it did not take 100,000 troops to find osama bin laden and it does not take a military occupation of afghanistan to protect us from terrorist threats. by failing to draw down the number of troops in afghanistan, we continue to focus efforts away from the terrorists and needlessly put american soldiers in the line of fire. but this story is about more than numbers and figures, about it's real people who sacrifice everything to keep us safe. on sunday, april 3, of this year, a 21-year-old young marine named harry lu died while serving the country in afghanistan. he was a son of sandy and allen lu, the sister of carmen lu, and he was my nephew. harry died while serving on watch dudey -- duty in helmand province. his unit's goal was to provide security to locals. but three short months before he was set to return home he was gone.

ending this year -- this war will save american lives. ending it will let us focus on fighting terrorism around the demrobe. ending the war will save money -- globe. ending war will save money at a time when we need it most. it is time to end the war in afghanistan, bring our troops home and begin seriously addressing our real security needs. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. for five minutes. >> i very much appreciate the time, mr. chairman, and i rise only because i can't help but be moved by the progressive caucus' interest in getting us out of afghanistan as quickly as possible. i know of those who are very concerned about america being involved in wars anywhere, it is not my intention to speak about this subject until i heard my

friend, mr. garamendi from california, who has an amendment later that would strike the funding for approximately 2 1/2 months of this effort in afghanistan. mr. lewis: as i thought about that, i would want to caution my friend, mr. garamendi, and others about the role in afghanistan. indeed it's important for us to know. those of us who may have read "charlie wilson's war," i'm sure my colleague has read it thoroughly, but charlie wilson was a colleague of mine on the subcommittee on defense who first raised the prospect of challenges in afghanistan. at that point in time the soviet union was attempting to move into afghanistan to take over that entire country. giving them access to the entire region. if it had not been for, in my judgment, the effort made as a result of tcharly -- charlie

wilson's war, and the efforts of pope john paul who was then the bishop from poland, perhaps this very -- it's very possible the soviet union never would have fallen. but indeed charlie wilson's war created a circumstance where the soviets did withdraw from afghanistan and so we are right on the edge of opportunity and peace and freedom in afghanistan and what i'd caution my colleague from california about is following that, what did america do? america did what we often do in the world where there are strife and struggle, where we're asked to play a role in leadership, providing for opportunity and change for peace. the vacuum that was left in afghanistan as a result of our walking away after the war, after the soviets left, was that vacuum and within the vacuum

there came terrorists who would have america and freedom in mind. indeed as a result of that vacuum al qaeda, taliban and others got strength and found terrorist center and now we're involved in a war that involves the future of the world, not just peace for the world, but american peace as well. indeed, i would be very caution as we go about -- cautious as we go about suggesting that we automatically walk away from the commander in chief's plan. indeed if we are not careful, the vacuum will catch up with us and america will find itself in a much broader and a much more intense struggle. with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> would the gentleman yield? the chair: the gentleman yields back? for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. cohen: thank you. before i yield to my colleague from california to respond, i would like to mention, i appreciated mr. lewis' history, but i would suggest to you that al qaeda could have found a base in yemen, they could have found a base in the sudan, they could have found a base in other places. there was nothing particularly unique about afghanistan that allowed them to have that base there. the fact is we went into a country to fight al qaeda who was all in the mountains in pakistan and even in the cities in pakistan, probably with the knowledge of the pakistani government. and we've wasted a lot of money and lives in an area where we didn't need to be, because that war will continue. there are only 100 al qaeda give or take left in afghanistan. but there are al qaeda in other spots in the middle east. and al qaeda's people have plotted terrorist activities from germany and from other places in europe. they don't need osama bin laden's base to have activity.

there's nothing you need -- as far as the soviet union, the soviet union went down for goodly reasons, because of all the money they spent in afghanistan. true, we were there fighting them, but their attempt at gaining empire, which has been the loss of many empires, stretching too far and going beyond their supply lines, killed them. they spent money there and they'd like us to stay there. they're being real nice to us. they're helping us with bases, to bring in armaments and troops and supplies. come on, america. spend your money. break your government. come like -- become like we are, broken. it was a mistake. i believe that we need to get out of afghanistan because we're losing lives and money and doing it for reasons that's not going to make our country any better. mr. lewis talked about strife in places in afghanistan. i'll tell you about strife in the united states of america, in my city, in detroit, in

philadelphia, in boston, in chicago. you go to the inner cities in america and you'll see people without hope and without opportunity. that's where infrastructure needs to be built. that's where education needs to be reformed. not in projects in afghanistan, but in the united states of america. and that's what the conference of mayors said, that we cannot afford this while our cities go to decay and our people lose their opportunity and our middle class is destroyed. we fight a war in afghanistan which was the war of another generation, which we should have learned from history, in the soviets' experience and what happened to them. if you don't learn from history, you're doomed to make the same mistakes and i see that happening. admiral mike mullen said national debt is our biggest security threat. admiral mullen, national debt is our biggest security threat. he said it at breakfast recently, just last month in a tribute to the troops, that that is the biggest problem we have and when you have a security debt zsh a problem like that

that's a security interest, you go to the biggest spot where you can save money, the defense budget in this war that is draining and has cost us so much. afghanistan and iraq. mr. gar mendy, i'd like to yield to you because there were some -- mr. garamendi, i'd like to yield to you because there were some things addressed to you. i yield to -- all right. but i have some amendments coming which i'm going to offer that would reduce the amount of money we spend with the forces and also the amount of money we spend with the infrastructure and the development there in afghanistan. the fact is just like in iraq we put in equipment and buildings and then we leave and they don't have the ability to maintain those buildings. or maintain that equipment and it goes to waste. we don't need to be wasting our resources, leaving them there where they will just go to waste. we need to spend those resources in america and create jobs in america, have hope and opportunity for america and i'd like to yield whatever remaining time i have.

mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i wish we were more cautious in the way we committed our young men and women in the field of battle. we need to be -- it's politicians that put our service men and women in harm's way and it's politicians that keep this war going. the fact of the matter is that we have an unreliable partner in afghanistan. president karzai is corrupt, he fixed the last election. i mean, he's denigrating our service men and women. when i was over there one of our soldiers from massachusetts said to me, what bothers me most is we're risking our lives to try to help improve the quality of life for people in this country and the president of this country, mr. karzai, you know, denigrates us, diminishes what we do. calls us names. accused the united states of using nuclear weapons in afghanistan. the massachusetts soldier said to me, do you know what that feels like? do you know what that feels like? look, we need to rethink our

policy in afghanistan. nobody's talking about walking away, what we're saying is this current policy -- we're going broke. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mckeon: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> thank you, mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield my time to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. mr. garamendi: i thank the gentlelady from katrina. previously my good friend -- california. previously my good friend with whom i've worked challenged me on the position i take with regard to winding down quickly the war in afghanistan. his representation of history was woefully incomplete. much of what we are now fight was actually begun by -- fighting was begun by charlie

wilson. morphed over a period of time, perhaps by pakistan. but we're caught in the middle of a civil war. not just a civil war but a five-way civil war, one that's gone on for at least the last 35 years. and we are, as my friend, mr. mcgovern just stated, backing a government that is on the face of it corrupt by any standard. so what are we doing here? what is this all about? when in fact we went into afghanistan to get al qaeda and we did. there's only a handful that are there, probably far more al qaeda sympathizers and activists in the united states than in afghanistan. so why do we have over 100,000 american troops and another 40,000 nato troops? in afghanistan? i did not suggest that we leave a vacuum. instead i suggest we leave a small force behind that goes after al qaeda.

take them out. wherever they happen to be. bring our troops back home. go back to the original mission in afghanistan, go after al qaeda. and you're quite correct, my colleagues, they're in somalia, they're in yemen, they're in other parts of this world. and the more troops we have in iraq and afghanistan, the more reason we give to those who want to recruit yet more al qaeda members. this makes no sense going forward. yes, we will have a continuing obligation, but if you take a look at the strategy that is now in place, one that calls upon america to maintain its troops, then you can count on a larger deficit. that make noes sense to me. -- makes no sense to me. let's bring our troops home rapidly. the amendments that will be on the floor will cause that who happen -- to happen. we have the power of the purse

here. this nation can no longer sustain $120 billion a year in afghanistan when our bridges are crumbling, when our children are not educated, when we cannot afford and justify the budget you're putting forth cannot afford to feed our children, care for our elderly. this will not stand and it must end soon. i have great respect for the president but he's got the wrong strategy. he's continuing on the strategy that by the proof on the ground does not work. pivot, go back to what we once said was our goal. get al qaeda. take them out. wherever they happen to be. and we know we can do it, we have done it and anybody that wants to play the al qaeda game on their side, know that this nation has the capability to take you out.

my good friend, mr. lewis, the next time you want to recite the history of afghanistan, recite the full history of afghanistan. including this nation's 10-year effort and all of the mistakes that we've made. let us not compound those mistakes by continuing the same course for another three, four, five years and beyond. it's time to end this war. it's time to focus on the true enemy here, al qaeda. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlewoman has one minute remaining. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. lee: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. who seeks recognition?

ms. lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the chair will advise at this time we are not to that point in the reading. ms. lee: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. boss well of iowa, page 22, line 10, strike not and insert a, not. page 27, line 10, insert the following, bsks, it is the sense of congress that suicide prevention program should be a priority of the military departments with respect to reinvesting the efficiency savings described in subsection a. >> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's on the -- on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentleman from iowa. >> this is a simple amendment. it clarifies that the defense suicide prevention programs are a priority and should remain a priority. i'm not alone in my concern for the rate of suicide among our service members and -- on active duty, guard, and reserve

components. like some of the rest of you i had that experience in my own constituency in the iowa reserve. the total defense has identified large savings from improved efficiency, totaling up to $5 billion over the next five years. mr. boswell: there is no direction that ensures that the secretary include existing suicide programs as priorities for reinvestment from these savings. this amendment simply clarifies that suicide prevention programs which already exist, have already been authorized, are a priority and will remain a priority. we must do everything in our power to reduce the suicide rates of our men and women in uniform and this amendment fulfills that obligation.

i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve the balance of his time. mr. boswell: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill, therefore it violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a yen appropriations bill should not be in order if changing existing law. mr. frelinghuysen: this amendment proposes to state a legislative position and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard? mr. boswell: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. boswell: as you might expect, i rise in opposition to the point of order. in accordance with clause 2 of

rule 21, this amendment does not make a new appropriation. it does not reappropriate unused funds. it does not restrict availability of funds. and it does not change existing law. in fact, the -- in fact, defense suicide pretchings programs have already been authorized by law. for example, the yellow ribbon program, which helps support national forward and reserve service members and their families. this amendment simply clarifies, simply clarifies the suicide -- that suicide prevention programs which already exist and have already been authorized are a priority and will always remain a priority. so i humbly suggest that no one, no one in good conscience could suggest otherwise. i thank you and yealed back. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard? if not, the chair will rule. the chair finds that this

amendment includes language expressing the sense of congress. therefore the amendment constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. the clerk will read the amendment. the clerk will read the bill. the clerk: page 24, line eight, section 8429, none of the funds may be used to enter into a contract of understanding or cooperative amendment that any federal tax liable that has been assessed and is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement. section 8130, none of the funds may be used to enter into a contract memorandum of understanding or cooperative

