money and paying less money. they do not want these jobs to come back if they can get the same amount of revenue with less people, that's what it will keep doing. guest: you are absolutely right in terms of companies will not pay for things they think they do not need. if they can find a way to do more with less workers. we found out to be the case. we saw massive layoffs. now the people have the money to hire people back, they're not doing that. i think you are right that politics, in a lot of ways, does run on scare tactics. these races are always more complicated than one issue. i do not think of ryan plan is now all the sudden something all republicans will be running away from because they will be afraid of what democrats will do. host: andy barr "politco" national political reporter. we will now go to the house of the -- go to the floor of the house of representatives.

on this day we ask your blessing on the meb and -- men and women of the people's house who have been entrusted with the care of this great nation's people and because of the great blessings you have bestowed on our nation, the opportunity to build a better world beyond our borders as well. please teach each member to be generous with the gifts you have given and the opportunities with which they have been presented. may they give and not count the cost. fight for the greater good and not count the wounds. toil in their efforts and not seek to rest. labor and not ask for reward other than to know that they are doing your will. may all that they do this day be for your greater honor and

glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlelady from kansas. ms. jenkins: please join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five one-minute requests on each side. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate a

local hero from my home district. at just 7 years old, abby beranke, demonstrated quick thinking and courage when a fire broke out in their home. utilizing the fire skills she learned as a girl scout to keep her family safe. when she realized her home was on fire, first grader abby remained calm and immediately put in action the lessons she learned when they are troop visited the lamont fire station. because of abby's courage and quick thinking, she was able to help her mom and keep her 18-month-old brothers and her 3-month-old sister safe. i also want to commend the lamont fire protection district, especially jeff hawthorne and chief carl for offering lifesaving educational safety courses for our children. their hard work and willingness to reach out to the community has clearly made a difference and saved lives. mr. speaker, i urge my

colleagues to join me in recognizing a local hero, abby, of lamont illinois, who has made her community and family proud. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california wish to be recognized? without objection, the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. speier: thank you, mr. speaker. we all heard the jokes about how many people does it take to screw in a light bulb. i have a variation on that this morning. how many seniors have to lose their medicare in order to provide $104,000 tax cut per year for every millionaire? the answer is, 17. 17 seniors will see a reduction in their medicare or additional cost of $6,000 a year in order to pay for the millionaire tax cut of $104,000.

mr. speaker, even the "wall street journal," the conservative "wall street journal" has said, the house republican plan will likely result in higher out-of-pocket costs and greater limits to coverage for all americans. house budget committee chairman paul ryan's solution is to end the current medicare program for people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from kansas wish to be recognized? ms. jenkins: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from kansas is recognized for one minute. ms. jenkins: i have the honor and privilege of representing fort riley, home of the first infantry division or the big red one. which has been under the command of major general vincent brooks since april of 2009, a term that included a year-long deployment to iraq. general brooks has been promoted to a three star general and will be moving on from fort riley. in his short time in kansas, he

has been a tremendous asset to fort riley. a devoted member of our community and wonderful advisor to me personally and we are sad to see him go. while i could not be back in the district to attend the change of command ceremony, i wanted to take a moment and thank general brooks for his dedication and service to our country. congratulate him on his promotion, and let him know that he will be truly missed at foreriley kansas. -- fort riley, kansas. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota wish to be recognized? without objection, the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. walz: thank you, mr. speaker. this monday, memorial day, will give citizens around the country the opportunity to come together and remember those who have laved down their lives in defense of our freedom. the debt we owe our nation's service member and veterans is immeasurable. therefore its fitting to honor those heroes by renewing our commitment in this house to care for those service members both while in the military and

after they return home. as a 24-year veteran of our armed services, i'm proud of the work we have done in congress. passed landmark budgets worthy of our veterans. made sure the v.a. health care budget was delivered a year in advance. expanded health care for returning combat veterans. passed a 21st century g.i. bill and continue to improve upon it and enhancing employment opportunities. although we have come a long way, our work is never done. we must ensure our returning troops do not fall through the cracks and they make the transition to civilian life with the full support of this nation. on behalf of that grateful nation, we thank our current service members, our veterans, and their families for their service. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york wish to be recognized? without objection, the gentlelady from new york is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as you know this monday is

memorial day, and memorial day reminds us that the most fundamental rights of americans, the one we cherish most, is to be free. but that freedom is purchased at a dear price. i rise in gratitude to the millions of americans who have made the sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice, and to their family members. and i remember in particular sergeant david -- private david r. fahey of yorktown heights, new york, who made the ultimate sacrifice this year. ms. hayworth: thanks to all our veterans and families who do so much to assure that we enjoy the freedoms we cherish every day. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. sires: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. sires: mr. speaker, my colleagues across the aisle have recently claimed the

current seniors won't be impacted by their plan for player as we we -- mare as we know t this is not -- medicare as we know it. this is not true. because the doughnut hole will be reopened and preoffice visits on medicare will be eliminated. in my state of new jersey alone, an estimated 143,000 seniors will pay $80 million more for prescription drugs in 2012. additionally the majority's plan to rescind that man on co-pays for wellness visits for seniors would force at least 30,000 new jersey nng seniors to pay over $3 million more for annual wellness visits next year. once the plan takes in effect in 2022, out-of-pocket expenses for seniors mr. soar. a typical senior from new jersey will pay $7,000 more. the majority's plan for medicare does not preserve the program as we know it. rather it takes money from seniors' pocket and places them

at the mercy of rising insurance costs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this week my district is losing one of its very best agricultural reporters to retirement. bill jackson will be leaving the greeley tribune and in his place will be a big hole in coverage of agricultural districts, agricultural issues in the fourth congressional district of colorado. he spent his entire childhood in fort morgan but ultimately moved to my hometown where he graduated high school. mr. gardner: spending time in the navy after that, he went to arizona and sterling before the greeley tribune in 1977 where he spent the last many years n 2004, bill was inducted into the colorado agricultural hall of fame. mike peters, one of his colleagues, wrote a speech about bill for his retirement that was so funny i would like to share some of it with you today. you know your bill jackson if

you go to cover a water meeting and you know what the heck they are talking about. you know you're bill jackson if someone mentions charlie or dick mumford instead of rocky baseball, you tell them how they changed your diapers when they were little. you know every single farmer, ranchers, cowboy, cowgirl, and rainmaker in the county. you know if the term mift not only makes sense but makes in your heart race. it goes into a river and the reservoir and down a river until it reaches your water cup. we are going to business bill jackson. thank you for your service to colorado, colorado agriculture, and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. through its illustrious history the indianapolis motor speedway has served as a proving ground

for many innovation that is have become mainstays in auto mowive production and race rings around the world. it's the 500 mile race conducted at thend of may that makes the indianapolis motor speedway so special. every memorial day weekend 300,000 fans from across the world gather at the historic track for the greatest spectacle in racing. the indianapolis 500. mr. carson: this year i along with motor sport fans from around the world am excited to be celebrating the 100th anniversary of this famous race. for 100 years now, legions of fans have traveled to the town of speedway, indiana, to witness the premiere motor sports event in the world and to see which driver's likeness will be added to one of the most could have vetted trophies in the world of sports. as the largest single sporting event in the world, the indianapolis 500 remains a great source for my

constituents in the seventh congressional district and for hoosiers all across the united states. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. murphy: three -- >> a plies chief in my district stopped a man for speeding. the driver was an illegal alien. he didn't speak lengish. a translator was called. the man had been in the united states for six years. he had been arrested before. he had no job. he didn't know where he lived. he had three dollars cash in his pocket, and he had two public benefit access cards. when police chief called immigration and customs enforcement, i.c.e. said, let him go. at a time when our nation is broke, and when programs for our elderly are being cut, i.c.e. must not allow people like this to defraud the american taxpayers. mr. barletta: mr. speaker, three weeks ago i asked i.c.e.

to explain its decision and put in writing the policy regarding the detention of illegal aliens found by local law enforcement. why was this man let go? three weeks later, and i am still waiting. i demand andance. -- answer. my constituents deserve an answer and millions of americans deserve an answer. we are all still waiting. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker very much. i rise today to remind americans that on monday we will commemorate those men and women that have fallen in battle. this morning we are laying a wreath in the arlington cemetery in reflection and remembrance of women who have fallen on behalf of their country. we want to say to all those families, those mothers and fathers, and extended family

members, we offer our deepest gratitude and sympathy. and as well to the blue star and gold star mothers who remain active in serving this country. as a member of the military families caucus, i'm delighted to be able to say that we stand for the families. and our promise is, even to those who still live and still fight, that we fight for your resources, we fight for the opportunity that you will have when you return home, a good-paying job, an educational opportunity, and the ability to heal and mend and provide for your families. we mourn those who are lost. we pay tribute to them. but we say that the nation will never stop being grateful for those who layne in battle and sacrificed their life for us for freedom. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent that during further -- mr. mckeon: i ask unanimous consent that during further krgs in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union amendment number 55 in house report 112-88 may be considered out of sequence. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mckeon: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 1540. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 276 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1540. will the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack, kindly resume the chair.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1540. which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2012 and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on wednesday, maye 25, 2011, proceedings on amendment number 100 printed in house report 112-88, offered by the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards, had been disposed of. the chair understands that proponents of amendments numbered 100 through -- 101 through 109 will not individually offer their amendments. it is now in order to consider amendment number 110 prinned in house report 112-88.

