? under this section it would seem so. mr. speaker, we must not delegate such powers to the

president. indeed, such a broad unlimited delegation is probably unconstitutional. and we haven't considered this section in any committee as far as i know. and yet it could profoundly change the scope and duration of our military efforts. mr. speaker, we should pass this amendment, scrap this provision and start -- and send it back to committee to start all over again if we need a redefinition of the existing aumf but this amendment must pass this section -- pass, this section must not pass, the president must not have the total discretion to take this country to war with anybody at any time under any circumstances under his soul discretion. i yield back -- under his sole discretion. i yield back. mr. mckeon: i'd like to insert an editorial from the los angeles times. i'll read a little bit of it. "the new york times" cease the term associated forces as so vegas that it could include anyone who doesn't like america, even if they are not connected in any way with the 2001 attacks.

it could even apply to domestic threats. that is exaggerated if not paranoid characteristic of the language. i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> we have no more speakers, i reserve the right to close. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i believe we have the right to close. the chair: the gentleman from california has the right to close. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> i recognize myself for as much time as i may consume. make no mistake, the power we are asked to give the president is beyond the power congress gave the president in the wake of the larger -- largest terrorist attack in our history. mr. amash: support amendment number 50 and turn back this broad delegation of congress' constitutional authority. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: may i ask how much time we have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has

four minutes remaining. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i yield the balance of our time to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry. the chair: the gentleman from texas voiced for four minutes. mr. thornberry: thank you, mr. chairman. there have clearly been a number of wild exaggerations and mischaracterizations about the affect of section 1034. if members have any doubt about where the truth lies, i recommend you look at editorials in "the washington post," the "l.a. times," "the wall street journal," all of which support modernizing and updating the authorization for the use of military force. they clearly debunk some of the wild accusations that have been made. let's take it back for just a second to the basics here. the authorization -- current authorization for the use of military force passed this congress on september 14, 2001. now, smoke was still rising from the ruins of the twin towers in

new york. the taliban was still the government of afghanistan at that time. mat drid train bombing, the london subway bombing, indonesia night club bombing had yet to occur. but congress believed that actions should be taken, given the president the authority to go after those who perpetrated 9/11 and the aumf authorized the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against those whom he determines authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001, or harbored them. now, it is absolutely true, the gentlelady from california, ms. lee, voted against. that i believe she was the only one. everybody else supported that authorization and that was a decade ago. it has not changed since then. in the decade since al qaeda has changed. as a matter of fact, we've had testimony this year from the

director of the national counterterrorism center that the most serious threat to our homeland actually comes from al qaeda in the arabian peninsula headquartered in yemen. they're the most serious threat now. and with the death of osama bin laden, al qaeda will change more. but yet the language that passed september 14, 2001, has not changed. yet. one article noted that it is increasingly strained and artificial to tie back everything the military's doing back to 9/11 and yet that's what the lawyers have to do now, they have to tie it all back to those attacks of september 11, 2001. and doing so depends on the court interpretation of those lawyers' arguments. that's what our national security authority is dependent on at the current moment. i believe it's clear we've got to update the authority. the question is, how do we update it? now, here's one option. the gentleman said, you remove all reference to 9/11.

well, we could add a list of other dates. we could say congress gives the president the authority to go after those who aided, abetted or committed the attacks of september 25, 2009, and the attacks of may 1, 2010, times square bombing, by the way, the first one was the underwear bombing in detroit. and the attacks of october 29, 2010, that was the attempted toner cart radge bombing attack. most of those by the way we think came from aqap. the point is i don't think it's a very good way to legislation, to put a bunch of dates in there of the various attacks and the president's authorized to go over who did those various attacks. that's not a good way to do it. a much better approach is to take the exact argument this administration is using in court to -- just to -- to justify what it's doing right now and saying, yeah, we'll take that language, it makes it clear, it's what we're doing now and we'll -- but congress will do it this time

rather than rely on court interpretations of what they're doing. so somebody might ask, well, why bother if that's what they're doing now, you know, why do you mess with it? number one, it's less time with the lawyers. straining and stretching language to fit back to the attacks of september 11. i would say number two, nearly everybody in this house is concerned about our relevance in authorizing the use of military force in various engagements. now, are we going to set back there and stick our hands in the sand while the court does all our work for us or are we going to take action to reflect what's really happened? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. mckeon: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment -- clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 53 printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? caverpcaverp a-- mr. campbell: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: -- the chair: apparently number 353, i guess. i had an old number. the chair: amendment number 53 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. campbell of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman from california, mr. campbell, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. campbell: thank you, mr. chairman. we have a huge deficit. everybody knows that. we have a terrible enormous debt. everybody knows that. none other than the secretary of defense and the secretary of

state have said that our national debt is in fact a national security issue. and we need to deal with it. and we are. we are reducing spending in a number of departments and a number of areas, we're talking about reforming entitlement programs in order to save them. and we're asking lots of departments and lots of areas to reduce waste, duplication and to operate more efficiently. and do the things they're doing with less money. there's no reason, mr. chairman, that we should not look for said duplication, said waste and ask the department of defense to do the same. so that we can attack this deficit and this debt. this amendment would terminate the human, social and culture behavior modeling program at the department of defense. now, it's kind of object use it -- as kind of object use it as the name -- obtuse as the name

that have program sounds, i'm not going to criticize the value of the program. the reason i'm offering this amendment to terminate this program is because it's entirely duplicative. because these things are done elsewhere and by other people and that we don't need to spend the millions and millions of dollars that we are currently in the department of defense on grant programs. there are currently university research initiatives at the army, navy and the department of the air force that are duplicative of this general defense department. -- there are industry research centers which conduct university research which can and do some of this work and are totally duplicative of what this program does. and i'm going to read you a list of things that this program researches -- does research on. and as i read you this list, think about how universities in the normal course of their business know this stuff, research this stuff, figure this

stuff out and we don't have to have a separate program to do it. topography, that's part of this program, small business innovation, human behavior, socioeconomic, socio cultural response studies, engineering, globalization, population research, morality and values and the quality of government politics in education. now, these are all things i'm sure the department of defense needs to know to do their job, but they can get this information from any number of other programs currently in the department of defense or from universities that are doing this research on their own. this will save millions of dollars and help with one of the greatest national security threats we have, which is our deficit and our debt 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 rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. chairman i'd yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i

certainly appreciate the gentleman from california's commitment to the deficit reduction but i'm afraid that this particular amendment is shortsighted. in afghanistan and elsewhere more and more of what our troops are doing is living with and working with and cooperating with the afghans or the native peoples wherever they happen to be. helping those peoples to defend themselves is far better and cheaper for us than having for us to defend them ourselves. but a basic tenant to make that work is to understand and to the culture and the social dynamics of those various populations. which are different, of course, from one place to another. it is a basic tenant of counteru.s. is that you have to understand -- counterinsurgency that you have to understand and protect the population you were there to protect. this program that the gentleman

wants to eliminate is a significant research program to see if modeling that sort of social dynamics will work with and i would say to the gentleman that the defense science board looked at this very program earlier this year and found that it was one of the emerging technologies where investment is likely to have the highest payoff, the highest payoff. and the report went further to say, consistent to some extent with what the gentleman way sassing, that there is other work being done in this area, but the defense science board found there's a major shortfall in the availability of these capabilities and these simulations do not generalize to other environments and require further investment to make them useful for the next potential conflict. so there is work being done in this area in a civilian context but you've got to -- it does not automatically translate to the

military context. and that is why the defense science board says that this emerging technology is one investment likely to have the highest payoff. and so the bottom line is that we need to pursue this to reduce the danger to our troops and to make sure that their work is more effective and this is a good investment by the defense science board and i believe by other studies as well. with that i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. campbell: may i inquire as to the amount of time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. campbell: thank you. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. mr. chairman, i appreciate my colleague from texas' remarks and again just to reiterate, i am not challenging the value or the use to the department of defense of some of the information. what i am challenging is whether we need entirely separate program. we have been talking about the department of education and