agreement with any corporation convicted of a felony violation within the preceding 24 months. title 9. overseas contingency operations, military personnel, military personnel, army. $6,822,635,000. >> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. lee of california. page 125, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the following. reduce by $3,438,-- $3,438,728,000. i page 23, line 12, insert the

follow, redeuce by $ ms. lee: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. >> mr. chairman. the chair: is there objection? >> i reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: objection, the reading will becy spenced with and a point of order is reserved. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. lee: let me thank chairman rogers, mr. dicks and my colleagues on the committee for putting together this bill. i rise to offer the lee-jones amendment joined by representatives nadler, stark, jesse jackson jr., grijalva, paul and amash. i want to thank each of my colleagues for joining representative jones and me on this important amendment. this amendment would end the war in afghanistan by ending the funding for combat operations but would provide

funds to bring our troops home in a safe and orderly manner. while i would have -- while i would have preferred to open the -- offer the lee amendment which i have offered in the past to fence off and limit funding to the safe, orderly withdrawal of all u.s. armed forces in afghanistan, i was unable to do so today given that we are debating on an appropriations bill. i want to pemfa size again this important point that while this amendment cuts war fund, it cuts combat operation funding but does leave enough funding to provide for the safe and orderly return of all u.s. forces from afghanistan. i speak today as the daughter of a lieutenant colonel who fought in several wars, one who knows the trauma and devastation of wars on families. i want to be clear that our service men and women have performed with incredible courage and commitment in afghanistan. they're doing everything we ask them to do. but the truth is, they have been put in an impossible position. they are fighting in a way with no military solution an no end

in sight. only a political and diplomatic solution and a regional stabilization strategy will end this war. in fact, this concern of war without end is why i oppose the resolution authorizing military force on september 14, 2001. it began a series of of blank checks that we have been writing for nearly a decade there. there are few things we know with certainty regarding the situation of afghanistan. we know that corruption persists unabated and in many cases has been fueled by the u.s. occupation and influx of foreign cash. president karzai has proven himself time and time again unwilling or unable to mean -- meaningfully root out corruption in his administration. we know that it's increased from 4,000 troops in 2002 to 100,000 in 2011. at the same time, military and

civilian casualties have increased at record rates. we also know that al qaeda's presence in afghanistan has been all but eliminated and osama bin laden is dead. it's not feasible or in our national security interest to address this threat through a military first boots on the ground strategy in afghanistan and we know as military and foreign policy experts from across the political spectrum have told us repeatedly that the situation in afghanistan will not be resolved by a military solution. we need to bring our troops home safely and swiftly and that's why i'm offering this amendment this war is costing us too much. with over 1,600 troops killed and tens of thousands more seriously wounded in afghanistan, the human toll continues to mount every day and we've already spent over $400 billion fighting in afghanistan. it's past time to admit we can no longer afford to send more blank checks for a war without end. the united states has

squandered more than $1.1 trillion on the wars in iraq and afghanistan. it's estimated that the total direct and indirect costs of these two wars by their end may total $6 trillion. but no -- with no military solution, we need to redirect the funds to job creation and supporting those efforts for the most vulnerable including those who have been unemployed for two years and have no more unemployee immaterial -- unemployment benefits while we spend $2 billion a week on this decade-long war, critical problems like medicare are on the chopping block as we seek to get our neigh's finances in ore. the american people are sick and tired of this war and the massive, unending spending it requires. just last month, the united states conference of mayors passed a resolution to end the wars and use the money to build bridges, cools an infrastructure here at hemowhere it is needed. the resolution calls on the president and the crites congress to end the wars as soon as strategically possible

and bring the war dollars home to meet vital human needs, promote job creation, rebill our infrastructure, aid municipal and state governments and create a new economy. we need to bring our troops back and use the savings to address our nation's fiscal challenges. the american people recognize this. it's time to say that enough is enough. it's time to begin the safe and orderly withdrawal of united states troops from afghanistan. this amendment does just that by ending the funding of combat operation in afghanistan while maintaining funds for a safe and orderly withdrawal. this is not a cut and run amendment. this is a responsible amendment to bring our troops home now. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment, helping bring our service men and women home safely and ending the war in afghanistan. thank you, mr. chairman, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady may

not reserve the balance of her time. the gentlewoman yields back. ms. lee: i yield this balance of my time. -- i yield the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i remove my reservation and i move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the point of order is withdrawn and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: the gentlewoman has an amendment to support an orderly withdrawal of troops from afghanistan. however such a reduction would severely disrupt and suspend a redeployment from afghanistan. the magnitude of her fund regular ducks would threaten the ability to support troop pay and safety. the me has provided funds to begin the redeployment of troops from afghanistan.

if the redeployment from afghanistan were to be accelerated, there would be significant incrooses in personnel, equipment, and transportation costs in fiscal year 2012. mr. chairman, i oppose the amendment and urge others to do likewise. i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. woolsey: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: mr. chairman, i rise in support of the amendment offered by my dear friend, congresswoman lee, and the rest of the authors. congresswoman lee is a courageous voice for peace in afghanistan and around the world. and what she says is the bottom line of this amendment is clear.

we should not spend one more dime waging war in after depan stan. the only money -- in afghanistan. the only money we need must be used to wind down the war, with a safe, orderly, complete and long overdue military redeployment out of after fan stan. the white house announced last -- about two weeks ago, that we would have a troop withdrawal from afghanistan. well, i believe that the information of that announcement was tragically inadequate. actually, i was hoping to hear that at least 50,000 troops would be coming home by the end of 2011. instead the president announced his intention to wait another year, until the summer of 2012, before removing the 33,000 troops that were added with the surge.