for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 112 offered by mr. inslee of washington. the chair: the gentleman from washington, mr. inslee, an a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. inslee: we're offering a simple amendment that will make it much easier for wounded warriors to obtain access to adaptive recreational congresswomen. we have these proud men and women coming back from the field of battle with obviously very, very severe wounds and what we have found is some of the best things they can to to get back with their lives and professional development is to have access to adaptive recreation, both services and equipment. i know some of these folks do incredible things with

paralysis, skiing with severe injuries, riding adaptive boiks, people who lost their vision, wounded warriors, getting back up on the slopes and it's been a tremendous thing for these men and women to help restore their confidence, rebuild their strength and get back into the swing of things. our research has shown this works both from a psychological and a physical standpoint but we have a little glitch that whereas our veterans in the veterans administration can have access to adaptive equipment such as mono skis and adaptive bikes, our wounded warriors haven't necessarily had the authorization to be provided that equipment who are on active duty. so my amendment would simply authorize the department of defense to make that available and i have been inspired by lieutenant counselor daniel bedik who until today has been

the commanding officer of the warrior transition battalion at joint base lewis mccord in tacoma, he's moving on to continue this work at the pentagon. he lost some function in his limbs and has been a -- done a tremendous job helping wounded warriors get back going. we'd like to extend this system-wide now and this would authorize the d.o.d. to do that. we would commend this as one step forward to helping our proud men and women proud men and women regain their confidence and enjoy life and professional abilities. we commend this and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mckeon: i rise to seek time knopp sigs to the amendment though i don't oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckeon: i commend the gentleman on his amendment. i think it will make the bill

stronger. i think we should be doing all we can to help our wounded warriors. this is something that fortunately he picked up on and i think it's an exceptional idea. i thank him for it and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. inslee: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 111 printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentleman -- the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 111 printed in house report 112-88 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. earlier this morning, in fact just a few minutes ago, i spoke on the tribute that americans will give to their fallen this coming monday. sadly so, but with joy and appreciation for the bravery of those who sacrificed their lives and their families. today i rise on an amendment with my colleague on the armed services committee, mr. johnson to ask support for an amendment to bring all of us together. the designation of a national day of honor to celebrate the members of the armed services who will be returning from deployment in iraq and afghanistan and other combat areas. this national day of honor

would recognize the enormous sacrifice and invaluable service that those phenomenal men and women have undertake ton protect our freedom and share the gift of democracy in other parts of the world. how many of us have stopped to say thank you to a soldier walking alone in an airport, maybe having made a travel of millions of miles, thousands upon thousands of miles to find himself or herself in a rural hamlet or urban center coming home. they've come home over the years and they have come home not seeking glory or appreciation. that's our men and women. the men and women of the united states military intelligence community who help bring down osama bin laden didn't ask for applause and appreciation but my amendment will give all americans, no matter what your political views, religion, ethnicity, gender, background, to be able to say thank you. it's reminiscent of times that some of us did not live through, i'm reminded of the

pictures that i saw of those celebrating in the streets during world war ii. my uncle served in world war ii, my grandmother sent her sons to war. she watched them one by one and proudly so, as an immigrant american, she was glad to be able to send them to fight our battles. now as we make our decisions to bring our troops home, to be able to provide opportunity of economic development and education, let's have a day where all of us will be able to p in the streets if you will, to be able to say thank you. i ask my colleagues to join me to say thank you to one of the most diverse exhibitions of american bravery and courage and that is the united states military. as you can see, here they are, without fanfare, fighting for us in the midst of battle and all i want to do is to say thank you. i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentlelady reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mckeon: i claim time in opposition to the amendment though i done oppose the amendment. in fact, i thank the gentlelady for doing this. i think she's exactly right on. there's nothing -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckeon: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: i think everything we can do to honor these warriors out there fighting for our freedoms and freedom for those around the world we should do. i thank you for this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington -- the gentlelady from texas. the gentlelady from texas has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. jackson lee: i'm delighted to yield to the ranking member one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: i thank the

gentlelady for bringing this forward. i think the most important thing we can do for those in the military is show them our support in every conceivable way. iraq and afghanistan have been very, very difficult fights. the men and women in our military have fought bravely and amazingly. every time i meet one of them, i'm in awe of how great our military is how brave they are and what a tremendous job they've done for us but it is really important that we don't forget that here at home. a statistic i've heard over and over again it's 1% of the population in the united states who is participating in this world. it's critically important that the rest of us remember it, support those who fought in every way possible, i can think of no better way to make sure that happens than give them a day when we all think about it, we all remember what they've done. it's critical we do that every single day this will help in that process. i thank the gentlelady for offering the amendment and i urge support. ms. jackson lee: i'm prepared to close if you're yielding

back. the chair: the gentleman from california continues to reserve. ms. jackson lee: let me first of all thank the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member of the full committee, although this is not an amendment that pertains only to my district, but i do want you to know that i represent a district that's home to one of the largest populations of military service members and their families in the nation. there are other 200,000 veterans of military service who live and work in houston, more than 13,000 are veterans from the iraq and afghanistan war, they should return home to banners and to communities that recognize their service after years of combat. i might say that the state of texas along with all the states claim to have their wonderful share of our men and women in the united states military. mr. chairman, the -- i offer this amendment so the children of america can likewise be with us as they wave their flags and welcome our men and women home.

as president john f. kennedy said, as we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words but to live by them. let us live and celebrate on this national day of honor the men and women who served us so gallantly and bravely. i ask my leagues to join me in supporting this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: i thank the gentlelady for her amendment. we have a good bill, this national defense authorization act of 2012. is that the one we're working on? is a very good bill. we have a lot of good things in it. but this amendment, this amendment alone is reason to vote for the bill. i think we should all, on memorial day, on the day you're requesting, and throughout the year, honor those who are willing to lay their lives on the line every day for us. i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question son the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i would like a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings an the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas will be postponed. the chair understands that the proponents of amendments numbered 112 through 133 will not individually offer their amendments. it is now in order to consider amendment number 134 printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 134 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. run january of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman

from new jersey, mr. runyan, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. runyan: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. runyan: thank you for working with me on this amendment, it is an honor to work with the both of you. the commission on wartime contracting is an independent, bipartisan, legislative commission established to study wartime contracting in iraq and afghanistan. this eight-member commission was mandated by congress to study federal agency contracting for reconstruction logistical support of coalition forces and performance of security functions in support of operation iraqi freedom and operation enduring freedom. in the latee re-- in the latest report the c.w.c. found that contingency reports have stabilized, agencies have not shifted approaches to introduce

much-needed competition into support contracts. competition is the key that we need to get our war fighters what they need through a fair and transparent contracting process and at the best value for the taxpayers' money. . my amendment would require the d.o.d. to establish goals for competition and contract award in support of contingency operation and would require an annual review of omnibus contingency contract to identify any subcontracts that can be completed as a stand alone -- stand-alone contract. it would also amend section 863 the fiscal year 2008 ndaa to increase reporting requirements to competition and contingency contracting. i urge my colleagues to support this critical amendment in support of the men and women serving in iraq and afghanistan and in support of the american taxpayer. i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. does any member seek time in opposition? the gentleman from washington. >> i seek time in opposition though i am not opposed. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i think he's explain it well and i think this body should support the amendment. with that i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. runyan: i thank the gentleman for his support 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 new jersey. so many as are in favor say aye those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the chair understands that the proponents of amendments number 135 through 140 will not individually offer -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 141 in house report 112-88. props the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number

141, printsed in house report number 112-88, offered by mr. thompson of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to the chairman, ranking member of this committee. i rise in support of the thompson amendment, number 29, which is nearly identical to h.r. 1832, the bipartisan service members telemedicine and e--health portability act. this amendment will bring essential reforms to our service members and veterans access care, and common sense no cost changes to how the department of defense administers health care. currently the department of defense has limited ability to allow its health care professionals to provide care when the patient is in a different state. the department of defense's hands are also tied when it comes to civilians or contractors who have stepped up to fill shortages and

desperately needed positions, especially mental health. as a result, many in the military are required to travel long distances to access care. this can add undue stress and financial burdens to every day lives of our service men and women. too often these circumstances contribute to those who need help the most going without and some cases falling through the cracks. by removing location requirements, this amendment will allow the department of defense qualified and credentialed health care professionals, including contractors and civilians, to give to the core mission of helping their come prats in need this. will allow our national guard, reserve veterans, and retirees quicker and more efficient access to care and open the door to allow for the modernization of department of defense health care delivery. this will allow for new technologies in telephone and internet communications to expand into the department of defense which will greatly expand access, especially in rural america. it will also allow more specialists to be involved in providing care. when it comes to behavioral health, the guard and us

reserves have been hit especially hard. this amendment will allow the guard and reserve to access behavioral health care right here at home from their home immediately when they need it most. this is a very important issue to me. i have met with our military and veterans over the past several months and closely examined the behavioral health issues affecting our young men and women. recently vice chief of staff of the army, said, and i quote, the army like the larger american society is suffering from a shortage of behavioral health specialists. that is a national crisis. efforts in telebehavioral health allowing specialists to meet with patients through teleconferencing technology, for instance, could increase the effectiveness and reach of a limited number of providers. but the general then said, there are challenges regarding the credentialing and licensing of specialists to work across state lines. mr. speaker, this amendment directly -- will directly address this issue and has the means to dramatically improve and change our we access care.

with these restrictions removed it opens doors to how the department of defense can minister its health care programs. to be clear there's nothing in this amendment intended to change or be the basis for any future change to the department of defense, laws, or regulations. it's about technology and modernization. it is about new ways for service members and veterans to access care. it's about fulfilling a pledge to take care of our veterans regardless of where they live at no cost to the taxpayers. no new cost to the taxpayers. this bipartisan amendment has broad support from the pentagon and military community so the most notable groups include the air force association, association of united states navy, enlisted association national guard, iraq, and afghanistan veterans of america, mental health america, military officers association of america, national guard association of the united states, reserve -- veterans of foreign war. i ask my colleagues on both side of the aisle to support this commonsense, bipartisan, no cost amendment. as memorial day approaches we

owe our service members as much. i thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does any member seek time in opposition? the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i will rise to claim time in opposition though i am not opposed. the chair: without objection. mr. smith: thank you. i thank the gentleman for offering the amendment. we have no opposition. appreciate him bringing it to our attention in the committee. i urge the body to pass the amendment w that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. thompson: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the chair understands that proponents of amendments number 142 to 148 will not be individually offered their amendments. it's now in order to consider amendment number 148 printed in house report 112-88, for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. turner: i have an amendment

at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 148, printed in house report number 112-88, offered by mr. turner of ohio. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is really very simple. we have had a recent election where the tide of the taxpayers has spoken where they want this house and they want congress to start making decisions and the government to start making decisions to address this issue of our debt and the existential threat we have to our country of out-of-control spending. we have an issue with the enterprise logistic exs director. it is being moved by the air force without any analysis as to what's good for the taxpayers. it's an arbitrary decision that appears to be made somewhere in the bureaucracy and needs the accountability of the taxpayers. congress has to have the effective oversight to ensure

that the taxpayers' dollars are being spent effectively. what's interesting about this the air force said we are not going to move everybody. then everybody to ohio. we are going to move to everybody to alabama. we are not going to move everybody. now they are back to moving everybody to alabama. when you ask them, they don't have one analysis, one scrap of paper that says what's best for the taxpayers. this is based on personalities and arbitrary actions. this is an important direct rat -- directorate. it empowers the war fighter to leverage information as an effective weapon anywhere, any time. it develops fields, sustains and operates worldwide communications systems, capabilities for the president, chairman joint chiefs of staff, services, it contracts for the procurement of information technology systems and services supporting d.o.d. customers. this should not be a parochial

issue or fight. this should be an issue of what is best for the taxpayers. there has been no analysis done. my amendment does not step in place the decisionmaking of the air force. in fact, what it says is, is let's do a cost benefit analysis and the air force gets to decide, but it requires that that cost benefit analysis be done before anybody moves. again, remember the air force has said, leave everybody in place, move them to ohio. move them to alabama. leave them in place, move them to alabama. this should not happen until we have a cost benefit analysis. we should spend this monny, move these people, find out it costs more after the move. we would have to move everybody back. we are saying let's do a cost benefit analysis. this is an amendment for the timps. this amendment needs to pass. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. any member wish to claim time in -- for what purpose does the gentlelady from alabama rise? >> i thank you. i -- i rise in opposition.