multiple programs in that department that do the same thing. the department of energy, the department of agriculture, all kinds of departments have duplicative programs because we built these things up over the years. . this is a program that is duplicative and this work can and is being done to other d.o.d. programs for for private research that doesn't have to be funded by d.o.d. the heritage foundation is not exactly not weak on our national security. so my argument here is if we don't look at this sort of thing in every department, but including in the department of defense, we are never going to get a handle on this deficit. there is waste in defense, too. there is duplication in defense, too. and we need to begin to reduce

it. this is a small step. i would ask for members' support and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> how much times remains? i yield myself 30 minutes. mr. thornberry: i ns that the defense science board believes that this program has potentially the highest payoff that is unique and beyond what is happening in the civilian sector or other defense departments and that was february 2011 when the report came out. mr. chairman, i yield the remainder time to the ranking member to the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i want to rise. and this is a critical important issue and i worked with mr. thornberry. this is not duplicative. this is an area we weren't spending enough time in iraq or

afghanistan to understand the people we were working with and get ourselves into a better position to turn over responsibility for security in governance in iraq and afghanistan. we didn't understand what we were getting into because we deposit have the sorle and cultural awareness. we need to deem awareness in those areas. as you gather the information, how do you compile it in such a way that's useful? that's what this modeling program is supposed to. you can getter information but if nobody knows how to use it, pick it out to get the lessons learned out of that, then you aren't getting the true benefit of the program. it uses updated technology and updated software to figure out how to find the pattern to help us do our job. i would agree with the gentleman from texas and urge a no vote on this amendment. and hopefully it will save us

money keeping us out of conflicts and enabling us to get this through the local populations. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. campbell: i ask for a rodded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed the. now in order to consider amendment number 54. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. campbell: i have number 54 at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 54 printed in house report 112-88

offered by mr. campbell of california. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. campbell and a member opposed. mr. campbell: we have debt and deficit and need to look for things in the department of defense as well where we can look for efficiencies and expense reductions and defend the country. currently in the department of defense we have somewhere approaching 800,000 civilians. in the department of defense today, we have approximately 800,000 full-time non-uniformed civilian employees. this does not include the 1.5 million men and women in uniform or the defense contractors and i would love to tell you how many of those are. that information is not

available, so i don't know. so we have 800,000 people not uniformed working the department of defense, not doing any of the stuff date of birth done by the contractors. i could go through a long analysis of do we really need one non-uniformed person for every two uniformed people in the department of defense? this amendment is very small in its scope and very small in what it intends to do. all it says is let's reduce that 800,000 head count by 1% a year for the next five years. so all this amendment says is can next year, can we accomplish the mission of the u.s. military in the department of defense without touching anything having to do with a single man or woman in uniform, but with 99% of the non-uniformed personnel that we currently have? somehow i don't believe that is going to devastate our ability

to defend this country and 1% a year for the next five years. five years from now, we will have to do it at 95% of the non -uniformed personnel and that's something we can begin to save some money and deal with our greatest national security threat, which is our debt. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. forbes: claim time in opposition. i would like now to yield twro minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. i thank my friend from virginia for yielding. i'm entirely sympathetic to my friend from california's view that it is probable, maybe even certain that the defense department could function with fewer civilian employees than it

does right now. and i think that the secretary of defense shares our conviction because he's frozen the number of civilian employees at f.y. 2010 levels. here's my concern. the gentleman's amendment makes it the law of the land that the correct number of civilian employees in the department of defense five years from now should be 40,000 persons more or less fewer than we have right now. i don't know if that's the right or the wrong number. and i would suggest that none of us know whether that's the right or the wrong number. the proper way to go about this, which the secretary has done is to make an assessment of the needs of the department and the functions that it serves and then to balance those needs bens the three ways you can serve those needs. you can either have civilian employees perform the tasks, you

could hire outside contractors to perform the tasks ordeal debate the tasks to uniformed employees. by choosing an arbitrary number of 40,000 civilian employees fewer than what we have right now, it seems to me we don't know if that fits the size of the job that we have, and if it doesn't fit the size of the job that we have, it necessitates an increase in contracts or an increase in duties for uniformed personnel, the consequence none of which has the ability to know. so i share the desire to properly fit the size of the civilian work force with the job that has to be done. i can't conclude with any degree of confidence that a work force that is 30,000 fewer is the right fit. and the shift to and formed personnel when they have more

priorities to achieve, i would urge ar no vote. the chair: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. campbell: i appreciate my colleagues' comments and i don't disagree that it is arbitrary. how we got to the 800,000 was not by anybody doing a great deal of planning either, so perhaps that is arbitrary. but, you know, if you want someone to start to be more efficient, you have to set some goals. you have to set some targets. this number has been growing and growing steadily for years, probably for decades. certainly been growing for years. and it has been unchecked and there has been no real review or evaluation of it. what i'm trying to do here and i'm not arguing that there is no scientific to the 1%. but is to say let's get this

under control. let's start to evaluate this. and you know what? if we need to re-evaluate it we can re-evaluate it. this is a lot of people and we think you can get by with less. and i have talked to a number of uniformed personnel and they think these people get in their way and would prefer they're not there because they create a bureaucracy that interferes with the uniformed personnel to accomplish their mission. let's get into this and let's set a target and see if we can't get there and save some money along the way. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. forbes: it's a rare opportunity you get to stand up and agree with two friends that you have on the floor and only thing we disagree with is this approach. and i would say to the gentleman

from california, he is absolutely right we need to set this and the chairman and the ranking member have done just that in this bill because of all of the agencies, all the departments we look across the government, the one that we absolutely cannot be arbitrary, the one we cannot guess about, the target we can't be off on is the department of defense, we have to be right there. and what we realize is you cannot go by sitting in an arbitrary target and working backwards. that exposes us to huge risk. and the first thing is we have to ascertain what the true risk assessment is, which we have not had. because it has been more budget-driven and threat ajessment but this bill is going to find out what the risk assessment is.

we have to determine what does it take to meet that risk and what do we risk the country in -- and expose the country to if we don't do it? and we have to find out where we are spending that money now. we need to audit the d.o.d. and that's what we are moving to do and after we have done those three steps, then we can come back and the congress ought to be a part of this and saying, here are the targets and the number of employees we think you need to get that job done. but mr. chairman, i agree with my good friend from new jersey, this is not the right approach. it's a dangerous approach to look and say we are going to begin cutting these employees. we don't know what that will do to the department of defense. i hope to reject this amendment but continue along the line what the gentleman is talking about and make sure we are defending

this country in the most efficient way possible. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. campbell: i appreciate both gentleman's comments and their remarks, tone and tenor. i respectfuly disagree because not a single uniformed person -- this has nothing to do with that and 1% sends a message and is a start and difficult to argue that it's going to devastate anything. i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. forbes: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. their those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. campbell: mr. chairman, i would request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 55 printed in house report 112-88. it is now in order to consider amendment number 56 printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 56 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. chaffetz of utah. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, i'd also ask unanimous

consent that he be allowed to control the time. the chair: without objection. the gentleman from vermont is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman from utah. members of the house, a test of a great democracy is its capacity to make the grave decision to send its citizens to war. such a decision was made after the attack in september 11 of 2001. it was a bipartisan decision, it was made for the right reasons, at the right time and for the right result. al qaeda was in afghanistan, osama bin laden planned and executed the 9/11 mission from afghanistan and we september our soldiers to war -- sent our soldiers to war, vermont soldiers, soldiers from all about the country sacrificed bravely and served well. but an equally grave challenge and test for a democracy is