too slow, too cautious, too modest. i don't know how much clearer the writing on the wall has to be, mr. chairman. afghanistan remains in terrible disarray with a terribly corrupt central government and a security force actually incapable of enforcing security. our military footprint isn't doing enough in afghanistan. it is actually causing more harm than good. meanwhile the human cost here at home is nothing short of devastating. casualties have spiked, americans are dying in afghanistan at an unacceptable rate, more than 200 troops so far this year and over 1,600 troops since the war began nearly a decade ago. and, mr. chairman, making it home alive doesn't mean making it home whole. thousands upon thousands of service members will spend the

rest of their lives coping with the wounds and the scars they acquired in this unnecessary war. many have left limbs behind in afghanistan, others will never regain their mental health or their peace of mind, suffering the devastating effects of ptsd. why would we continue to throw another dollar at a war that has done so much to hurt our people and afghan civilians and done so little to help the -- help afghanistan in general? this week, as a matter of fact, all of washington is abuzz about the debt ceiling negotiations. commontaters are asking us, where will we find consensus that preserves the full faith and credit of the united states of america?

well, mr. chairman, there is a consensus in the united states, a consensus among the american people and that is that $10 billion a month that we're spending in afghanistan is roughly $10 billion too much. but we're spending -- but war spend something out of the table in these talks. instead medicare cuts are on the table. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are clinging tight to loopholes for oil companies, corporate jets, horse racing industries, their spending priorities are just totally warped. mr. chairman, it's time to bring all this in line with the priorities of the american people. it's time to end this war. it's time to stop investing money that we need right here at home and it is time to invest only in bringing our troops home safely.

with that, mr. chairman, i strongly urge all of my colleagues to support the lee amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, i won't take five minutes. but i rise to speak in support of the lee amendment which i have the honor of co-sponsoring. mr. nadler: my views on afghanistan i expressed a little while ago but i want to make a couple of comments. the gentleman from california, mr. lewis, said we have to be careful, that we have to be wary of a vacuum should we pull out. hal -- he anal jiesed it to what happened when the soviets lost there was a vacuum because we turned our backs on it. and he was right. we should not have turned our backs on helping with schooling

and other things in afghanistan at that time. but the fact of the matter is, the world's history is full of empires that threw away their substance on silly military ventures. this is a silly military adventure. it's a total waste. because it is a classic where we are fighting -- when we have forgotten why we are fighting. we went into afghanistan to get rid of the al qaeda bases. that took a week. for good measure we spent another week and got rid of the taliban government. now what are we fighting for the last eight years? to put a government in our image? not going to happen. to install and see that there's a government that can rule from kabul? there hasn't been a government in kabul who has ran the entire country since alexander the great. that's not going to happen. we can't settle their civil war which has now gone on for 35 years. nor will settling their civil war aid our security which we can't do anyway and we don't have to. our security is fighting the

terrorists. but the terrorists are all over the place. they develop a base in afghanistan -- in pakistan, maybe we have to bomb it or send in special forces. or god knows where. every sovereign country as a condition of its sovereignty must make sure that its territory is not used to attack someone else. and if territories are being used to plot against us, we have the right and the duty if necessary to deal with that. but that's not the question in afghanistan. the c.i.a., as i said before, dells us there are fewer than 100 people there. why do we need 70,000 troops? those troops could be better occupied back home in the united states training, helping fight disasters. our money could be better occupied dealing with our serious fiscal problems, building up our infrastructure, building up our schools, building up our social services. and even building up our military for real threats.

there are real threats in the world. afghanistan, i'm sorry, pakistan is dangerous because they have nuclear weapons, we have to pay attention to it but i fail to see any purpose whatsoever for having tens of thousands of troops, hundreds of billions -- tens of billions of dollars in afghanistan where we vanquished the enemy 10 years ago, we should have pulled out and we should do so right now. and i thank the gentlelady for her amendment and 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 gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

noes have it. ms. lee: mr. chairman. i'd like to ask for the yeas and nays. a recorded vote, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. garamendi: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california, page 125, line 6, after the

dollar amount, insert reduce by $2,695,031,000. page 125, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert, reduce by $348,845,000. page 125, line 18, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $264,718,000. page 125, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert, reduce by $521,937,000. page 126, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert, reduce by $81,201,000. page 126, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert, reduce by $16,362,000. page 126, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert, reduce by $9,964,000. page 126, line 23, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by

$10,511,000. page 127, line 5, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $247,421,000. page 127, line 11, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $3,698,000. page 127, line 18, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $8,662,596,000. page 127, line 24, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $1,584,616,000. page 128, line 5, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $909,681,000. page 128, line 11, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $2,359,569,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. garamendi: unanimous consent

to dispense with reading the rest of the -- the chair: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: i thank my colleagues for bringing the receipttation to an end but i also urge my colleagues to pay close attention to what we're trying to accomplish here. i'll try to explain it without reading each and every one of those lines. the afghan study group, richard haas, and many others who are very familiar with the afghanistan war and the way in which it is being conducted, have suggested that by the end of 2012 america should have no more than 25,000 troops in afghanistan and then further wind down the war in 2013 to 10,000 troops focused on terrorists, focused on al qaeda. as i spoke a few moments ago on this issue, this amendment is to accomplish that goal to wind down the war in a responsible

way over the next 18 months so that the end of the 18 months, that would be december 31, 2012, that there be no more than 25,000 troops in afghanistan. now, unfortunately i can't add the rest of it but i will at least give the reason for this and that is to pivot on the success of getting bin laden. we went to afghanistan to get al qaeda. we succeeded. and now we are involved in a civil war, a great civil war, a five-sided civil war, maybe a six-sided or seven-sided civil war and we are supporting a government in that war that is at best corrupt. and quite possibly even more inept. so what are we doing there? besides spending $120 billion a year? well, we are kind of fighting it out, we're losing a lot of americans and even more afghans are dying. we're not going to be able to solve this with troops on the ground.