the chair: coip does the gentlelady claim type in opposition? mr. roby: i rise in opposition to this amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. i stand before you today to urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment respectfully the gentleman from ohio. i'd like to thank chairman mckeon and his staff for agreeing to allow me and others the opportunity to kuwait this specific amendment. the air force recently made a decision to combine two programs that fall under the air force program executive office. e.i.s. currently located at gunner annex, alabama, and e.l.s. located at wright paterson air force base would be consolidated. basically the job is to design, acquire, and install, and maintain operations support systems for the air force and department of defense and the job of the e.l.s. is to empower the war fighter to leverage information as an effective weapon. it makes good common sense for the management of these functions to be consolidated. additionally, air force material command has approved

this decision and congress should allow this decision to move forward. my understanding is that no jobs from wright patterson would be transferred, only the management of air force logistics systems would be removed from wright where it has been for two years. this would return to gunner where it had been located for more than 20 years. however the entire amendment would require a cost benefit analysis of the consolidation that would then need to be approved by the house armed services committee and this action would be costly and further bind the hands of our military commanders. it is very important to note that the 2005 brack commission report showed -- [-- brac commission record showed this is good. there is no need for a costly study. it is important for us to allow our military commanders make decisions to help the war fighter. if we adopt this amendment it will represent congressional interference in a decision that

our commanders in the united states air force have already made. i encourage my colleagues to vote no. thank you. i reserve my time for my colleague from alabama. the chair: the gentlelady reserves her time of the the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: thank you. many times we talk about the taxpayers and saving the taxpayers money. but unfortunately stismse when it comes to probingial interest we get to the point it doesn't matter what's in the interest of the taxpayers as long as it's coming my way or my state. all this amendment says is, let's look at what's best for the taxpayers. all it requires is analysis of cost benefit. in fact, this issue was looked at by the 2005 brac process, the air force looked at merging these functions at wright-pat and gunter, and in all cases, the 2005 and 1995 brac process, this was rejected. this is going outside of brac. i'd like to yield two minutes to my colleague from ohio.

the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank mr. turner for yielding and offering this important amendment. it's especially critical as we continue our work in the house of cutting unnecessary spending and breaking transparency and accountability for taxpayers' dollars that we have an amendment like this in place. and this amendment, again, simply asks the department of defense and air force to provide that same transparency. the air force is merging as we heard two important areas of logistics with the enterprise logistics systems, e.l.s., and enterprise systems e.l.s. into a newport folio. mr. austria: again this amendment is simply saying as you make this merger, you make this -- combine these two different portfolios, do a cost benefit analysis. e.i.s. which includes activities such as e.c.s. and others have been shown to be cost efficient. and much needed to modern .ize the air force logistics twhrog

systems and services. it currently manages a very large program at wright patterson air force base. these are approximately 1,000 jobs, including military, civilians, and contractors, employees within the enterprise logistic director yacht. asking the department of defense to provide cost benefit analysis of their decision to combined these portfolios makes sense. . the comment of this being a costly study this study will provide congress the same transparency and accountability of taxpayers' dollars that we here in congress are being asked. i support the air force's plan to become more efficient but we need to make sure there's a good business case and these moves are efficient and are in the best interest of the taxpayers. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from alabama.

mrs. roby: i yield the rest of my time to the gentleman from alabama. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. i want to thank chairman turner for his hard work and dedication, i'm privileged to serve on the house armed services with my friends. with that, said, i disagree -- with that said, i disagree with my friend on this amendment. i believe it calls for an unnecessary report to congress meant to delay the consolidation and move the program executive office for enterprise information. mr. rogers: this is no cost to the air force, adequate cost studies already exist as part of the 2005 commission report. those reports show that executing these operations at gun far annex in montgomery, alabama is more cost effective than other air force bases in

houston and ohio. in short, mr. chairman, i believe that this amendment is an example of one of the ways that we can save money and make efficient choices when it comes to the defense department that doesn't come at the expense of the war fighter. at a time when our nation is facing its dire fiscal situation, these are the types of small cost savings that help over time. i would like to thank my colleague from alabama, mrs. roby, for her leadership on this issue, she's a strong advocate for our brave war fighters and i would like to associate myself with her remarks and i yield back and urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio. >> how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 45 seconds remaining. >> it was proposed for massachusetts in 1995, otherwise we should not keep moving these jobs around until

we have a cost-benefit analysis. all we're asking for is just a cost-benefit analysis to determine where they should be. mr. turner: this decision was made last week and needs to be reviewed. the chair: the gentlelady from alabama. mrs. roby: i urge my colleagues to vote no. the air force made it clear that this is the consolidation they want, that it is efficient for their operations, so i urge my colleagues to vote no and mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mrs. roby: i'd like to request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, fourth proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio will be postponed. the chair understands that proponents of amendments 149 through 151 will not

individually offer their amendments. it is now in order to consider amendment number 152 printed in house report 112-88. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman -- the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 152 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. cravaack of minnesota. the chair: the gentleman in minnesota, mr. cravaack, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. cravaack: i yield myself three minutes. after years of spending, the united states is facing difficult economic and fiscal straits. we are suffering under a $14.39 trillion in national tet and roughly 40 cents of every dollar we spend must be borrowed and placed on the backs of our children. funding if fovet programs and nonprofit organizations not

critical to the functioning of core government services must be considered for cuts. with an extensive effort to portray the institute for peace as incredibly important, a few u.s. officials have signed letters in its support. while i have seen evidence to the contrary, i will cede their point. however i will note that the united states institute for peace grant program is entirely duplicative of existing grant programs in the united states government, the private seblingtor and nonprofit organizations. at a time when the government must do more with less, i remain convinced the research training, work shop holding and humanitarian work of the united states institute for peace can be replicated by divisions or officers with -- offices with the department of defense, state department or peace corps

or usaid. it must. we are a nation teetering on the edge of insolvency. admiral mike mullen recently stated as most sig -- the most significant threat to national security is our debt. now is the time to make the tough calls, mr. speaker. the united states institute for peace is a program that our children and grandchildren should not be funding at the sake of our future -- of their futures. therefore in closing, i would like to urge my colleagues to support amendment 152 and mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: i oppose the amendment and will yield to my colleagues to explain our side. i yield one minute to the ranking member of the house foreign affairs committee, mr. berman of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. berman: thank you, mr. chairman. i have to say it boggles my mind how we can argue one minute about whether to

withdraw troops from afghanistan or authorize the use of force in libya and in the next minute seek to eliminate the one u.s. government institution that is dedicated to resolving such conflicts peacefully. no other institution can accomplish the mission congress gave the u.s. i.p. no other agency has this peace building mandate. general petraeus called u.s. i.p.'s work invaluable, a potential key to the success and enormous challenges we face. undersecretary of defense forney talking about one specific example in iraq where the, and i quote, the u.s.i.p. hoped tribal and local government leaders forge a ground breaking agreement viewedly local leaders as a turning point toward peace and stability in one of iraq's most violent regions. i fail to understand what

national interest could possibly serve by reducing the number of troops at our disposal. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. cravaack: i yield one minute to the gentleman from utah. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. chaffetz: i do believe we should support the united states institute of peace. i believe that every department, every agency in the united states of america stands for and fights for peace. we don't have to have some separate organization that is just built on peace. no, it is the department of defense. it is the state department. in fact, it is every agency within the united states of america that fights for peace. that's what our country stands for. we don't need a separate organizations. we have spent over $700 million on this think tank that while their intentions are good, quite frankly we can't afford

and don't need. it is primary mission of the state department and the department of defense to achieve the peace. it's not something we dole off to some separate agency in a fancy building kitty cornered to the state department. if the state department and department of defense aren't fighting for peace, maybe that's a discussion we should have. but it is not the sole and only agency that fights for peace. we all fight for peace. i vote that we -- i encourage my members to support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i am pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i want to thank my colleague and friend for yielding. mr. speaker, i oppose this amendment and i urge every single one of my colleagues to vote no. every single one of the last five presidents including president reagan and bush

understand the importance of the united states institute of peace. usip is not a think tank. they don't sit in a cloud shouting recommendations they jump into the conflict and work side-by-side with the d.o.d., department of state in afghanistan and iraq. listen to the commandos and yens who tell us usip saved the lives of soldiers in iraq and afghanistan. they saved american taxpayer dollars around the world. this is not a partisan issue. it is not hawk versus dove. this is basic common sense. prevent and stop conflicts, save lives as all of -- i ask all my colleagues to vote no. give peace a chance. give peace a chance. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. cravaack: as a 24-year naval veteran, there's no one who wants peace more than me but i also want to leave a future for my children and we cannot do that by mounting debt upon them. though the u.s. institutes for peace may be a good program, unfortunately, it is a duplicative program that other programs can do that are already being paid for. so mr. speaker, i say once again this program needs to be eliminated so that we can maintain the savings and i would like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. woolsey: i cannot imagine anything more shortsighted than cutting off funding for the u.s. institutes of peace. we have taken a militaristic