whether once that machinery of war has been put in gear, when circumstances change and the national security requires, can that democracy amend its decision, amend its policy as conditions have changed? we are at that moment today. it is a bipartisan question that faces us all. in the amendment that mr. chaffetz and i offer suggests that the policy that we are now pursuing, nation building in afghanistan, is no longer the policy that is either financially sustainable nor in our best national security interests. there are three reasons. number one, the threat of al qaeda has diminished in afghanistan, the threat of terrorism in the world has not. this is not a nation, it is

dispersed and decentralized. mr. chaffetz and i say, let us have a decentralized and dispersed response. the tactics that were so successful in eliminating osama bin laden, excellent and coordinated intelligence, and excellent and fierce special forces, was successful, mr. chaffetz and i and our amendment believe it is time for america to move from nation state building to counterterrorism. second, the situation in afghanistan with an unreliable partner, incredible corruption that has been going from bad to worse, does not allow our military or our taxpayers to have any confidence that that nation building strategy can be successful. so we call upon congress to face this grave national security question from the perspective of

is it time to change? and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. welch: thank you. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. andrews: i rise to claim time nopsition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized forever five minutes. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i'd like to yield to mr. coffman. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. coffman: i thank the gentleman from new jersey. so many ask me as an iraq war veteran if i had learned any lessons from that war and i said yes, never do it again. but i volunteered for iraq because i believe that once we were involved in the fight, that we had to reasonably fin thashe job and my concern about afghanistan is the fact that we are pretty far down this road and we know that the president's going to reduce the conventional footprint in july of this year, the president has already stated as commander in chief that he expects afghan security forces

to take operational control by 2014 and let me tell you something that i think we're not thinking about tonight and that is, as a similar affairs officer working in iraq, part of my job was to convince iraqis to cooperate and to side with us knowing that if we left expedition before the situation stabilized that they would be killed. and we have -- my counterparts doing the same job that i did in afghanistan, what i did in iraq and afghanistan, have that challenge of convincing the people, civilian population, to cooperate and to side with us and if in fact we do an expedition withdrawal and revert to counterterrorism, there will be many lives lost unnecessarily due to our conduct here tonight. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield myself two

minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: thank you. i appreciate mr. welch in doing this in a bipartisan way. this amendment does a couple of basic things. one, it says we are going to withdraw our troops, it's time to bring our troops home, nobody should be disappointed in that, that in many ways is victory. number two, it does give the president and the secretary of defense the flexibility to conduct counterterrorism activities. the reality in today's world is that terrorism is real. there are people that want to kill and destroy the united states of america. and the death of osama bin laden unfortunately has not put an end to that. in many ways it is a global war with on terror. we've had 10 years of great success and what this amendment does in my opinion is recognize the success that our troops have had over the last 10 years. the longest war in the history of united states of america. unfortunately terrorism is not confined to the boundaries of just afghanistan. we have to have the very best intelligence, both human and electronic, and when with we have intelligence that shows that there is a clear and present danger to the united states of america, our special forces need to take out that

threat. that requires deadly force. but that does not necessarily require 100,000 of our men and women serving in afghanistan. in what i believe has expanded into mission creep that is just allowing people to participate in nation building. i feel for the people of afghanistan, they have lived for more than 30 years at war. it is a difficult, difficult situation. but we have the very best fighting force in the world. if we're going to use those men and women and that fighting force in the right way, then we're going to have to deal with it differently. we should be proud of the fact that bringing our troops home is not putting our tail between our legs, it is victory, it is success. and we will continue to fight the fight. but it's global in nature, it's time to bring our troops home, give the president and the secretary the flexibility to take out the threat as it arrives in afghanistan and that's why i think this amendment is so important. i'll reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. andrews: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to my friend from virginia, mr. wittman. mr. wittman: i thank the gentleman. thank you, mr. chairman. i want to remind folks that we've learned some lessons through these years of conflict and i remind folks of what general petraeus has learned through that process in knowing that counterterrorism has not been successful in the long-term in getting us to where we need to be strategically in these areas and that the counterinsurgency strategy has worked. what we're seeing in afghanistan is just that. let's make sure that we're with allowing that to work. when i was there recently we see what's happening. we are training the afghanistans to be able to take over their country, to make sure that they're going to be successful in maintaining that country, making sure that as we push terrorists out of there, those terrorists stay out. that is a long-term successful strategy. the secure hold, build and transition. let's make sure that we allow

that to happen. it's critical that we don't make an arbitrary transition to another strategy, that we've seen in the past hasn't worked. and all of us want to make sure that we are getting our troops out of there. but we with also want to make sure that those sacrifices are not in vein. and we can go back and forth about what the end result is, but the end result is that we want to make sure that we're successful there in the long-term. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: may i inquire how much time i have left? the chair: the gentleman has 30 seconds remaining. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, we need to understand that we don't need to treat afghanistan anywhere different than we do in the rest of the world. the reality is we have the very best fighting force in the world. we have been highly successful. but let's understand that bringing our troops home is something we should all be proud of. what we're failing to do right now, what this administration is failing to do, nobody's ever defined success. nobody's ever defined success. let's bring our troops home, we're doing this in a bipartisan way, it's a reasonable, balanced

approach to say, let's fight the terrorism that's out there but with let's also bring our troops home. may god bless the troops and may god bless the united states of america. i appreciate the opportunity to present this amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. andrews: may i inquire how much time we we have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. andrews: i yield to mr. smith. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the members who offered this amendment. i too support a drawdown in afghanistan. i want to see us get to the point where we can bring our troops home and i think we're making progress in that direction. but there are two things that i do want to correct. one, it's a little bit of a myth that no one has ever defined success. success has been defined by the president clearly. we want a government in afghanistan that can stand so that the taliban and al qaeda do not come back to power. that is success. when we are confident that that government can stand and we can draw down so we don't go back to where we were before 9/11. that is what what we're trying

to accomplish. the second thing is, we all want a transition to a lesser mission, to be able to bring our troops home. and counterterrorism is the focus. we would not, however, have been able to run the mission against bin laden that we did if we didn't have the broader support within afghanistan. we if we pull out and think that we can run a counterterrorism measure with a government that is collapsing around us and that does not support us, then we kidd ourselves. that's why it is so important, as mr. coffman said so well with, to make sure that we complete the mission and we have a government that can stand so that we can begin to responsibly draw down. i think it's important we draw down but we have to do so in a responsible way. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. andrews: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to my friend from virginia, mr. forbes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. forbes: thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank my friend from new jersey. a week ago today i was in afghanistan and, mr. chairman, i can tell you that if you listen

to our troops there, if you talk to our general, they don't want to us pull the rug out from under them. years ago, though, a group of plains that were lost off the coast of florida, they were hitting -- heading back toward the coastline, they lost their communications, and everything within them kept telling them, turn around, turn around, you're heading in the wrong direction. unfortunately right before they reached the shoreline, they did turn around and they ended up going back out to sea and getting lost. we have a timetable of 2014 that both our troops and the afghans are working together to make that 2014 deadline. the last thing we want to do is pull that rug out from them now. and i know the temptation to say, let's quit. we've put a lot of investment in there. it's too hard. let's turn around. but we need to be cautious that we don't do it too quickly because afghanistan is different than the rest of the world. because the two greatest dangers we face in the world today is iran getting nuclear weapons and

extremists taking over nuclear weapon withs in pakistan. afghanistan is the bridge that could connect both of us. it's important, mr. chairman, we not quit, ask our troops, we've invested too much lives, time, money. let's not turn back now, let's get the job done, 2014's going to be here soon enough and, mr. chairman, with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired the the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. chaffetz: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 59 printed in house report 11-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. rohrabacher: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 59 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. rohrabacher of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much, mr. chairman. my amendment focuses on an issue that reflects a concern not only for our national security but also for the prosperity of our country. and i would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for agreeing to discuss this important issue with me tonight as part of this, my time, and i do intend at the end of this discussion which is a colloquy, should be considered a colloquy, i will -- my intent is to withdraw my legislation. or my amendment, that is. so, what we are talking about is an important issue and we are talking about the president's