this war needs to be negotiated. we ought to spend as much effort as we are spending on the troops , we should spend that on negotiations. unfortunately little or no negotiations are going on, at least talked about publicly, and i would hope they're going on privately, secretly, but i don't think that to be the case. so we need a negotiated settlement, we need to pivot on the success of bin laden, we need to focus like a lacer on al qaeda, wherever they -- laser on al qaeda, wherever they happen to be in the world and we know that they are in pakistan, yemen, somalia, other places in the world including the united states. so our focus must be on that. not on this civil war. we cannot solve it with our troops in afghanistan. this amendment would cause us, as members of congress, to exert the authority giveen to us by

the constitution, that is the power of the purse. and by denying funding for more than 25,000 troops at the end of 2012 we will accomplish the goal of rapidly, appropriately whining down the war. not my words but the words of the afghan study group and richard haas, people that know these histories. we must do this for our own good, for the good of this nation, we're sitting here in the midst of a great debate upon a default crisis. back and forth about how do we deal with the deficit? well, one way we can deal with the deficit is to end this war. $120 billion a year adds to 1/3 of $1 trillion in just three years. we're not suggesting we can get that, we know we're going to have to maintain some sort of a presence there, but surely we don't need to spend $120 billion a year -- in afghanistan when in our own country we are denying

our children an education for lack of money, we are denying our elderly the health care that they need, for example terminating medicare for lack of money. we are not feeding our children, "60 minutes" recently did a heart wrenching story on homeless children living in cars and hotels in america because their parents have lost their jobs. we have an unemployment rate that demands our attention, demands our investment in america, rebuilding america's bridges, roads, rebuilding our manufacturing sector -- sector, making it in america once again. rebuilding the real strength of this nation, this economy and the middle class so they can have jobs. and allow them to stay in their homes, provide for their children, live the good

american life. we must end this war. we must first wind it down. were this more than an appropriations bill, i would have gone to step two, which is $10,000 at the end of 2013. with a mission that is the original mission, going after the terrorist -- terrorists, not nation building. we must rebill our nation and unlike the president, this amendment offers us the opportunity to use our money to rebuild this nation. by the way, for you deficit hawks, it's all borrowed money. you're borrowing money for afghanistan or borrowing money to rebuild this nation. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: move to strike the word and oppose this amendment.

we oppose this amendment for the same reason we oppose the gentlewoman's amendment from california on the last -- it would be highly disruptive to our troops and i think put them at great risk to their personal safety. we oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment. offer bd -- the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. garamendi: i request the recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from california will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 125, line 10, military personnel, navy. $919,034,000. military personnel, marine corps, $760,103,000. military personnel, air force. re serb personnel army, $207,162,000. reserve personnel, navy, $44,530,000. reserve personnel marine corps, $25,421,000. reserve personnel air force, $26,815,000. national guard personnel, army, $646,879,000. national forward personnel air force, $9,435,000.

operation and maintenance, operation and maintenance, army. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise. >> mr. speaker i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. welch of vermont, line 27 -- page 27, line 58 -- mr. welch: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: without objection, so ordered. >> i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. -- amendment. the chair: a spoifered reserved. the gentleman from vermont is recognized for five minutes. mr. pell. swk -- mr. welch: thank you, mr. chairman. one of the questions, central questions congress must address is whether to continue the policy of nation building in afghanistan.

as previous speakers have indicated, it's expensive. it's also very questionable as to whether it's anything but a fail wrur. the cornerstone of the nation building program is the commander's emergency response program. that gives the commanders flexibility at their own discretion to authorize significant infrastructure projects in afghanistan, the goal being to win hearts and minds of the afghan citizens. when you lay it out by its intentions, it's a very reasonable tool to provide to our commanders. the problem is, the evidence is in and it has been a failure. the $400 million commanders emergency response program, serp is a central component of

what i believe is a failed nation building strategy. and the fundamental question here is this. does the defense appropriations bill double down on the nation building approach which has been drawn into such question? now, the serp development dollars, according to the special inspector general for afghanistan for reconstruction, sigar, about half the projects reviewed were unsustainable and fell into disrepair immediately following their transfer into after began hands that failure of sustainment is real. and it is not subject to something that we can control here. so the question that we have to ask on maff of our military strategy is the money -- is, is

the money being used in a way that's effective from the perspective of the afghans? is it being used on projects that are sustainable? and the evidence on the basis of our sigar report is the answer is no. it's not surprising. we've got to get a bit real about this. whatever your position is on afghanistan, if you have a government that has no infrastructure of civil service, that doesn't even have the capacity to do the sustainment, they don't have a civil service that can go out an maintain and repair the roads an other projects, is it realistic to expect that they will? when off government that is corrupt, for whatever reason, but where the money that gets injected by the u.s. taxpayer into these projects with the best of intentions gets siphoned off into paying off people who have positions of authority, is that a wise use of our taxpayer dollar?