approach to keeping peace in america and it hasn't worked. it's killed thousands of people and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. instead we can have smart security like usip that use conflict prevention and resolution techniques from kosovo to sudan, iraq, afghan stab, usip personnel have been laying the building blocks for peace and stability. created by ronald reagan's presidential signature, it's been called a striking success story by general petraeus. it has done extraordinary work and earned praise from leaders across the ideological spectrum. usip saves lives, it's uh up to us to save usip. vote no on this misguided amendment. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. cravaack: thank you once again. i'd like to remind the speaker that the u.s. institute for

peace has been in existence since 1985 and spent $ 20 million and we have had many conflicts since then. the united states institute for peace is not the critical factor when we're talking about peace or war. i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. choi the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield one minute to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. ellison: thank you, mr. chairman. i couldn't help but note my colleague from minnesota's last comment. he seems to imply that because there have been wars since 1985, that somehow that is an indictment on the u.s. institutes of peace. that's absurd and ridiculous. but it always seems that we can find more money for defense spending but not for peace. it's a question of priorities. last night, i was here trying to argue that when the g.a.o. and the subcommittee on sea power says we don't need to spend $150 million on the lha-7

friends on the other side of the aisle leaped to their feet and said, we got to have this, we've got to have this. the g.a.o. doesn't think so. yet we're trying to zero out the united states institute for peace which is on the ground in haiti and kosovo and other places trying to keep people alive. faulty logic won't justify this bad amendment. i urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. cravaack: just a reminder, this is a duplicative program that other programs can do. when i was in high school, i was wrestler. there was a sign above the wrestling mat that said if not you, who? if not now, when? now is the time to cut duplicative programs. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. falk.

the chair: the gentleman only has 3/4 minute. the gentleman's opening statement consumed time. mr. smith: i disagree with that but i'll live with it. the chair: does the gentleman yield? >> i can't believe the stupid amendment this sthefment majority party whacked the heck oout of the peace in 2001 and now want to back the heck out of this. we can put a price on war, $6.7 billion, that's what we spend every month in afghanistan. what a misguided amendment before us. it only spends the equivalent of five hours in afghanistan.

come on, you're surrounded by peace givers in this room. look at the lawgivers. they are not lawyers. they are people that tried to make peace. you're not going to win the war in afghanistan militarily. you're going to win it through peace. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time in opposition has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. cravaack: mr. chairman, everybody wants peace. i of all people. but the department of defense and we have plenty of agencies within the federal government that will go ahead and search for peace. we do not need another program to do it. we just cannot afford. with that, sir, i would like to urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: 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 minnesota mlb postponed. -- will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mckeon: i ask dwat for amendment number 55 be extended by 10 minutes and be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, and myself. the chair: without objection, so ordered.

for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. mcgovern: i have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 55, printed in horlt number 11-88, offered by mr. mcmassachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, and the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, by previous order of the house, will each control 10 minutes. and the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, too many people have died in afghanistan. since january, i have attended three funerals in my district alone. of young men who sacrificed their lives there. tens of thousands more have been wounded. and the suicide rate among our veterans from afghanistan and iraq is soaring. there is no clear mission.

the karzai government is corrupt. we continue to borrow money to pay for this war. we need to rethink what we are doing in afghanistan. it's time to define the plan to bring our uniformed men and women home to their families and to their communities where they belong. mr. chairman, this is the longest war in our nation's history. it's no longer about al qaeda. i have met with our troops in afghanistan. i have met with them after they have come home. they are incredible. politicians put them into harm's way. and we now have an obligation to get them safely home. president obama has promised a drawdown of u.s. troops in july. now we hear that might just be a token drawdown. this amendment, mr. chairman, and the vote on this amendment can send the president a clear signal of support for a meaningful drawdown of troops. help him do what the american people want him to do, bring

our troops home and invest in america. we need to safeguard our national security. we all agree with that. but many of our greatest problems aren't halfway around the world, they are halfway down the block. and rather than nation building in afghanistan, we need to do some more nation building right here in the united states. mr. chairman, this is not a partisan issue. it's about doing what's right for our troops and for the nation. if you've ever once thought that we need to do something different in afghanistan, then it's time to rethink our policy, we need to bring our troops home to their loved ones, this is the amendment you need to support. i ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california, 10 minutes. mr. mckeon: i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman. the chair: the gentleman from colorado. mr. coffman: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to the mcgovern amendment.

i would certainly agree that we have gone beyond our security objectives in afghanistan by building the economy that they never had at u.s. taxpayers' expense by trying to restructure their society and giving them a government that doesn't reflect the political culture of the country. but at that same time we have legitimate security objectives in afghanistan to keep the taliban out, to keep them from taking over the country, to keep al qaeda out. and to have an environment in which to con-- conduct strikes in afghanistan to targets such as osama bin laden or al qaeda and taliban leaders as they present themselves. but this amendment speaks to an expedition withdrawal -- expeditious withdrawal of forces from afghanistan at a time when we are very far down the path of a current strategy

for which the president says we will already reduce our footprint in afghanistan this summer, as well as shift operational control to afghan security forces by 2014. this would pull the rug out under that entire strategy and i would urge a no vote from my colleagues. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, i'm very proud to yield to the co-sponsor of this amendment, mr. jones of north carolina. the chair: for how long? mr. mcgovern: two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. jones: thank you very much. on may 9 of this year in an article on the "wall street journal," the title is mission accomplished. the article states, al qaeda is no longer based there in afghanistan and the taliban must be beaten by afghans themselves. this is why it is the right time to support the mcgovern amendment. it's a reasonable, balanced plan to bring our troops home from afghanistan. mr. speaker, two weeks ago lieutenant colonel benjamin

palmer and sergeant kevin baldus, two marines from my district, were shot and murdered by an afghan officer while trying to train the afghans. here are these two great men, fathers, trying to train the afghans and somebody within the area kills them, murders them. yes, let's keep staying there. it's worthwhile. mr. speaker, the reason this amendment is so important is because secretary gates back in february on the armed services committee made this statement, i'm going to paraphrase it, that is why we believe that beginning in 2015, 2015 the united states can with minimal risk begin reducing active duty end strength. 2015. to quote the retired marine corps general that i respect so much, and i didn't serve in the military, i quote him, what do

we say to the mother and father, wife of the last marine or soldier killed to support a corrupt government? and a corrupt leader? the american people are tired and fed up. let me say more importantly than the american people are our military. they are tired and fed up. and the wife of this sergeant who was murdered trying to train, trying to train the afghans, he had emailed her the day before and i read the email. i don't trust them. i don't trust them. or anything. not for anything at all. he died the next day leaving two little girls. god bless our men and women in uniform and support the mcgovern amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, the last time i was in afghanistan a little over a month ago i had a chance to visit with our marines and troopers, and they were so animated about their

mission, so filled with the idea that they were able to fight for freedom. they told me the thing that the people are asking them when are you leaving now? they need to have the understanding that we are there to finish the mission, to be successful in the mission. this time i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. chairman. for yielding the time. i have just recently got back from afghanistan and it is hard doing what we are trying to get done there. but we are the -- it is better than at any time in time since i have been going to afghanistan, i have been there since 2005. i visited several places and seen with my own eyes the successes that last year's difficult work done by the marine corps and army has done in pushing the taliban back into the desert and protecting

the citizens of afghanistan, to give them the breathing space they need to take over for themselves. the work being done to establish the afghan local police, that third layer of defense, security by the afghans, is in place and working. the special forces teams are co-located with those afghan local police, particularly in the valley, have settled that. and the taliban has not come back this fighting season as they expected them to do. we have hard work to do. i understand the emotions and heartfelt tug that the previous speaker brought to us, mr. speaker, but it's hard not to listen to that and not make decisions, but decisions can't be made simply on those emotions. you cannot separate what's going on in afghanistan with pakistan. we have to look at the entire package of that part of the world and our national security interests there which are linked together with the interest in afghanistan and pakistan. i respectfully rise to respectfully disagree with my colleagues on this amendment. there are better ways to elicit

threes plans than this amendment. i ask my fellow colleagues to vote against the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, i'm proud to yield two minutes to the ranking democrat on the armed services committee, mr. smith. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of the mcgovern amendment because i believe it puts us on the best path to successfully completing our mission in afghanistan. i think it is very reasoned and very well thought out. one of the keys to successfully completing this mission is to hand over responsibility to the afghan people for their security and for their government. the mcgovern amendment does not say pull all the troops out now. at the end of the month or year. it says, we must begin, we must put in place a plan for drawing down so we can shift that responsibility. i also agree with some of my colleagues who oppose the amendment, i think our men and

women in the armed forces, in the last six months to a year, have made enormous progress in afghanistan. the surge of troops that president obama called for has made a big difference, has put us in a better position to be successful in afghanistan. but the genius of the mcgovern amendment is to recognize that there is also a trap in that. because if we stay too long, the afghan government becomes dependent upon us in a way that stops them from being independent. our goal, our mission in afghanistan is clear. despite many who say it isn't. we want a government in afghanistan that can stand so that the taliban and al qaeda are not able to come back into this country. that is our goal. we are making progress towards it. we will not complete that mission until the responsibility for that is turned over to the afghan people. to do that we need a plan and we need to recognize that that is the goal. that's why the mcgovern amendment calls for that plan, calls for us to step up negotiations with folks on the other side between the afghan government and some of the taliban leaders, which have been very crude of late, so

that we can begin that transition and bring our troops home and recognize the successes they have had. a permanent or even lengthy occupation of a nation with u.s. troops is not going to work. we need a plan to properly disenengage. that is how we will achieve what we think agree is the nation in afghanistan. you urge support for the mcgovern amendment. i thank him for bringing it. i think we need a plan for making that transition so we can have the success we all want in afghanistan. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee on readiness, the gentleman from california, mr. forbes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: mr. chairman, i thank the gentleman for yielding. we all know this that every great champion knows that he hears from the sideline those voices who are constantly screaming for him to quit. those voices who tell him the race is just too tough, the finish line just too far away, just quit.