authority to move satellites and related components from the u.s. munitions list to the commerce control list and this may sound rather bureaucratic but it means whether or not we're going -- there's going to be the transfer and sale of technology that we have developed with billions of dollars of federal investment, a group that is very important to our tech normal and the jobs in california, but also very important to our national security if these technologies would be put into the wrong hands. . we have heard that current regulations are harmful to national security, costing american jobs and encourage other nations to develop competing technologies. since congress placed these items on the list, meaning satellites and the other technologies we are referring to

today, our worldwide market share for the manufacture of satellites and components has drommed dramatically. it has been reported while u.s. firms accounted for 73% of the world market for commercial satellites in 1998, that figure has since dropped below 30%. global satellite manufacturers often pursue alternate free sources, especially for commodity components and related items simply to eliminate any risks associated with licensing delays and even when export -- even if the export license is likely to be approved by u.s. regulators. the u.s. regulatory environment has particularly affected small satellite suppliers which lack the organizational structure, marketing resources to offset the added burden export control

barriers in such a close competitive climate in this high-tech business. current u.s. satellite export controls are not slowing foreign space capabilities but encouraging them. foreign manufacturers market the satellites and encouraging non-u.s. satellite research and development with the controls that are in place. but the national security concerns that led congress to create the current regulatory wall are still in place and yet there are significant concerns existing regarding china, iran, north korea, venezuela and other terrorist-supporting states. we must continue to prohibit the transfer of these technologies to these nations, but we must prohibit -- and we must prohibit u.s. satellite sales, i believe, to china, especially we must not permit u.s. satellites to be

launched on chinese rockets. the house enep dorised the removal of satellites from the munitions list, but it was clearly stated that there was an exception granteded and allowing no launching of american satellites on chinese rockets. that should remain our position. at this time, i would yield several minutes to mr. mckeon, the chairman of the armed services committee. mr. mckeon: how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. there has been no member more prominent than mr. rohrabacher. we share the same belief that a strong space and industrial base is in the national security and economic interest in the united states and that there is an opportunity to revise u.s.

satellite export control policy. however, space technology is a u.s. technological crown jewel. this policy must account for the national security risks in removing satellites and related components in the united states munitions list. the defense department provided congress with a report that their work is not yet complete. the interim report suggests that some satellite components could be removed from the munitions list without posing an unacceptable security risk and concludes that several are critical to national security and should remain on the list. before making significant changes in legislation, i prefer the committee do its due diligence and we need to conduct oversight hearings on this issue. i'm committed to working with the gentleman from california, my ranking member, to review -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

. mr. smith: i'm not opposed and i yield to the chairman, the gentleman from. mr. mckeon: i'm committed to work with my ranking member and identify policy recommendations that would facilitate greater export opportunities for our companies while preserving our national security and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i'm i consumed. i'm not opposed to this amendment. i understand the concerns of the chairman, but there is one point i want to make clear in this. throughout this whole process, i guess it's been 12 years now, fl has always been this notion that somehow we have to wait in order to be exrar cautious as if there is no risk in waiting and that

is where i think we are completely wrong. absolutely. there is a risk of selling technology in the wrong hands. that is a risk we have live with. what has never been properly understood in this body and particularly on the armed services committee is the risk of excessive restrictions on u.s. companies' ability to export technology and it is a risk precisely to our national security. it is not just the matter of jobs or business or the economy. this isn't national security versus economic strength. one of our great strengths as a nation in terms of our defense is the superiority of our technology companies. we have companies here in the u.s. we can rely on to give us the best equipment and best technology to protect us. as mr. rohrabacher pointed out, we are losing that edge. we are ceasing to be the leaders in critical areas of technology

and no where is this most painfully clear in the area of satellites. we have lost to our competitors. when i was in europe two years ago, i came across an advertisement that was being put out for an itar-free satellite. what is that? not one single u.s. component in it. why? because it was free, they could much more freely export it and much easier be competitive. we were blocking out all u.s. companies that go into a satellite. there is a heck of a lot that goes into them. our companies are being severely disadvantaged and undermining our ability to defend ourselves. inaction is not the safe and correct course here. we have the evidence we need. i believe we need to go forward

and mr. rohrabacher's amendment makes sure we aren't selling this to china and other places, but it does free up our companies to begin to compete before it is too late, before we lose that edge. we have the interim report and don't have the final report and analyzed this thing for a long period of time. we don't need to wait for the final report, but i will be optimistic we will get the final report between now and the final conference. so certainly jobs and economic strength is a matter of national security, but critical for national security itself to make sure that u.s. companies can maintain the leadership role to help provide for our defense, work with our defense department as they do. i would hope we would adopt this. i hope we continue to work on this. mr. rohrabacher: i agree with the gentleman's assessment out of respect for the judgment of

the chairman and his desire to make sure that the full interim report that the congress has on this issue is studied and the defense department finishes that report. i'm willing to withdraw my amendment but agree with the points that you've made. i have great respect for the chairman and his care and concern about the safety of our country and so, i would at this point ask for unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 60 printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 60 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman from cole, mr. polis, and a

member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. polis: given our looming fiscal crisis we look at spending cuts in a responsible way that does president hurt our national security. in fact, the budget deficit are a threat to national security by making us beholden to foreign powers. i propose an amendment that would get most of the 80,000 troops out of europe where they are no longer needed and save over $1 billion we would reduce the amount of troops to 30,000 troops from 80,000 which would not affect the troops being used in our wars in the middle east estimated to be 12,000 to 18,000 and fulfill our obligations. my amendment would allow the department of defense to save

money by closing bases across europe that are no longer needed and have no strategic rationale. by pulling our troops out and closing these bases we could save money. my amendment would cut the 50,000 troops from our force in europe, would save over $1.3 billion over 10 years and reduce our troop levels in phases so we can draw down the troops without impacting those who are currently deployed. on top of the savings by reducing troop level, my amendment allows us to close bases that are realics from world war ii and the corled war. the need for these bases was understandable in light -- in the shadow of the threat of the nazis. the presence of the troops was understandable when we faced the soviet union. what is the justification for our ongoing presence now?

u.s. taxpayers did not sign up to defend europe from a nonexist tant threat forever at our own expense. these bases cost taxpayers millions and unpopular with people in the local countries. i don't understand why we are wasting so much money to maintain bases where they aren't needed or wanted and don't fulfill our strategic objectives. our european allies are some of the richest countries in the world so why are we subsidizing them? the average american spends over $2,500 on defense, the average european, $500. if europe has made the decision it can spend less on defense, shouldn't we spend less on their defense as well? i understand that many of the troops in europe support the operation in iraq and afghanistan and while i hope this won't be an issue, my

amendment leaves in place enough troops to fully support the ongoing operations at their current levels in iraq and africa. my amendment does not weaken our commitment to nato and we can move troops and weapons across the globe. we fulfill our responsebilities and fully participate in joint exercises. my amendment allows for a war emergency if, for instance, if there was a reason to station troops in europe. it allows the president to waive the requirements of the bill. we are not under threat, from the nazis or from the so fars. we are under a threat of terrorists. and it eminates less from europe than asian africa. it is not a sane response to the terrorist threat. these cuts are based on the

recommendations that the sustainable task force, bipartisan project organized by congressman frank, congressman paul, and senator widen. they brought experts across the spectrum and propose commonsense recommendations for saving taxpayer money and improving our national security. i urge a yes vote and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. turner: the gentleman is correct this is a time of deficits and our concerns about spending but he is not correct that this doesn't hurt our national security. he states that our troops in europe are not needed and that is not the case. those troops that are there not only protect us and our european allies but they are essential to the operations we are providing