is it going to help our military ultimately be successful? so the question that we have a responsibility to answer is whether this tool of nation building makes sense. one of the other questions i think is fair to ask, many of us have been to afghanistan and met with some of our usaid people, our state department people out there, our military people, of course, trying to implement these projects, mr. speaker. the amount of security that is required in order to allow people to do the simplest of projects in the middle of a shooting war is an enormous expense. the question that comes to mind for me, and i think many americans, is this. does it make sense to do these infrastructure projects, these hearts and minds projects in the middle of a shooting war? or are those things that have to be done before or after? that's really the question. so the intention of this

program makes sense. the flexibility to our commanders, they see as desirable. it is a tool they can use. but we've had 10 years now of history. we've had a fully blown report by sigar that has said it just doesn't work. it just doesn't work. so is it time for this congress to call the question about the wisdom and the efficacy of this nation building tool, the programs that fall into disrepair immediately upon their completion. our amendment calls the question, mr. speaker and it would cut in half, which is about the amount documented to be wasted, the amount that is spent by u.s. taxpayers on these nation building activities in afghanistan. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise?

mr. stearns: i make a point of order against the gentleman's amendment. mr. chairman -- mr. young: i make a point of order against the gentleman's amendment. the amendment may not be considered en bloc, section 3j of house resolution 5, the 112th congress, because the amendment does not merely propose to transfer appropriations among objects in the bill but also proposes language other than the amounts. and i ask for a ruling on the point of order. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on this point of order? the chair will rule. to be considered en bloc pursuant to section 3j1 of house resolution 5, an amendment must propose only to transfer appropriations from an object or objects in the bill to a spend regular ducks account. because the amendment offered by the gentleman from vermont

proposes other changes to the bill, namely changing the level of limitation, it may not avail itself of section 3-j-1 of house resolution 5 to address the spending reduction account. the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does to the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. nadler of new york, page 27, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $15 million, increase by $15 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. nadler p.c. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i offer an amendment tonight that will save both blood and an immense am of money. the amendment i'm introducing along with congressman blumenauer designates already

authorized funds in the amount of $15 million to be used to insulate shelters at forward operating paces in afghanistan. properly insulating military shelters can significantly reduce energy consumption, which in turn can decrease the number of fuel convoys needed to support our troops. these fuel convoys cost us dearly. they're absolutely vital supply link to our troops in the field but they are exposed to constant and devastating attack. despite the pentagon spending $24 billion a year to protect fuel convoys in afghanistan, more than 3,000 troops and civilian contractors have been killed or wounded while riding in convoy. what's more, fully 2/3 of the fuel used in afghanistan goes to provide electricity for air-conditioning and heating in military installations. if we can reduce the energy required in these areas, we can reduce the danger.

insulating structures will save lives from people who will not be on convoys to be attacked. it will also save money. properly insulated shelters use up to 92% less energy for the heating and cooling. with more than 200,000 gallons of diesel fuel used every day to power our forward operating bases in afghanistan, insulating our field shelters has the potential to significantly reduce field consumption. a similar insulation effort in iraq has led to almost $1 billion a year in savings and taken more than 11,000 fuel trucks off the road. this in turn helped prevent an estimated 450 american casualties in iraq. a little arithmetic will show you that this $15 million spent insulating forward shelters in afghanistan should save several billion in costs as well as thousands of lives. i want to thank congressman blumenauer and welch for their

support. it provides a common sense way to reduce fuel consumption across the war zone. this would save about 2/3 of the 200,000 gallons used a day with the total cost of fuel sometimes exceeding $400 a gallon including transportation costs and thousands of casualties by fuel convoys a small investment for $15 million in energy efficient insulation can go a long way in saving thousands of lives and upwards of billions of collars in resources. i urge passage of this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. mr. young: mr. chairman, thank you very much. this amendment is very, very similar to one that the house rejected earlier today. the project that would be funded by this amendment, by

the shifting of this money, is not an authorized program to begin with. but even if it were, the army's o&m account in the portion of the bill is funded at over $39.1 billion. and should this project remain in the final authorization bill, the department concurs that if the department -- if the department concurs it is a high enough priority then there are ample funds to cover it with the $39.1 billion and so i see no reason for this amendment and i oppose the amendment an yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. nadler: mr. speaker. the chair: pursuant to clause --

mr. nadler: i ask for a recorded vote on that. the chair: yes, the gentleman is recognized. the question offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 127, line 22, operation and maintenance, navy, $6,749,489,000. operation and maintenance, marine corps, $3,571,210,000. operation and maintenance, air force, $10,739,587,000. operation and main nance defensewide, $9/11, 312, 876,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will --

will the gentleman specify the amendment? mr. poe: it's page 128, line 17. the chair: the clerk has two amendments with the same page number. could you provide a little bit more specification on the amendment? mr. poe: strikes $1 billion. the chair: the clerk will designate. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. poe of texas, page 128, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert, reduce by $1 billion. page 129, line 1, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $1 billion. page 161, line 1, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $1 billion. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment deals with the money that we give pakistan. specifically it deals with the reimbursement account that the

united states pays for the war on terror to reimburse p.c.a. for the spend -- pakistan for the spending that they do and the money that they request back from the united states, specifically takes $1 billion out of the reimbursement account and applies it to the reimbursement or excuse me the spending reduction act. since may 2 when osama bin laden was taken out and we learned more about the role that pakistan is playing or shall i say not playing in the war on terror, they have become more and more a unfaithful ally. president bush said when the war on terror began that countries throughout the world, either you're with us or you're with the terrorists. pakistan has yet to prove which side they are really on. so much so that when osama bin laden was taken out by the american military we did not trust pakistan enough to even tell them that we were going to