and, mr. chairman, when i listen to what i'm hearing today and i realize that both sides now in afghanistan are working for a 2014 timetable, they are both serious about, they are both pursuing, i think who would love this amendment? well, i have heard a lot about our troops, but i just got back last week and i talked to a lot of troops across afghanistan and i will tell you, i don't think there was a one i talked to that would have supported this amendment. the second thing is, i talked to young individuals who were elected to the parliament in afghanistan who were talking about concepts of freedom for the first time and transparency and who were working to change that government in afghanistan and not one of those individuals that i spoke to would have supported this amendment. . i saw young children for the first time in afghanistan beginning to flood into school every day, not one of them would have looked in support of this amendment. i talked to afghan soldiers

being trained and realized the importance of reaching that 2014 time period and taking over the reins, not one of them would have supported this amendment. but i'll tell you who would have. the taliban and al qaeda would love any glimpse of hope we'll get out of there before we get the job done. i heard my friend from north carolina talk about the price tag we pay. let there be no question that we know the price tag we pay. that our men and women fighting over there know the price tag they are paying. but they also know that our failure to win in afghanistan and meet the goals we have is a far greater price tag for us to pay. that's why we should defeat this amendment and mr. chairman, with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i yield three minutes to the minority whip, mr. highwayerer -- hoyer. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. hoyer: i ask the speaker to go into his community in those same institutions and see what they say. i rise in support of this amendment as one who has supported this effort for all 10 years we have been at it. in 2001, in response to the attacks of 9/11, we began a war in afghanistan that targeted osama bin laden, al qaeda and the taliban, which provided bin laden with sanctuary and aid. i supported that effort. we have been pursuing this conflict for nearly a decade now. the death of osama bin laden was a land mark moment in our ongoing struggle to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat the terrorist networks that intend to do americans harm and that struggle has not ended with bin laden's death. but his death is a moment for reflection on that struggle. and how we can best equip ourselves to win it. many of the terrorists against which we are fighting are no

longer located in afghanistan, but are in disparate locations, from yemen to somalia to southeast asia and bin laden was found in pakistan. i support this amendment because it focuses on adjusting to a world of changing threats. it is essential that we fight the smartest war possible against terrorists. but it is fair to ask how a massive troop brens in afghanistan continues to help us accomplish that goal. we must plan to transfer responsibility for security in afghanistan to the afghan people. and government. after 10 years' presence there. and it's important to make an assessment of how that best can be done. that's what the mcgovern amendment does. therefore this amendment requires a national intelligence estimate of al qaeda's current leadership, location and capability.

it requires the president to convey to congress how the he intends to meet the goal he stated in december, 2009, of transitioning the lead security responsibility to the afghan people where it belongs. it also asks the president to clarify plans for advancing a political solution in afghanistan which all of our military leaders have said that is the only ultimate solution. finally, nothing in this amendment limits or prohibits the president's authority to attack al qaeda or gather or share intelligence. nor does it require the administration to modify its military strategy as it should not. this amendment, however, helps to meet our shared goal of defeating terrorists who wish us harm. i have no doubt that president obama and every member of this house believes that their very first duty is to keep our nation safe. we must constantly challenge one another and our nation to

fight smarter and harder to ensure victory in this struggle, so i rise in support of this amendment and urge its adoption and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. >> i yield two minute -- mr. mckeon: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: i, too, was recently in afghanistan, there visiting our troops, visiting folks on the ground, getting briefings about what's going on this amendment assume they're sitting there twidding their thumbs saying, we want to stay here for a long period of time. folks, that's not the case. they are doing everything they can as quickly as they can. i was there when they were training after begans to take over control of that country. while i was there they turned over control of seven regions in that country. to somehow believe that nothing is going on that we need to

accelerate, is just ludicrous. they are going as fast as they can but they're going at a rate to assure that we're going to be there and be there successfully in helping the afghan government do what they need to do to make sure they assume control of the country and maintain control an make sure they are there to defeat the taliban. that's what the focus is. that's what this mission. is they are there doing that in a tremendous way. somehow saying that we're going to go ahead and accelerate this, create artificial time frames without being aware of what's going on on the ground and saying somehow military leaders aren't doing things as quickly and efficiently as they should i think denies the reality of what they are doing, which is going as quickly as they can and doing a fantastic job of doing that. also if you look at the requirements of the bill, about determining time frames for negotiations, to me, requiring time frames on negotiations creates weakness in

negotiations. i think you ought to make sure that it's the back and forth with the taliban and the afghan government that determines where the negotiations are going, not artificial time frames. edge that creates unfortunately an imbalance in those deliberations, getting to what i believe is a satisfactory completion to the conflict there but also to having a -- an outcome that is satisfactory to the country, not just in the short-term but the long term. i belistfort needs to be left i hands of military headers there and they are going as quickly as they can in a responsible way. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i would like to inquire how many more speakers the gentleman has, we have one remaining speaker. mr. speaker, for the sake of our troops and country, i urge support of this, i yield the remaining one minute to the minority leader, ms. pelosi. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized.

ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for working with congressman walter jones on this bipartisan amendment brought to the floor. they have worked again in a bipartisan way in a patriotic way, to ensure that u.s. troops are brought home from afghanistan safely and expeditiously. listening to the debate, it's interesting because i don't know that we're that far off because we all want to ensure the national security of our country. we all respect our men and women in uniform and the job that they are doing to keep us, the land of the -- to keep us the lan of the free an the home of the brave. we respect them when they come home as our veterans. but we have to know that involvement of nearly 10 years has serious consequences to our country. i had told the president of afghanistan on my recent visit this spring that each time i go there, i say the american

people are growing tired of war. we're weary of war. we went into afghanistan in the fall of 2001. for about seven years, there was no plan. there was no plan on how we would execute what we went to do and how we would leave. when president obama became presidentmark of us who were eager for us to bring our troops home gave him a chance to put forth a plan which he did which calls for a draw down of troops this july, 2011, and terminating in -- drawing down more completely in 2014. president obama himself has said earlier this month, i've already made a commitment that starting in july of this year, we are drawing down troops and we are transitioning. we are training afghan forces so they can start securing our -- their own country, the

afghans can secure their own country. the president went on to say, we don't need to have a perpetual footprint of the size we have now. so therefore, i think it's really important for us to know what this amendment does that i think reflects the mood of the american people. within 60 days of enactment, a plan and time frame for the acceleration -- accelerated transition of military and security forces to the government of afghanistan. in 60 days, we'll see a plan. within 60 days of enactment a plan and time frame for negotiations leading to a political solution and reconciliation in afghanistan. a plan. within 60 days. within 90 days of enactment, a national intelligence estimate on leadership, location and capabilities of al qaeda and affiliated networks and cells.

who can be against that? who can be against that? we're talking about 60 tais, a plan, 60 days, a plan, 60 days of fworks. i appreciate the efforts of this amendment -- that this amendment -- of this amendment as it underscoring the importance of having a plan and a time frame for a transition of responsibility but that's all negotiated, a transition of responsibility for security and stability to the afghans so we can bring our troops home. the national intelligence estimate on al qaeda that is called for in the plan will also help ensure our policymakers that they have updated information on the threat posed by junior high school qaeda and affiliates who remain a threat, even following the death of osama bin laden. chairful intelligence analysis essential to keeping the american people safe. so as i salute our men and women in uniform, i want to salute our men and women in the intelligence community who are

an important part of keeping the american people safe and i commend them and c.i.a. director panetta for his leadership in the capture of osama bin laden. but back to this specific point of this amendment, i've gone there year after year after year, never thinking we'd be engaged in the longest war in america's history. first seven years, not even a plan. and now the president has put into motion how we make judgments about how we stay and how we leave. if you visit the women in afghanistan, if you visit the women of afghanistan, many women in the congress have done, and some of our male colleagues as well, they will tell you whether you're talking about educated women in kabul, but really more relevant to me, poor, poor women in the provinces. i visited a group of women in one province -- a number of

provinces and spoken to women there. and the women there say, we really want to educate our daughters eric we want to have access to health care clinics and the rest but we can't have that until we have security and we can't have security until we end corruption. so many things going on in afghanistan that must change. and there will be a better chance of their changing if we make an investment in the civilian side of this transition. whether it's diplomacy, whether it's part of the construction, they tell me not to say reconstruction because not much was there before. construction there, where they're building schools work evisited little girls in school in different parts of afghanistan, very encouraging. our troops know that we have to leave that, we have to transition out, but as i told president karzai also, we didn't come here and we're not staying here 10 years so that when we leave, women return to

the sub jew gated position they were -- the jubju -- the subjugated position they were in under the taliban system of women must be at the table when you have a fworks for reconciliation of the taliban, reintegration of rank and file members of the taliban as we move toward more stability in afghanistan. women must play a role. women in america, women throughout the world, care about how this all turns out there. so here we are, almost 10 years later, in a situation where we just want to have some management of this issue. let's have a plan for how we -- the negotiations will take place. let's have a plan after we see the national intelligence estimate based on what the private threat is this is a very wise amendment. i thank mr. mcgovern and mr.

jones for how they put it together. because it's very reasonable. it has a goal in sight. it has a reasonable approach as to how we get there. but make no mistake, an overwhelming -- in overwhelming numbers, the american people think we have done our job there in terms of helping the afghan people. our purpose there was to protect the american people. we can do both by focusing more on the civilian side of governance issues and how afghanistan is governed on anti-corruption issues and the initiatives i have seen on this recent trip are an improvement over the past by training the national security forces of afghanistan, the police, or the military so they can maintain their own security. and by diplomatically enlisting other countries in the region because they all have a vested interest in the stability of

afghanistan. . but an open-ended, unending war there, cost there is nothing to compare to the cost of the loss of our young men and women. so that's first and foremost where our concern is. but also the cost in dollars, cost in opportunity, the cost in military strength. this involvement -- engagement in afghanistan is not strengthening our military. americans are paying a big price there. we want to make sure we are getting a return on that investment, and time is a very important factor. it's time for our troops to come home. i thank mr. mcgovern for his leadership. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, might i inquire as to the time remaining? the chair: you have 2 1/4 minutes. mr. mckeon: their time? the chair: has expired. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, at this time i yield the balance of my time to the -- my friend

and colleague, the vice chairman of the armed services committee and chairman of the subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities, the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: thank you, mr. chairman. it is always tempting to say we ought to have a plan, but i think the purpose of this amendment is clear, it's to drive us out of afghanistan on an accelerated time frame without regard for the conditions on the ground. and that is not only a mistake in strategy and detrimental to our security interests, it actually increases the danger to our troops and the coalition troops as well. timelines undermine their efforts. it discourages your friends because they know you are not going to be there very, very long. it encourages your enemies because that helps them plan their asalt against you -- assault against you, and it ensures anybody on the fence