around the globe, including afghanistan and iraq. claims that this amendment will save money, but this will increase our costs. as we look to how we serve our allies and how we initiate our ongoing operations in afghanistan and iraq and how we support our men and women in uniform. this is arbitrary. troop strengthses are based on extensive studies and how you look at threats, assets and support the capabilities we have in supporting our national defense. but these are just arbitrary numbers that have been picked as to our withdrawal from europe, but goes further. besides having an effect of reducing our allies in the region, this goes further and sets troop limits from 2013 to 2016 and requires that 10,000 of our troops be reduced in end

strength numbers a year and goes on to say that 5,400 come from the army, 4,000 a year from the air force and there certainly is not a decreasing threat in our national security, but there will be decreasing troops, not just those in europe. we will have increased greater burden upon the troops that are serving. how is it determined that 5,400 would come from the army and 500 from the navy? this has no correlation not only to the threat but even to the assets and the capabilities that we need. i think everyone knows that the -- our troops that we have in europe serve our full national security, are not there for the issues of defending europe. but the other thing that's important is this is something that's knowable. you can pick up our defense review, our threat assessments from which our troop strength are based, no these arbitrary

numbers in which this amendment would restrict our ability to respond, greatly impact our national security and certainly would not save money. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. polis: how much time remains on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from colorado has one minute remaining. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. these suggestions, the specifics are based on sustainable defense task force, may not be a plus but it's 0 pages long. i'd like to submit its executive summary to the record. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered under general leave. mr. polis: could the peeker -- speaker repeat that? the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered under general leave. mr. polis: point of parliamentary inquiry. the chair: what is the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry. mr. polis: could the speaker clarify the definition of her last statement?

the chair: all members were given authority to insert such material at the beginning of the debate. mr. polis: thank you. i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's recognized. mr. polis: madam speaker, even donald rumsfeld believes that it's time to change this policy in his recent book he wrote, quoters of the quarter million troops applied applauder more than 100,000 were in europe, those deployments were obviously not taking into account the 21st century reality that germany is now one with of the wealthier nations in europe. i believe that our troops have more to do than serve as symbols of security blankets for wealthy, allied nations. madam speaker, experts across the ideological spectrum agree that the time is right for these smart cuts that will improve our national security, allow us to fulfill all our obligations to nato as well as include 10,000 to 15,000 troops that experts say are necessary to full -- fully support operations at our current levels in africa. less is needed in that regard and it seems to be our

direction. even at those current levels we would fully support those operations. this is a smart cut, one of the easier ones we could go to, improves our national security and i urge a yes vote. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> madam speaker, how much time do we have with remaining? the chair: the gentleman from ohio has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. turner: i yield a minute and half to mr. thornberry from texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. thornberry: madam chair, it is true the department of defense ought to always be examining where we have troops deployed around the world. and that is appropriate for them. it is not appropriate, however, for us to arbitrarily tell them that they will have 30,000 troops in europe and x number of troops in asia and so forth. i think that it is important to emphasize the -- among the important functions that our

troops in europe perform are joint training, building partnership with our european partnerships, just a few weeks ago i was at the nato soft training facility where european allies trained with our special operations forces before they have to actually be engaged in the battlefield in afghanistan and elsewhere. that sort of joint training is made possible because our troops are there. as the gentleman from ohio mentioned, direct support of our deployments in iraq, afghanistan, libya, incredibly simplifies or makes easier our deployments for logistics and other transportation needs when we are able to base things in europe and go from there rather than having to come all the way from the united states. and, madam chair, i think we need to remind ourselves that since 1945, when the u.s. has had substantial troop numbers in europe, there has not been another general european war.

and yet millions upon millions of people died in previous years because of those general european wars. and the other key point is that this amendment decreases end strength over a period of five years. that has real consequences for real soldiers and marines and sailors and airmen all across the world. as the gentleman mentioned it, it means they're going to have to spend more time in deployments. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. turner: we reserve our time. the chair: the time of the gentleman from colorado has expired. mr. turner: madam speaker, i yield a minute to mr. coffman from colorado. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. mr. coffman: thank you, madam chairwoman. i thank the gentleman from ohio and i thank the gentleman from colorado for raising this issue. particularly questioning our

basing in europe. i think it's time to do that. i'm not sure about the 30,000 number but i questioned whether our nato allies are dedicating the appropriate percentage in terms of their budget toward maintaining defense and not becoming far too reliant upon the united states. where i differ in the amendment is this arbitrary reduction of 10,000 a year for five years, the secretary of defense i think has thoughtfully put forward a plan that would, based on conditions, reduce the united states army end strength by 27,000 in f.y. 2015, 2016, and the united states marine corps somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 in that same fiscal year, based on conditions. so, i think that -- i certainly oppose the amendment.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. you have one minute remaining. mr. turner: thank you, madam speaker. with that we would like to point out again that these are arbitrary numbers, our troops in europe pose an important asset for all of our operations in protection of national security, including as has been stated training troops that go into afghanistan and iraq, this amendment would not save money, it would in fact increase our overall costs and it also includes an arbitrary reduction in our overall end strength that would have a negative impact on our national security. with that i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment's not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: on that i'd like to request the yeas and nays.

roll call vote. the chair: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 61 printed in house report 112-88. mr. conyers: madam speaker. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. conyers: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 61 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. conyers of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of my amendment which would prevent funds altogether riced in the national defense -- authorized in the national defense authorization act for being used to fund any type of ground combat operations in libyan territory. my amendment would simply codify the policy endorsed by our president and the national- international community and thereby ensure that our involvement in libya remains limited in scope. i'm proud to report that this amendment enjoys the support of 16 bipartisan co-sponsors. my proposal would prevent funds from being used to deploy,

establish or maintain the presence of members of the armed services or private security contractors on the ground in libya. it also contains an exception that would allow for the rescue of members of the armed forces participating in the nato no-fly zone operation. i would now like to yield to the distinguished gentlelady from california, barbara lee, 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much, madam chair. let me thank the gentleman from for yielding and to -- the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership. this is such an important amendment and such an important debate. no one in this house would ever defend the deplorable actions of colonel gaddafi and the decades that he has spent representing -- excuse me, repressing the libyan people.

but no one should fail to recognize that the actions we have taken in libya since march 19 amount to a war. missile strikes, naval attacks, bombing of strategic military targets, all of these actions would be a declaration of war if a foreign country launched such attacks on our soil. congress should have debated this prior to any military actions in libya. while some of us can disagree as to whether or not we should be involved in a military action in libya, we can all agree that we should prevent mission creep or any military expansion to include combat troops on the ground in libya. this simple amendment does exactly that by codifying the president's commitment as mr. rangel just said to not put troops on the ground in libya. so i urge a strong yes vote on this amendment, i thank the gentleman for his leadership and i yield the balance of my time. thank you again. mr. conyers: i reserve my time, madam speaker.

the chair: thank you. the gentleman from michigan reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> although i do not oppose the amendment, i request time in opposition. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. we are certainly in agreement with the intention of this amendment by requiring appropriations not be authorized for operations on the ground there in libya. mr. wittman: we believe that preventing these funds purposely puts in place congress as a decision-maker and we believe that that is critical in this situation and we believe that it's very appropriate that congress assumes its role in decision making involving u.s. conflict in libya.

i think that we all know that decisions are difficult with these sorts of conflicts and that congress does have a very specific role in this effort. so we want to make sure that that's preserved and certainly this amendment does that. so we with are in agreement with the amendment and with that, madam chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, how much time have i remaining? the chair: the gentleman from michigan has 2 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. conyers: i yield the balance of my time or as much as she may consume to the gentlelady from california, the head of the progressive caucus for so many years, ms. woolsey. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for 2 1/4 minutes.