-- we were going to come into their country. our distrust against that country has been proven over and over again since that date. on may 16 "the wall street journal" reported that over 40% of the money that pakistan requests for reimbursement for military aid is denied by the federal government because those claims are unfounded by the federal government. in one case last year the united states paid millions of dollars to refurbish four helicopters to help pakistan's army transport troops into battle against the taliban. but it turned out that pakistan diverted three of those aircraft to peace keeping duties in sudan prakeses which pakistan receives compensation from the united nations. other claims include a $26 million charge for barbed wire and pickets and $70 million for radar maintenance although there's no enemy air threat related to the war on terror. on may 22 15 to 20 militant

it's stormed hang ars in karachi. it took the pakistan military over 15 hours to end that siege. two u.s. p-3-c's were destroyed. it is an antisubmarine and marine surveillance aircraft. some reports now indicate it was an inside job as the terrorists had military uniforms and knew exactly where the planes were located. then on june 14 reports confirmed that pakistan now has arrested c.i.a. informants that helped us locate osama bin laden where he had been living under the eyes of the pakistan military for years. as reported in "the new york times" on june 14, i.s.i. arrested 30 pakistani informants who helped the united states capture bin laden. one was a pakistani army major who officials said copied the license plates of cars visiting bin laden's compound.

and then further in june when c.i.a. director panetta went to pakistan to inform them that there was a factory that were making bombs or i.e.d.'s that could be used against americans, by the time the pakistani troops showed up, the militants had disappeared. not to be outdone, we told them again about a second place where i.e.d.'s were being made, more bomb making facilities only days later and once again the terrorists picked up and disappeared. sounds like they had inside information. and lastly on june 29 pakistan asked the united states to shut down a base that it had in islamabad and end u.s. operations at an airbase. although the united states denies that occurred, pakistan still said that that has ended those operations. and of course drones carry out strikes against the taliban and al qaeda militants in pakistan's

border with afghanistan. and lastly transparency international has rated 178 countries in corruption and pakistan, our so-called ally, is rated the 143rd most corrupt, beating out, of course, bangladesh and nigeria who have less corruption in their governments. so we're dealing with the corrupt government, we don't know where our money is going, it may end up in the hands of people who hate us, it's being wasted, the taliban or the pakistan military, the pakistan government is trying to play at least two sides, our side, their side, they may be on a third side, who knows? but $1 billion that we send them for so-called reimbursement of the war on terror, we can stop that. they're unan faithful ally. only 17% of the pakistan citizens say they like the united states. that puts 83% that do not like the united states. we don't need to pay the pakistan people to hate us. they'll do it on their own.

so we no longer need to fund them, we need to take $1 billion out of this account and put it into the deficit reduction spending account. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: the bill includes approximately $2.4 billion to support the pakistani military. of this amount $1.1 billion is for the pakistan counteru.s. is fund and approximately -- counterinsurgent fund and approximately $1.3 billion is for coalition support funds. the pakistani counterinsurgent fund provides for the training and equipping of pakistani forces, specifically to aid u.s. counterterrorism objectives. coalition support funds are used to reimbursement -- rebimurs -- reimburse pakistani mailtary. in the wake of osama bin laden's killing by u.s. special forces, serious questions have arisen about pakistan's reliability as

a strategic partner. and i must say that i agree with much of what the gentleman from texas has just said. the relationship with pakistan has always been difficult but maintaining the relationship is essential. this relationship helped the u.s. make progress against terrorism and the pakistanis have allocated a significant part of their forces within their own borders to this mission. a complete withdrawal of u.s. assistance would likely polarize pakistan and exacerbate significant pro and antiamerican riffs with their military and their government generally. aggravating this divide would be counterproductive to u.s. objectives in the region and we must remember that they are also a nuclear power. in addition to the counterterrorism activity, the fact of pakistan's nuclear weapons capability provides ample reason for the u.s. to continue to try and engage pakistan and i urge my colleagues to reject the

amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on -- for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: the ranking member, mr. dicks, has eloquently pointed out why we are opposing this amendment. but like mr. dicks and like mr. poe, the author of the amendment, i couldn't agree more . if this language included the word pakistan i would probably have to have a different attitude on this amendment because i share those concerns and i share them strongly. however i understand the importance of our coalition and the coalition support funds that we have agreed to and that we maintain that agreement. but i would say that somebody at a higher level who deals

internationally, diplomatically with other countries, including pakistan, has dropped the ball somewhere. because i agree with mr. poe but i just don't think that we can be of a position that we can renege on our agreements with and our -- reneg on our agreements with and our arrangements with our coalition partners because they are very important to us and to the missions that we face. so as reluctant as i might be share building poe's thoughts, i also will oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment -- the gentleman from texas. mr. poe: i ask for a recorded vote, the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman has requested a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the

amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 130, line 8, operation and maintenance, army reserve, $217,500,000. operation and maintenance, navy reserve, $74,148,000. operation and maintenance, marine corps reserve $36,084,000. operation and maintenance, air force reserve $142,050,000. operation and maintenance, army national guard, $387,544,000. operation and maintenance air national guard $34,050,000. ms. lee: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk will continue reading. the clerk: transfer of funds $5 billion. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. lee: thank you, mr. chairman.

i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. lee of california, page 131, line 25, insert after the dollar amount the following, reduce by $5 million. page 161, line 12 -- ms. lee: now may i ask for unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read? the chair: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i also once again thank chairman rogers and ranking member dicks and my colleagues on the appropriations committee for their hard work on this bill. let me also thank my colleagues who are joining representative jones and me on this bipartisan amendment, representatives woolsey, olver, honda, grijalva and paul. i rise to offer the lee-jones amendment to redirect the $5 billion of the overseas contingency operations transfer fund into a deficit reduction account. this amendment does nothing to undermine the efforts that our service men and women have performed with incredible

courage. also with extreme commitment they performed in afghanistan and iraq and around the world. they've done everything asked of them and as the daughter of a military veteran, i take any matter that affects our troops very, very seriously. but supporting our troops does not mean giving a blank check to the peb pentagon. i have consistently said that we cannot afford to give any more blank checks to the defense department. this amendment is about eliminating a giant $5 billion check with a blank memo to fight the global war on terror anywhere and at any time without any accountability. the department of defense just has to notify congress that these funds are being transferred. this $5 billion giveaway which is what it is, it's like a slush fund, it's like a war slush fund. another giveaway to the pentagon, it's a $5 billion check to use as it pleases with little or no congressional oversight. there's no accountability in how