hedges their bets because they know you are not going to be around for very long. and, mr. chairman, it occurs to me at a time when our government is wanting president karzai to make difficult decisions, it is not particularly helpful for the minority leader to go over there and tell him how tired we are. is that persuasive? does that help him make the tough decisions to end corruption and stand up the afghan police? somehow i don't think so. mr. chairman, i want our troops to come home as soon as they possibly can, too, but i do not want the considerable sacrifice of blood and treasure that they had expended to be thrown away because of political impatience. that was the exact concern that numerous service men voiced to me when i was there with speaker boehner last month. they worried that washington would throw away the important progress they have fought and

died for. last saturday, mr. chairman, in my district was a banquet to honor armed services day. there were more than 1,200 veterans, people who are serving, people who have served, their families, and numerous gold star families were there. the theme of the night was persistence. and you could tell from those families that have suffered the most and from those veterans that they did not want to have their sacrifice squandered away because of some washington political compromise. mr. chairman, i suggest we need to learn from them and be inspired from them and reject this amendment. the chair: all time for debate on the mcgovern amendment has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: 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 massachusetts will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, pursuant to h.res. 276 i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: 578eds en bloc number three consisting of amendments number 70, 74, 85,le 6, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 printed in house report number 112-88 offered by mr. mckeon of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc all of which

have been examined by both the majority and minority leader. at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from alaska for the purpose of a colloquy. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today to express my concerns about our strategic ports. first i want to thank the chairman and ranking member, mr. smith, and members of the armed services committee for supporting an amendment that i offered with miss bordallo that would seek an analysis of critical infrastructure needs at the seaports. i think the chairman would agree understanding understanding vital infrastructure needs at our seaports is of major importance. mr. mckeon: i do agree that assessing and correcting problems at the nation's strategic seaports which are an integral part of our national defense readiness is of vital importance. mr. young: i thank the gentleman. since 1958 the seaport programs has facilitated the movement of military forces security through u.s. ports. they have individual

capabilities that provide the department of defense with the port facilities and services critical in maintaining the operation, flexibility, and redundancy needed to meet the timelines. however the existing infrastructure at many of the strategic ports may no longer be adequate to meet the needs of our military. the language being included in the bill will help us to identify the infrastructure improvements necessary to ensure our strategic ports remain accessible to our military, as well as determine whether existing authorities and funding sources are making necessary improvement. this study is an important first step. i look forward to working with the armed services committee on ways to improve our strategic ports to make sure they support our operational needs. mr. mckeon: this committee has had a long-standing interest in our strategic ports and i'll be happy to work with the gentleman from alaska and the gentlewoman from guam to consider the appropriate measures to address the critical infrastructure needs of our strategic seaports. mr. young: thank you, sir. the chair: the gentleman

reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: reserve the balance of my -- thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to claim -- you already gave me the time. at this point i yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the ranking member. i rise to support the en bloc amendments and to add my understanding and support for the mcgovern-jones and a number of other members' amendment. let me first make it clear this is a bipartisan amendment. and that there was a great deal of collaboration and sensitivity to formulating a structure that would be respectful of the men and women who serve us today. but i rise to support this amendment because i can clearly see the human and financial costs which have been so high.

$10 billion a month which in this climate where we are addressing franchise terrorism, where individuals can rise up and do harm to the united states at any time, it is time now to plan a time frame for accelerated transition for our troops to come home from afghanistan, to find a political solution with diplomacy. to be able to deal with al qaeda in a manner that will allow -- mr. smith: additional 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: to be able to reassess how al qaeda is now functioning with its inspirational head no longer, and whether they will spread into other places where we have to address this question. and of course where the amendment does not limit existing authority on ongoing al qaeda efforts with sharing intelligence or changing military strategy tactics in

operations on the ground in afghanistan. remember pakistan how we have to work with them and try to help the people. this is an important amendment. i support the en bloc amendment. i support the mcgovern amendment. let us find a way to bring our troops home. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman. the chair: the gentleman from colorado. mr. coffman: thank you mr. chairman. i rise today in support of h.r. 1540, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012. i would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their leadership on this committee and in particular their support for the issues i have been pursuing. included in this en bloc package are two amendments of mine which i want to speak on briefly. amendment number 48 requires the secretary of defense to submit a report to the congress on the feasibility of recycling rare earth elements used by the department. this amendment along with the

provision in the chairman's remark requiring a rare earth inventory plan are important steps in reconstituting the nation's ability to access a secure, reliable, and competitive market for rare earth products used to support our national security. i have been particularly troubled by reports from the department of defense indicating that they are not concerned about our nation's near total reliance on china for these -- for access to these critical materials. last september as rare earth embargo of japan by the cheaps should serve as a reminder this dependence leaves our military vulnerable to supply disruption should a foreign nation choose to take advantage of its dominance in the market. our nation does not need to accept this dependence. with ample reserves in the united states, including alaska, colorado, and california, we have the potential to meet our own demand for these materials, but steps must be taken in congress to level the playing field in this market. this amendment will require the department of defense to

examine the feasibility of recycling rare earth materials that are currently disposed of. this is not only good stewardship, it is an important part of a complete plan to reconstitute our domestic rare earth industry and to meet our nation's security needs. i have also entered an amendment that will pave the way for meaningful reform to the department of defense tuition assistance program. this is an excellent program that provides educational opportunities to our service members. when i was a young enlisted infantryman in the army i took advantage of this program. mr. mckeon: yield the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. coffman: when i was a young man in the united states army i took advantage of this program to begin my own college education, but it has room to be perfected. a change in cost sharing has caused funding for the tuition assistance program to increase from $157 million in f.y. 2001, to $531 million in 2010, cost per credit hour of distance

education, for instance, has risen dramatically since 2001. the services have had to deny tuition assistance benefits to some service members because of the growing cost of this program. my amendment calls for study from the department of defense on ways to reform this program, including reinstating the 25%,p 5% cost sharing -- 75% cost sharing. i believe with skin in the game service members will have consecutives for high academic performance and that more service members will be eligible for tuition assistance benefits. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1540. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i thank you, mr. chairman. you thank my friend. i particularly want to thank chairman mckeon and ranking member smith and their able staffs for their wonderful cooperation in putting together this en bloc set of amendments. i wanted to just highlight several with which i'm

associated. amendment 93 co-sponsored by mr. blumenauer, mr. hinchey, mr. welch, and mrs. capps will reduce fuel convoy deaths in iraq and afghanistan. mr. chairman, we have lost 3,000 lives trying to protect fuel convoys in those two countries. so we can actually save money and save lives with this amendment. amendment 91 co-sponsored by mr. platts of pennsylvania improves the federal acquisition institute this. legislation also introduced by our republican friend in the u.s. senate, susan collins, and has bipartisan support. making the federal government a lot more efficient and will not build a new bureaucracy or add expenses. amendment 92 co-sponsored by mr. bilbray of california will actually try to systemize and make more effective the internship programs in the federal government so that we are actually taking advantage of those opportunities and making sure they also serve a better purpose for the interns who sign up in the federal

government. amendment number 90 co-sponsored by mr. kissell directs the pentagon reports to the congress the cost of expanding the homeowners assistance program. a loft our active duty military when they are called up or transferred find themselves in enormous distress given the housing crisis. this amendment will help them and their families by extending their ability to try to manage that situation. mr. chairman, i mr. chairman, i very much appreciate the cooperation of the chairman and his staff and i yield back to mr. smith the ranking member. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from new york, ms. slaughter. the chair: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to read a sentence from a report recently released, it is something for us to think about. we are in uncharted territory, says the army vice chief of

staff. we have never fought for this long. this is a -- in the history of the republic we have never fought for long with an all-volunteer force at only 1% of the population. mr. speaker, we see what is the result of this war. tens of thousands of our young soldiers maimed with life-altering conditions, loss of limbs, grievous head wounds that are going to change their lives forever. many of them as young as 20 or 21 years old. now osama bin laden has been captured and dealt with. that was the reason for us going in the first place. only congress, only congress can stop this. we are such an -- we can't go into afghan say -- until afghan says we're ready, that may be 50 years from now. we need to get serious about what we're doing here.

may i have an additional 30 seconds. the chair: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. ms. slaughter: i see them in the airport every week, see them going back. some of them on forced deployment. they beg me, they beg me to come down here and just try to get this to stop. they have literally said to me, they will send me back until i'm dead and come home in a black box. it is time, it is time for us to see that what we can do there has been done and we need a definite timetable as quickly as possible to stop this war in afghanistan. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i continue trow serve. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: we reserve as well, i don't have any speakers on this en bloc amendment. we are prepared to yield back if you are. i yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield back and

encourage members to support the en bloc amendment. the chair: the question on the en bloc amendments offered by the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: pursuant to h.res. 276 -- 276, i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: amendments en bloc consisting of amendments 106, 107, 108, 109, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, and 126. printed in house report 112-88. offered by mr. mckeon of california.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith will each control 10 minutes on the amendments en bloc and the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. chairman, i support this en bloc amendment and i would like to speak on behalf of one of the amendments included in it. i thank the chairman and ranking member for including it. this fall, 6,400 department of defense employees scheduled to

occupy a complex less than five miles from the capitol. it's on u.s. 395 and seminary road. according to five separate transportation studies including the army's own transportation plan and a damning defense report it was improperly chosen and inadequately designed to hand they will traffic it will create. it will result in severe congest on on 395 and all the roads surrounding the site. the problem is about 200,000 commuters use 395 every day. we estimate it will cause a one-hour to two-hour diational delay for those commuters. -- additional delay for those commuters. the national academy of sciences looked at it, they said if this goes through in the fall it will compromise the military mission required on behalf of the washington headquarters service people that would occupy the building and will cause severe damage to

the surrounding -- to the regional commifment what this amendment does is to simply limit the number of vehicles that can come to this site to no more than 1,000 until traffic mitigation measures are in place. now the defense department has finally reprogrammed $20 million, governor mcdonald of virginia allocated $80 million for a ramp that come off the h.o.v. lanes onto the site. the pentagon's money won't be in place for another couple of years. governor mcdonald's project will not be completed for five years. now, what this does is to limit the number of spaces for the next year. that's substantial progress. it needs to be included on behalf of those 200,000 commuters an again i want to greatly thank the chairman and ranking member for including the amendment. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california.