ms. woolsey: thank you, madam chair, and i thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding time to me. more than two months after the military campaign in libya began it's time to start defining its parameters and its limitations. most importantly we must provide assurance that this will not mushroom into a full-blown ground war and military occupation. that's why i'm proud to co-sponsor the amendment offered by my friend from michigan. . are two wars not enough? we can't keep doing this. our military is at a breaking point. america's patience is wearing thin. they know the cost coming from these wars that we have in iraq and in afghanistan and now what we're doing in libya comes from

important domestic programs right here at home. they don't want to replay iraq and afghanistan in libya. in fact, we all know that it's time to bring our troops home out of afghanistan and iraq and it is time to engage in smart security where diplomacy, human and economic assistance are used instead of bombs and weapons, costing us pennies on the dollar. no more wars, no boots on the ground in libya and as much as we can do to take care of our business here at home. and i will yield back to the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i thank the gentlelady. the time has come for congress to once again exercise its constitutional authority to place boundaries on the use of

our military forces overseas and clearly state that this conflict in libya will not escalate into an expensive occupation that could strain our resources and harm our national security interests. i beg the members of this house to give favorable consideration to our amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> we have no other speakers and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. conyers: i ask for a recorded vote, madam speaker.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 62 printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 62 printed in house report 1112-88 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona for five minutes. mr. flake: this amendment would eliminate funding for the fund which amounts to $348 million.

the fupt was created to ensure that additional funding remain to other accounts to mitigate unfunded requirements. the report also lists -- contains a list of seven priorities that the secretary can transfer these funds in support of. i'm not sure about this concept myself, particularly in this budget climate providing the pentagon an authorization that essentially amounts to a blank check for a couple of hundred billion dollars. the committee identified 100 billion in the underlying bill and created the fund using these savings. during the full committee markup more than 650 million of that money was moved out of this fund by members of the committee seeking to increase funding for their own priorities in the bill. i understand that members want the ability to move money around

and that should receive additional funding. if the committee was able to identify $1 billion in savings, it ought to put that savings toward decreasing the cost of the underlying bill. we have to make tough choices all around in this budget and americans across the country are making tough choices with their budget. but to identify $1 billion in savings and move it into a new fund and allow members to designate their own priorities and take 650, i'm not sure what this is all about. there are some concerns out there, there was a news article a couple of days ago that said some people think this is some kind of slush fund designed to provide members from which they can fund money for their own projects. this would be similar to the

earmarking culture we have had around here, a culture that hopefully has ended and we can move beyond. so i hope that is not what we are seeing here. i have two amendments that will be considered later i believe on the en bloc portion that will seek for more transparency moving ahead to see how these funds are used and rewarded. i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: i rise in strong opposition to mr. flake's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckeon: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. flake's amendment would eliminate resources for the mission force enhancement transfer fund. i commend mr. flake for taking a serious issue, namely deficit reduction. however his amendment could do serious harm to our national security. the fund can be an important tool for defense department to

help keep america safe. we set this fund up at the start of the process so we wouldn't be tied to the president's budget request so we could, the members of the committee that have the expertise, move the funding around to more important items. resources from this fund will be used to power programs vital to our homeland defense, such as strike aircraft and ballistic missile defense. systems that the members agreed were not sufficiently funded by the president's budget request. there are no earmarks in this bill. we have worked very hard to move away from the system that you worked so hard to eliminate and we have done a great job on that. but we do not feel bound by the president's request that we will not be a rubber stamp committee to do what he expects us to do. madam chair, i must repeat my concerns about stripping money

from our troops and sending it back to the treasury. i know how important deficit reduction is. we do need to focus on that. but we have stressed very strongly and will look at everything that the pentagon spends and go through it with a fine-tooth comb, but the money we save will put to what our independent panel showed that we need to bring it up to what our defense showed 20 years ago. i oppose any amendment that reduces the top line. i support mr. flake to get our spending under control, i must oppose this amendment that would strip the tools to keep america safe. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. flake: may i inquire as the to the time remaining? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. flake: i do have some

concern about this. the guidance from the committee says that the request may not direct funds to or any funds with or to any entity or locality. it's been the practice in the past when members get their earmarks in the bill get a victory lap and put out a press release. i have seen one already, it says funding for a nonprofit charitable foundation, to help expand innovation in new mexico's emerging satellite industry. this names both an entity and locality. and this is a member who got a particular request -- yes, i would. mr. mckeon: let me read to you from the bill. this is on page 692, merit-based or competitive decisions. expend funds referred to in the

second sentence of subsection a shall be based on merit-based selection procedures in accord answer and comply with all applicable provisions of the law. and if we find any member pressuring the department of defense to use any funds other than the complied with competitive merit-based solutions, we will go after them. we have a strong committee that will do this. mr. flake: i appreciate them accepting the amendments later which would set up a process whereby we can see these grants or funds are disposed of and will help a great deal and i appreciate the chairman working on that. i would say in closing, this amendment is specifically is to save the money that is still left in that account. if the concern is not to give

the president the ability to direct all these funds or the secretary of defense, then this accomplishes it. there are 350 million left in this account. let's apply that to pay down the debt and the deficit and that's what this amendment does. takes the remaining money that has not been designated in that fund and apply it to deficit reduction. that's what this amendment does and i thank the chairman for his comments and i thank the chairman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: i yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. forbes: i'm always reluctant to oppose my good friend from arizona and he is dead wrong

tonight. there was $1 billion savings. if that hadn't been there, he would say can't you find $100 million. and no good deed goes unpunished and the purpose of this fund is to make sure we are doing the tough choices and he is right, these members look every day at the priorities we need for the department of defense. let me tell you one of those, ship building, you shall not living in the world where the chinese has more ships in their navy than we have. the independent panel says we need 346 ships. the navy says we need 313. i'm proud of the fact we come together and say let's find savings in one area so we can put it in priorities such as ship building. it will be a disincentive for the department of defense to find those savings in the future. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. the gentleman from california has two minutes remaining. mr. mckeon: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from missouri, mr. aiken. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. akin: i understand the importance of trying to control spending in this government and i'm very much thankful for the gentleman from arizona to be wanting to do that. the concern that we have is when you take a look of where we are in terms of our military right now, we have some very big problems, just standing back a way a little bit, if you say how many troops do we have, how many ships do we have, how many aircraft to we have and you compare where we are today and where we were in 1990, we have half of what we had in 1990. so we have reduced our military in half. we have the same number of ships

today as what we had in 1916. now one of the reasons for paying attention to earmarks was so we would pay more attention of doing a good job of oversight. this committee has worked hard at oversight and identified areas where we think the pentagon was wrong, where the president was wrong and we have taken that money out. now we are going to be punished for taking it out by having it taken away. the point of the matter is we are redirecting the money that we are allowing a certain amount of money, the place where the money has to be spent is on ballistic and cruise missile defense. this is a bill deal for the navy. the chinese have very high-speed cruise missiles. navy ship building, well talked about that. we have the same ships -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. akin: i yield back what i don't have.

the chair: the gentleman from california has 30 seconds remaining. mr. mckeon: our military has been cut in half and we are fighting two wars and half of a third. and at a time -- ronald reagan said during his lifetime he never saw us get into a war that we were overprepared for. this is the first time i have seen us trying to cut back to during war. we need the money for the defense of this nation. i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question son the amendment offered from arizona. -- the question is on the amendment offered from the gentleman from ase -- arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. flake: on that i ask for a

recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 63 printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? els els i have an amendment at -- mr. ellison: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 63 printed in house report 11-88 offered by mr. ellison of -- 112-88 offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. for five minutes. mr. ellison: madam chair, i rise to offer an amendment that will cut $150 million in unnecessary defense funding. congress must reassess our

budgetary priorities. we should not be in the business of needlessly increasing defense spending while simultaneously cutting spending for critical services that americans depend upon. without my amendment congress will needlessly approve $150 million for the lha-7 warship program. let me be clear, i'm not against such a program in its own right. but i am against authorizing this funding for f.y. 2012 because the government accountability office and the armed services subcommittee on sea power said we with shouldn't do it. and they have very good reasons for coming to that conclusion. first of all, according to the government accounting office report, which i have in my hand and i intend to submit into the record, these funds won't even be used in fiscal year 2012. the report states that the contractor delays and labor

shortages, quote, will likely have implications on the ability of the ship builder to start construction of lha-7 as currently planned, unquote. if we do not authorize these funds, our national security will not be harmed. the g.a.o. reports that f.y. 2011 funds already appropriating would be sufficient to cover the cost of the program and expenses for lha-7 in f.y. 2012. as the report makes clear and i quote again, madam chair, most of the construction costs of the lha-7 will not be incurred nool fiscal year 20 -- incurred until fiscal year 2013, unquote. the armed services cub committee on sea power did not -- subcommittee on sea power did the right thing. they cut funding for the lha-7. however, that funding was reinstated in the full committee, given that the funds will not even be able to be used

in f.y. 2012 due to contractor delays, why was the $150 million reinstated in the full committee? well, i can tell you that a republican gentleman from mississippi sits on the armed services committee and he represents a district on the coast with a very large ship builder in it. let's review momentarily. at a time when congress is cutting critical heating assistance programs, education, health care, why should an authorized defense spending for work that the military contractors aren't even prepared to do? without my amendment congress is set to increase funding for the lha-7 warship at a time when we are slashing critical domestic spending programs that americans count on. this is a commonsense amendment, madam chair, and it follows that the g.a.o. and armed services subcommittee on sea powers said we should do. we should cut $150 million for the program.

i'll leave it to you and your imagination as to why the funding was reinstated at the full committee. i urge my colleagues to reassess our but theary priorities and authorize funds for when they can actually be used, spending should not be authorized prematurely, especially when congress is cutting other critical programs and at this time i would yield one minute to the ranking member on armed services committee. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. i support the gentleman's amendment. i think it's important to understand what's going on here. the gentleman's absolutely correct. the original purpose for this money, it was $200 million, was determined to no longer be valid for all of the reasons that were stated. mr. smith: they couldn't spend the money. but we had $200 million floating around and we hate to give back $200 million on the defense committee so they grabbed the $150 million of it and designated it so ship building. we do this a lot. mr. flake spoke about this in the other amendment.

i understand members are concerned about the top line of the defense budget and holding it. i think it's important where we spend the money. we have to have a reason to spend it. we don't have to say, there's $150 million, we'd kind of like to have it, because we might neat knead it at some point. we can't afford that in our current deficit environment, to set aside $150 million. i know we're going to talk about ship building. yes, we have fewer ships than we had in 1916. i would submit that our navy today is vastly more capable than our navy back in 1916. because the sheer number of ships is not the only factor that matters. it kind of matters what their capabilities are. so i think we need to look at this -- can i have an additional 30 seconds? mr. ellison: additional 30 seconds, without objection with. the chair: the gentleman's recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. smith: throughout the bill and we have an amendment coming up after this that's the same sort of thing, there's a lot of money in the defense budget that gets appropriated then for whatever reason we with find out we can't actually build what it was intended for and then we just sort of old onto -- hold

onto the money because we might lose it late -- use it later. that's not an efficient way to spend money. i'm sorry the deficit does matter to our national security, as has been quoted earlier. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff says that our deficit in fact is the number one threat to our national security. so we have to save money where we can, clearly this is a place where we can save money. i urge support for the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. and all time has expired. for mr. ellison. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? >> to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, i rise in opposition to the gentleman from minnesota's amendment. put simply, the gentleman's amendment would further delay the funding of a ship that our navy and marine corps wants and needs. lha-7 is a part of the next

generation of large deck amphibious assault ships. just similar to the u.s.s. ker sergeant which just returned from an 8 1/2-month-long deployment where they participated in strikes in libya and humanitarian assistance in other missions. this america class amphibious assault ship will be serving our country and providing a vital mission capability for years to come. the president's very own fiscal year 2012 budget requests included $2 billion for the second year of incremental funding for lha-7. mr. palazzo: the previous congresses have supported this ship and her procurement and further delays to this funding are opposed by this administration, the navy, the marine corps and the house armed services committee. my colleague mentioned by the way, you know, the g.a.o. report. the navy strongly disagrees with the g.a.o. report that the gentleman has pointed to. the navy has the ship builder's proposal in hand and at this point are working to complete negotiations to get this ship under contract this year which may happen as soon as august.

the secretary of the navy, the chief of naval operations, the commandant of the marine corpses have all endorsed the minimum anywayville fleece of 313 ships which 3 of those ships are going to be amphibious in nature. if the gentleman's amendment were to become law, the contract for this am fib jouse ship could be delayed. the ship's delivery to be to the fleet would be delayed and the overall cost of the ship would go up. it seems to me as a member of congress that we need to support programs and policies that enable our men and women in uniform to get the best possible equipment at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. the gentleman's amendment does just the opposite. this amendment also jeopardizes american jobs, nearly 3,500 ship builders depend on this ship for work with, cuts to this ship's funding delays in contracting and political gainsmanship put these jobs at risk. furthermore, the gentleman's amendment provides no cost savings, it just forces the navy to budget more for the ship next year and overall it increases the cost to the taxpayer. this amendment does not just delay lha-7, the amendment

potentially delays our next aircraft carrier, our submarine and our next destroyer. finally, the gentleman's amendment is not good for the taxpayer and it's not good for the navy or the marine corps. previous congresses have endorsed the procurement of this ship, the administration and the navy have endorsed the procurement of this ship and american jobs depend on the procurement of this ship. i urge my colleagues in the house to vote no on this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. all time -- mr. palazzo: madam chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from missouri, mr. akin, the chairman of sea power and projection forces. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for two minutes. mr. akin: thank you, madam chair. as the chairman of the sea power subcommittee, we've taken a good look at lha-7 and this is an absolutely essential ship, nobody is arguing that point. it's a large deck am fib assault. what's happened, though, is that the marine corps decided that they wanted to put a well deck

in the original design which has caused some additional negotiations and slowed things down a little bit. but the point of this amendment is to strip $150 million away from this project. that is a very big problem. it's a big problem because next year we've got an aircraft carrier to build, a nuclear powered submarine and a destroyer and this money needs to come from the budget this year in order to keep the lha-7 on track. as we have talked about earlier this evening, we're in a bad position in terms of number of ships in the navy, lha-7 is critical, it's important and stripping $150 million does tend to threaten the project or at least push it off and then you have to try and fund it in a year where we don't have the funds because we're building other ships. what this does is guarantees that lha-7 -- mr. ellison: will the gentleman yield? mr. akin: enough time --

mr. ellison: will the gentleman yield for a question? mr. akin: no, i don't yield -- yield. the chair: the gentleman from missouri controls the time. mr. akin: the point of the matter is that lha-7 has to go forward and what we have to make sure is that we've got the funding and as soon as the negotiations are finished between the navy and the contractor, then we can move ahead in this project. so, the $150 million is important, the exact timing of when it's going to be spent is in question but the necessity to have the money is not in doubt, that's why we oppose this amendment and mr. ellison: will the gentleman yield now? will the gentleman yield now for a question? the chair: the gentleman from missouri's time has expired. the gentleman from mississippi has 30 seconds remaining. mr. palazzo: i'd like to yield the 30 seconds to the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman. the chair: the gentleman from virginia voiced for 30 seconds. mr. wittman: thank you, madam