mr. mckeon: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. lipinski. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. lipinski: mr. chairman, i rise in support of these en bloc amendments. the korean war is often referred to as a forgotten war but the toll it took on those who served and the mark it left on america, american veterans, korea, and the world is indelible. a grup of dedicated individuals led by veteran dennis healy began work on the korean war national museum to be located in chicago this amendment which i introduce with my colleague from illinois, peter roskam, supports increased efforts to increase awareness of the korean war through the establishment of such a museum. it will commemorate the sacrifices made by those who served and celebrate advances in freedom and democracy made

by the republic of korea. the veterans of this important conflict deserve our recognition, honor an appreciation. a national museum will ensure that what they accomplished will be remembered. i thank chairman mckeon and ranking member smith for supporting this amendment and i yield pack. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield this time one minute to my friend and colleague the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer. the chair: the gentleman from missouri. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm proud to rise today in support of an amendment that would allow for the review of service records of eligible jewish american veterans from world war i. i would like to thank chairman mckeon and ranking member smith for supporting this important issue. we owe much to patriotic americans who wore and are wearing the uniforms of our armed forces. our country has been blessed to have citizens who have

volunteered to defend our nation an our freedom. unfortunately, qualified soldiers have not been considered for the medal of honor, the highest military awarded by our government. in 2001, congress passed the kravitz jewish war veterans act which had broad bipartisan support. this presented jewish soldiers the opportunity to receive the medal of honor for their service in world war ii. however, jewish veterans of world war i faced similar discrimmation and yet have not been offered the opportunity to receive recognition for their service. last congress this amendment was included as part of an en bloc group of amendments agreed to by the house by a vote of 416-1. we urge its adoption. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield one -- i'm sorry, two minutes, two the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady from texas.

ms. jackson lee: thank you very much. i rise to support the en bloc amendment an particularly my amendment dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder my amendment sends the clear and resounding message that we take all wounds endured by our veterans seriously. though wounds may be invisible, we recognize they should be properly treated. one of the best ways to increase treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder is to access treatment and increase treatment in a number of medical facilities, local and community facilities. i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for accepting this amendment and recognizing the enormous burden that's come about through ptsd. according to the defense medical ep deemology database, the number of hospitalizations and outpatient visits in which ptsd is the primary diagnosis between 2000 and 2009 was 5,307 hospitalizations, 578,120 outpatient visits. i rise today also in honor of

my fren and our late colleague congressman john murtha who worked with me to establish an outsourcing clinic in the houston area at the riverside hospital. what a difference it makes. -- what a difference it makes, if proper medical care is given, 60% of people who develop ptsd can get better care. how many of us can even talk about this experience short of combat members or members who have experienced combat here in the united states congress but the average american who is not, does not know the trauma of experiencing danger every day prorks tecting yourself and your comrades. they come home they deserve not only our celebration of their return, but they deserve to be treat sod that they can go on with their lives. since october of 2004, approximately 1.64 million u.s. troops have been deployed for operation enduring freedom as well as the o.e.f. and o.i.f.

in afghanistan and iraq. let's say to our soldiers, you are deserving of our care. let us provide more access to care for post-traumatic stress disorder. i appreciate the support of the en bloc amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield one minute to the chairman of the oversight committee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: i rise too speak in favor of the en bloc amendment, specifically amendment 124 offered by my colleague, mr. moran of virling. i think it's critical that this get passed. mr. moran knows the potential problems with the new facility there in virginia if we don't limit the number of parking spaces there he knows clearly that there are a number of challenges that if we don't address in a timely fashion are going to create unacceptable traffic problems in the region. we work with -- we worked with the governor and the congress to make sure that resources are

flowing in a proper way but to make sure that we have a breather by which to put in the infrastructure to make sure that traffic can efficiently get in and out of that facility. if we're going to be creating bigger problems than what we're trying to solve with this, then we are not going to be doing what's in the best interest of the public. limiting space there is to 1,000 gives us that breathing space as well as making sure the federal government and state government put in the necessary traffic infrastructure improvements there to make sure we accommodate that traffic and make sure we aren't interfering with what's happening elsewhere. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, my amendment would basically assure that the total cut to the national defense education fund doesn't come

from k-12 education program which links deform o.d. scientists and engineers with students and teach evers in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics or stem field. we know our nations won't leave behind subject matterers and if we don't engage each generation it will hurt our capability for innovation and our national security. we support national competitions to create locally based contest rich environments for students and teachers with an understanding of the real world aply cages of the stem fields. just last year, 1,750 d.o.d. scientists and engineers from laboratories in 26 states engaged more than 180,000 students and teach evers in outreach and informal education initiatives. i believe we have to make investment in these stem programs and ien courage my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

california. mr. mckeon. mr. mckeon: i yield one minute to my friend and colleague the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinzinger. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king sinn -- mr. sinsinger: the d. -- mr. kinzinger: the d.o.d. awarded a contract for a flight suit. when we find ways to spend money most efficiently, i believe this isn't it. as an air force pilot, someone who wears the current flight suit, i believe and aye talked to many colleagues in the military as i currently serve that believe the current flight suit works just fine. it serves the purpose that it was designed for. in fact, it does a very good job. so again, when we're looking at ways to have efficiencies an ways to spen our money most wisely, i ask that you adopt moment aurm 114 which would stop this $99 million redesign of the flight suit worn by only

a few thousand people and thank you an i thank the chairman and yield back. . the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, ms. lee. the chair: the gentlelady from california. ms. lee: first let me thank chairman mckeon and ranking member smith for agreeing to include my amendment in this en bloc amendment for consideration. i urge support for these en bloc amendments and specifically for my amendment, 117, which prohibits funding to construct military bases, permanent military bases in iraq and afghanistan. i have consistently and we have successfully worked to include this prohibition of funding for permanent bases in iraq and afghanistan since 2001. due to our efforts and support of our colleagues here in a bipartisan basis who understand the importance of prohibiting permanent bases in these countries, this language has historically been included in

the key fence authorization and appropriations bills and signed into law by presidents bush and -- president bush and president obama. in fact in working with our colleagues we were successful in placing the same language in the continuing resolution which was passed by the house and signed into law by president obama in april of 2011. by ensuring this language is included yet again -- may i have an additional minute? mr. smith: additional minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lee: thank you. by once again including in this bill we are absolutely being clear that the policy of the united states in afghanistan and iraq has never included permanent bases and will never include permanent bases. however, i'm disappointed we didn't go one step further today by considering my amendment to begin a sizable and significant reduction of our armed forces beginning this july so that we can begin to end the longest war in american history. but i urge my colleagues to

support the amendment prohibiting permanent military bases in iraq and afghanistan. it's critical in fighting the perception held by many in iraq and afghanistan that we are an occupying army or that we intend to remain as an occupying force. that perception fuels the insurgents and taliban and makes our troops more vulnerable and further threatens our national security. i want to thank the chairman again and our ranking minority member for the time and for including this amendment in the en bloc package of amendments. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman from california for the time. i stand in support of the amendment and the passage of the bill. but i want to raise a point which is of great concern to me as an appropriator and as a fiscal conservative, and that is the pentagon's practice and

its being practiced by the obama administration and as it was by the bush administration, of putting the war on terrorism money for afghanistan and iraq and other places around the globe off the military budget. we are debating a budget today which is about $550 billion, but there is another $120 billion which goes under overseas contingency operations which we do not debate or scrutinize nearly as much as we should. what that money does is actually brings us to a military spending bill that's not in the $500 billions but is $670 billion, a lot of that money is going to not emergency spending but ongoing operations. did anybody last year think we were going to be out of afghanistan or iraq this year? no. that money should be in their base budget. as a member of the defense

appropriations committee, i have submitted language on our bill to straighten this out and i hope the congress will take a look at it down the road. do i support this amendment, however, and i thank the gentleman from california for the time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i reserve my balance. the chair: everybody's reserved. mr. mckeon: i have no more speakers. i' prepared to yield back. mr. smith: i yield back. mr. mckeon: i ask my colleagues to support the amendments and yield back. the chair: the question is on the en bloc amendments offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: pursuant to h.res. 276 i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will

designated the amendments en bloc. the chair: number 5, convissing of amendments numbered 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 46, 143, 144, 145, 147 printed in house report number 112-88, offered by mr. mckeon of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. mckeon: was number 146 included in that block. the clerk: 146. the chair: now it has. mr. mckeon: thank you very much. i urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc all of

which have been examined by both the majority and minority. the chair: you reserve your time? mr. mckeon: i yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico. mr. pearce: i thank the gentleman from california. mr. chairman, i rise in support of my revised amendment number 144, which will address concerns i have regarding the d.o.d. contract bundling process. the current d.o.d. process encourages wrapping together proposals for projects for proposals. this unfairly distributes d.o.d. resources and often allows outside companies to get contracts on bases where local businesses have better regional and technical knowledge to perform the service. the winning bidder then subcontracts with the local businesses, often underfunding the subcontractor and pocketing the rest. the local company in the state where the base is housed lose out on significant revenue and job opportunities. an example of this was recently

in my district a man that makes radios and radio antennas called by d.o.d. asked if he could make a radio antenna that could fit in the pocket like a cigarette packet. while they were speaking on the phone he built one of these. the d.o.d. contractor asked him how much it would be, he said somewhere between $1 and $3. d.o.d. said the lowest bid they had for the same antenna was over $150,000. we run into this all the time. at time when we have deficits soaring, i think it's time for us to spend our money wisely and efficiently and use local contractors and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. tir tierney. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of this amendment which incorporates four of my amendments as part of the en bloc. i want to therefore thank chairman mckeon and ranking member smith for the bipartisan approach they have dealt with these amendments today.