chairman. i just want to emphasize the need for our am fib jouse ships. the -- amphibious ships. the requirement for the 38 ships, the marine corps said they can live with 33. we have 28 today. mr. ellison: would the gentleman -- mr. wittman: no, i will not yield. the requirement is 33. we have -- mr. ellison: will the gentleman yield for a unanimous consent -- madam chair -- mr. wittman: it is a specific need. let's make sure that we have that need. the chair: the gentleman from virginia controls the need. mr. wittman: we have to make sure we meet that need. our marine corps travels around the world needing this ship capability. it is critical of this nation, critical to our defense. this must be funded today. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from mississippi -- excuse me, from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. ellison: i request a recorded vote, please. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 64 printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. sanchez: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 64 printed in house report 112-88 offered by ms. loretta sanchez of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentlewoman from california, ms. loretta sanchez, and a member opposed

each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. sanchez: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. sanchez: thank you, madam chair. this congress' number one responsibility is to defend and protect our nation. as we all know, the united states faces incredible threats within and from abroad and it's the responsibility of the house armed services committee to assess the threats that we face and to look at the limited resources we have and to allocate them in the most effective way we can. . my republican colleagues increased the founding of the ground-based system by $100 million. my amendment would simply take out that $100 million and give

it towards savings for our country to bring down the deficit. we democrats support progress on homeland missile defense. we want to see the technology is proven and reliable and that it is cost effective. however, additional funds for the g.m.d. are not needed and would be wasteful. the head of the missile defense agency, the director, general o'reilly, has stated that he does not need the increased in these funds for fiscal year 2012. in fact, in front of the senate armed services committee at a hearing on april 15, i want to give you the exact thing he said. he said right now, sir, i've got the funding i need to address this problem, meaning some of the problems that we have. because i've stopped my production line. my production line was stopped

not to save money. it is solely driven by what we need to confirm so that the design work before we go back into production. so this funding is not needed. and aside from the g.a.o. saying that congress should reduce by over $400 million from the budget nor this, i'm only talking about the $100 million that in that hearing the general said we don't need it. the last -- and why don't we need it? because the last two sbrp september test flights of this system did not work, they failed. and so the agency has gone back to do systems testing and don't want to produce if it's not working. in fact, they have said that we must fly, i.e. it must work,

before we buy. so the fiscal year 2011 appropriations has allowed the m.d.a. has allowed to focus on the challenges of the planned tests and we will avoid delays and now is the time to get it right. we don't want to build something that just isn't working. so i hope that my colleagues will understand that this money is not needed at this time. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. turner: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. turner: this amendment has been debate nd committee and should be defeated here and three reasons why. this is a program that has had past cuts that have endangered

the program. these are dollars that are needed and the threat that we have is increasing. the ground-based mid-course defense system is the only missile defense system that we have that currently protects the american people from long-rang ballistic missile threats, a threat that is increasing. this is a program that has had successive cuts in the past in 2010. the administration slashed g.m.d. by 35% or $445 million in the same year that program had setbacks. this year fiscal year's 2012 cuts it by 14% or $185 million. the department's five-year projection cuts 20%. this is the program that is having setbacks but the only program that we have. we can't cut it and expect to fix it. we can't fix it and expect to

get it right or cut it and expect it to be a system that we depend on against growing threats. he said he has needs for ground testing. he testified today in front of the senate appropriations committee that the propped cuts could set it back by an additional year. secretary gates has testified that if we look at the growing threats from north korea and iran, these are threats that must be responded to. our only system to do that is this system. we should not cut it, we did not cut it in committee and should not cut it here. the chair: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. sanchez: i yield one minute to mr. andrews, who also sits on our committee.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: as we meet tonight in support of the sanchez amendment, we have 30 ground-based interceptors and we have other radar protections for this country and we have an effort to give $100 million to a military leader who said the following in april when he was talking about what he needed and referring to senator levin in the senate, right now, sir, i have the funding i need to address the problem. that was not to save any money, but solely driven by the need to go back into production. let's not give a military leader $100 million he hasn't asked for to defeat defend the country. vote for the sanchez amendment. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from ohio has three minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from california has one half minute remaining. mr. turner: i yield two minutes to mr. lamborn from colorado. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. lamborn: i consider this amendment harmful to our nation's defense. president obama is no fan of missile defense based on his budget priorities. he cut the same program ground-base mid-course defense by $145 million. his request for 2012 cuts this program by another $185 million. this program is the only defense we have from an ballistic missile fired by a rogue country or terrorist group. this would cut another $100 million. all we have today is a couple of

interpret septemberors on the west coast and nothing on thest keith. the general in charge said in april in a hearing before our subcommittee that he wants more money than what the president requested for testing an additional interceptor. the secretary of defense said we have underestimated the threat from north korea. the director of national intelligence said in february that iran's missile technology could be used for icbm's. now is not the time to slash our only defense from countries like iran or north korea. the consequences would be devastating and reject this reckless amendment. the chair: the gentleman from colorado yields back. the gentlewoman from california has 30 seconds remaining. ms. sanchez: i ask does the

gentleman have any more speakers? will you be closing? we have just one speaker left. mr. turner: we have one speaker left. ms. sanchez: i yield the balance of my time to the ranking member of the armed forces committee. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. smith: no one is questioning the importance of missile defense. there is $1.1 billion in this bill. the reasons the funds has been cut isn't because it is less of a priority, it's because the program wasn't working as it was intended. this happens frequently in the defense department. we don't get a program up to where it's supposed to be. we are authorizing money in this bill that cannot be spent not because we want to cut it, but because it isn't working at the pace we expected it to be. we are giffling $100 million

that isn't needed even to continue the program. we need to be more fiscally responsible. we support this program. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. turner: i yield to mr. franks from arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. franks: i would seek to put this in some kind of perspective. ever since mankind took umh arms, there has been an offensive weapon met with a defensive weapon. the spear brought the shield, the artillery brought the armed battle tank and we face the world's most dangerous weapons in the form of intercontinental ballistic missiles and could kill hundreds of thousands of people in a city or over our nation continent, a blast could perhaps overtime destroying our

electric infrastructure kill tens of millions of people. and the only system that we have to defend ourselves against that type of weapon is our ground-based mid-course defense system and this amendment seeks to cut this another $100 million on top of the cuts that the administration has constantly done throughout its tenure. i would suggest to you that is the height of irresponsibility. when two amplese hit two buildings, it cost this economy $2 trillion. this is not the way to have priorities. our primary duty is to protect the lives and constitutional rights of americans we must protect our ability to stop intercontinental nuclear armed missiles. this is the only system we have to do it. vote down this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the the gentlewoman

from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed to. ms. sanchez: madam chair, i request the yeas and nays, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. the chair understands that the proponents of remaining amendments through amendment number 97 will not individually offer their amendments. it is now in order to consider amendment number 100 printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does does the gentlewoman from maryland seek recognition? ms. edwards: i have an amendment at the desk.

the clerk: amendment number 100 printed in house report 112-88 offered by ms. edwards of maryland. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 2276, the the gentlewoman from from maryland, ms. edwards and a member opposed each will control five minutes. ms. edwards: thank you to the chairman and ranking member. i represent the 4th congressional district of maryland which is home to joint base andrews. it is the home to air force one, 11th wing and 113th wing that hass sovreignty over the national capitol region. 15,000 personnel, including 7,000 active duty service members. when the brac process is complete, an additional 3,000 personnel will work there, bringing the total to 18,000

personnel. unfortunately when considering shifting resources. , the commission did not account for changes outside the gate required to deliver outside personnel to the installation. and i refer to the installation as one of many examples across the country of these significant brac impacts on local infrastructure. the underlying bill corrects the transportation infrastructure impacts related to realignment. if a significant transportation impact will occur as a result of of a realignment action, the action may not be taken unless the secretary analyzes the impact on local governments. these can be significant and unaccounted for. my amendment keeps with the spirit of the bill addressing transportation infrastructure and simply ensures that our constituents and local congressional districts will congressional districts will have the