one that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks amendments officially recognizes salem, massachusetts, as the birthplace of the national guard. salem was the site where the countries' first military regiment mustered in 1637. the militia was the foundation of what was to become the national guard. it's in commemoration and celebration of the men and women who serve our country and those salem residents who came together almost 375 years ago to protect our nation. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. next year will be the 375th anniversary of the first muster. so it's particularly pleasing to see this matter passed in time to celebrate that. in my limited time i also want to touch on the other three amendments that are included in the en bloc. those are good government amendments which are the result of oversight work done by the subcommittee on national security which i chaired in the last two congresses but which reflect a good bipartisan oversight effort. these amendments will be seeking to strengthen our manufacturing and defense industrial base. will increasing foreign police training programs which currently involve efforts by no

less than seven different united states governmental departments and agencies. and will be creating a new leadership position within the pentagon to n sure appropriate oversight on wartime contracting. so the time when every line item in the budget is being crute need -- scrutinized, these amendments are intended to make our country stronger and make sure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. with that i thank my colleagues and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney. the chair: the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: i thank the ranking member for his leadership and for yielding. i thank him and chairman mckeon for the bipartisan approach of including amendments in the en bloc. i thank you for including my amendment and en bloc number four. my amendment would narrow an overly broad exemption under foia. we must protect certain

critical security infrastructure information to keep our defense operations, properties, and facilities safe from terrorists. but we must not be overly broad in our definition. my amendment strikes a balance between safeguarding our critical infrastructure, security information, and the public's right to know. withholding certain information could endanger the public and to give one example is the case of the marine corps camp lejeune water contamination tragedy. for three decades thousands of marines and their families consume tap water contaminated with chemicals. the likely cause of their cancers. led by members of congress, victims and supporters have blamed marine corps leadership for hiding the problem and failing to act. my amendment would prevent another cam lejeune from happening. i thank the chairman and ranking member for including it in en bloc number four.

thank you very much. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: yield three minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez. the chair: the gentlelady from california. ms. sanchez: thank you, ranking member. there are three amendments in this en bloc that i have submitted and that the majority and minority have agreed to. the first one is a report on the russian nuclear forces. this amendment requires a report on what the russians are doing with respect to their nuclear forces in relation to the new start or new strategic arms reduction treaty. it seems to me that there are a lot of -- we are told that russia will be taking a look at and looking at some of its older weapons and probably decommissioning them. there might be an opportunity in the coming couple of years to maybe bring down the stockpile of nuclear weapons

even more, even below some of those limits with respect to the new start treaty. so this report will help to inform congress on the opportunities and the challenges for further verifiable nuclear weapon reductions which i believe would strengthen strategic stability, maintain a strong nuclear nonproliferation treaty, as well as enable progress and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear bomb grade material. i think this is one of the biggest areas where we have a chance to make the world safer. the second amendment that i have on this en bloc is for the global threat reduction initiative. and i'd like to thank the chairman for including amendment number 135 which would increase funding for global threat reduction initiative by $20 million. again supported by both sides. this also will help to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism.

the danger that nuclear materials might spread to countries hostile to the united states or to terrorists represents one of the greatest dangers we have here to the united states. so i believe that nonproliferation programs are critical to our national security and that they must be a top priority. this funding specifically supports the securing vulnerable nuclear material around the world in the next four years in order to prevent such deadly material from falling into the hands of the terrorists. again, i believe that nonproliferation programs are the most cost-effective way to achieve these goals and that's also mirrored in the 9/11 commission report as well as our nuclear posture commission which says the urgency arises from the danger of nuclear terrorism if we pass the tipping point in nuclear proliferation. the third amendment that i have in this en bloc is for the

defense nuclear facility safety board. or this amendment provides for an increase of $2.5 million for the dnssb. this funding is important because in fiscal year appropriations cut it by nearly 20%. again i think these are they very important. i thank both the chairman and ranking member for putting them in this en bloc. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: continue to reserve. >> i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the en bloc amendments offered by the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, pursuant to h.res. 276, i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: amendments en bloc number 6, consisting of amendments numbered 18, 20, 84, 22, 23, 57, 72, 96, 150, 151 and 149 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. mckeon of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 276, the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, will each control 10 minutes and the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that amendment number 18 be modified in the form i have placed at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: modification to amendment -- mr. mckeon: i ask to dispeps with the reading. the chair: -- dispense with the reading. the chair: without objection, without objection, the amendment is modified. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i urge

the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority. mr. chairman, i yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. the chair: the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: i thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank our chairman and ranking member for including amendment number 149 and my ranking member of the subcommittee for joining me in an important amendment. we are deeply concerned about a commercial company light squared that is developing a communications service that will harm our g.p.s. system and interfere with the military's use of g.p.s. military's heavily reliant on g.p.s., the potential g.p.s. interference would also affect first responders, air traffic management and safety, commercial g.p.s. users, the deputy secretary of defense wrote to the f.c.c. chairman that there is a strong potential for interference to critical national security systems. we need the fellow communications commission to ensure that the defense department's concerns about

g.p.s. interference are resolved before it moves ahead with the final decision on light squared. this is a bipartisan and bicameral concern. the defense bill contains a provision addressing this concern. the amendment offered strengthens this position by saying that the f.c.c. shall not permit light squared operations. i also thank our colleagues for working with us and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walz. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. walz: i thank the gentlemen for their work on this legislation. in this amendment i have an amendment that identified by d.o.d. some important goals in maintaining the operational force of our reserve and national guard. these current conflicts have shown the nation the incredible professionalism and the transformation from a strategic reserve to an operational reserve and the three things that d.o.d. identified is ensure that the armed services have access to trained, experienced

and ready guard forces for missions short of war, capitalize on the gains made in readiness in the reserve component and ensure the total force is able to sustain commitments around the world, utilizing the unique skills and capabilities of the reserve component. what this does is gives d.o.d. and it's a very limited scope of ability to be able to access under title 10 those national guard and reserve forces for missions short of war at the end of the conflicts or as we with wind down these conflicts. my experience with this was after the first gulf war, as our artillery units and some of them were coming back, in training them we ended up with no pieces of equipment, ended up taking tape and marking on the floor what a how which it'ser looked like and using toilet paper rolls as training for. that that's no way to maintain the incredible professionalism we have in this those. it's no way to use -- in this force. it's no way to use the investments and i'm very pleased that the ranking member and the chairman have agreed to put this in. i think it's the right thing to

do for our security and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you. we do not have any further speakers so i will yield myself the balance of our time and simply close the argument. i believe if i am correct this is the last amendment in the process. and i just want to thank chairman mckeon, his staff for their outstanding leadership. as has been said many times but cannot be emphasized enough this committee prides itself on being bipartisan and mr. mckeon and his staff have more than upheld that interest digs. we appreciate that. we've worked together on a large number of -- we -- tradition. we appreciate that. we've worked together on a large number of amendments. we've been able to include the ideas from great many members, both republican and democrat, from across this house, and i feel we have produced an outstanding product as a result. i also want to take a moment to recognize this is the last markup or last house defense

bill we'll be sending with secretary gates as our skeck of defense and i want to -- as our secretary of defense and i want to honor him for his service. he's served seven, maybe eight presidents, both democrats and republicans. he's done an outstanding job for this country in all of those roles, in particular as secretary of defense for the last five years. his leadership has been outstanding for this country, i'll also note that he is retiring to the state of washington, so that too shows great judgment on his part. we appreciate it's -- we appreciate, it's been great working with him. he will be missed and it's time to start working with the new secretary of defense as soon as he gets confirmed and moves into that role. i thank the chairman and i want to conclude by thanking my staff. this is my first time as the ranking member in this committee. it is a great honor that the caucus gave me and i absolutely could not have gotten it done without the help of the staff that we have on the armed services committee, both minority and majority for that matter. so i thank them for their help and their assistance. i urge support for the bill and i again thank the chairman. it's been great working with him

on this and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: we have no further speakers so i also will yield myself the balance of our time. i want to thank my good friend and, you know, we use that word a lot around here, but i really feel that ranking member smith is my friend and we have worked well together on this bill and i really appreciate his seriousness, the effort that he has put into working, his staff, they've done an outstanding job. i want to thank -- i also want to echo your remarks about secretary gates. many, many years of outstanding dedication, devotion of service to his nation. i asked him what he was going to do, he said he had a long honey-do list. he was going to be working on

that and probably a book and i also want to welcome mr. panetta, director panetta, and wish him all the best in confirmation in the senate. look forward to working with him , here as the new secretary of defense. i want to thank vice chairman of the committee, mr. thornberry, who has been a great right-hand man through this, through all of this process. as well as all of the subcommittee chairs and ranking members for their hard work at the subcommittee level and then helping out through this whole process. i want to thank our staff director, bob simmons, and the minority staff director, paul. they've been just magnificent through this process, as well as all of the staff here on the floor and those working back in their offices who worked so

tirelessly on behalf of our troops, the men and women serving throughout the world in various uniforms of the service. at this time then, mr. chairman, i would yield back the balance of my time and encourage all to support the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the en bloc amendments offered by the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the en bloc amendments are agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 112-88 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 38 by mr. mica of florida. amendment number 40 by mr. flake of arizona. amendment number 42 by mr. smith of washington. amendment number 43 by mr. buchanon of florida.

amendment number 47 by mrs. maloney of new york. amendment number 48 by mr. mack of florida. amendment number 49 by mr. langevin of rhode island. amendment number 50 by mr. amash of michigan. amendment number 53 by mr. campbell of california. amendment number 54 also by mr. campbell of california. amendment number 56 by mr. chaffetz of utah. amendment number 60 by mr. polis of colorado. amendment number 61 by mr. conyers of michigan. amendment number 62 by mr. flake of arizona. amendment number 63 by mr. ellison of minnesota. amendment number 64 by ms. loretta sanchez of california. amendment number 111 by ms. jackson lee of texas. amendment number 148 by mr. turner of ohio. amendment 152 by mr. can vack of

minnesota. the chair will re-- mr. cravaack of minnesota. the chair will reduce to five minutes the votes. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 38 by the gentleman from florida, mr. mica, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 38 printed in house report 112-88 offered by mr. mica of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote followed by 19 two-minute votes. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of on this vote the yeas

are 260, the nays are 160. the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 40 printed in house report 112-88 by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 40 printed in house report 112-88

offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. support a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote and the chair would remind members there are 18 more two-minute votes and would appreciate the members' courtesy by staying close to the chamber. the first of 19 two-minute votes. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 246, the nays are 172 and the motion distribute amendment is agreed to. -- the motion -- the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 42 by the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 42 printed in house report 11-88 offered by mr. smith of washington -- 112-88 offered by mr. smith of washington. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote followed by 17 other two-minute votes. and the chair would ask members not to leave the chamber. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the nays are 253. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on am