these funds are spent. while we understand that the pentagon needs flexibility to address terrorist threats to this nation and around the world, we need not create a separate slush fund, mind you, to do it. the flexibility has been given elsewhere in this bill including the $119 in flexibility in this appropriations bill, a tremendous amount at a time when we are cutting aid to american families who need assistance with buying food or receiving health care and also during a time when there are many calling for cuts in medicare. we already have a process in place for the pentagon to get additional funds as needed outside of this appropriations bill and the congress has consistently responded well to the needs of the military. but congress does not need to create a $5 billion war slush fund. the pentagon can incorporate its work to fight terrorism globally into its budget while taking steps to rein in waste, fraud and abuse in an already bloated budget. . there's no doubt that this

war slush fund would give rise to waste, fraud and abuse at the pentagon such as the $300 billion cost overruns identified by g.a.o. it is time to address the culture of unlimited spending and no accountability at the pentagon. being strock being strock on -- strong on defense does not mean we give a free pass. does the pentagon really need another slush fund? why can't the pentagon budget for its wars and budget for preventing terrorist attacks? it's time to hold the defense department for its budget and hold them accountable by ending this war slush fund before it gets started. i think the american people would be shocked to know what's

taking place, especially the $5 billion in war funding that is put aside for the pentagon to use as they please -- as it pleases. i hope my colleagues will vote yes to end this slush fund and let's start to rein these blank checks for the pentagon. we are asking people who are vulnerable and asking our senior citizens and asking low-income individuals and asking everyone in this country to pay for this deficit and this debt and we know how we got there. but we need to start to look at deficit reduction in a real way, in a way that is balanced as the president says. and i don't think allowing a $5 billion slush fund really moves us in the correct direction. it really is, i think a real sad day to think we would allow for

the pentagon to have a $5 billion slush fund when we cut funding for women and children and people who are hungry, when we won't extend unemployment for people who have extended their 99 weeks of unemployment compensation. i can remember asking the speaker to allow us to vote for unemployment compensation that would provide for 14 additional weeks of unemployment, but we were told there was no money and that was $16 billion to $20 billion. now we are dealing with a $5 billion slush fund and i ask for a iowa vote. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does gentleman rise? mr. young: i rise in opposition to this amendment. i wouldn't call this a slush fund. this is not an additional fund that was added by the

subcommittee at the request of the pentagon or the department of defense. when the subcommittee analyzed the request at our hearings and in the subsequent material provided us to justify the budget of the defense department for the overseas contingency operations, we had a strong disagreement. we did not think that their figures were well thought out. rather than appropriate that $5 billion that they requested, we moved it to what we call this transfer fund. not only additional money, it was just taken out of one account and put into another account. this transfer fund is to give the defense department some flexibility when they do get their facts and figures together on what the actual costs are. now, the $5 billion is not a

slush fund. they can't spend this money without reporting back to congress. any money spent from this fund must be reported to congress and congress has 15 days in which to respond to that request. this was done to try to make sure that we had what they needed, that the defense department had what they needed for the oversees -- overseas contingency operations but had to justify how they were going to use the money. and to the contrary, rather than getting into the slush fund, this is definitely not a slush fund. i oppose the amendment. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from colorado rise? cove cove i rise to -- mr. coffman: i move to strike the last word.

we have men and women today engaged in combat. i served in the first gulf war and i served in the iraq war. and i wish that war was predictable. i wish we knew what the enemy was going to do it and when they are going to do it, but we don't know that. but this is a dedicated fund to the global war on terror. it provides flexibility that is necessary for our commanders in the field at this time. i rise in opposition to this amendment and would hope that it would be voted down. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it -- ms. lee: mr. chairman, may i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18,

further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: afghanistan infrastructure fund, $475 million to remain available until september 30, 2013. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> i believe i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate. clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. after the dollar amount insert reduced by $200 million. after the dollar amount, insert increase by $200 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cohen: the defense appropriations bill is one of our primary funding bills to help protect our country against threats. however, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff correctly

said that our national debt is our biggest national security threat. with that said, finding dollars that can be diverted from lower priorities to apply to deficit reduction will make america safer. this amendment will reduce funding for the afghanistan infrastructure fund by $200 million and return those funds to help reduce the deficit. that's $200 million to help reduce the deficit. the afghanistan fund was to establish funds for infrastructure projects and funds could be used for other purposes. but predominantly for infrastructure purposes. my amendment does not completely eliminate funding. it will keep over $200 million in the infrastructure fund. but it reduces it so we can take a look at how we achieve savings to reduce the deficit and funds that are spent overseas that are

not spent effectively. with the death of osama bin laden, there is not a need for a large u.s. presence in afghanistan. in fact, the killing of osama bin laden was the biggest deficit reduction action this country has known. if we take advantage of that action and act on it to make it into a deficit-reduction action. we need to rethink our goals in afghanistan. according to the world bank, 97% of afghanistan's gross zphesk product is derived from military funding and foreign assistance, 97%. if we build a vast infrastructure in afghanistan, they will not be able to sustain it after we believe. the american people should not have to fund that infrastructure while sitting in traffic in our own nation, seeing schools in disrepair, hospitals that can't provide services and watching our own infrastructure crumble,

infrastructure that does create jobs, carrying jobs to market and providing jobs in america. if house rules permitted, woy direct some of these funds towards building our own infrastructure. that's what we need to dofment but that's not the case. the afghan government cannot spend all that we're giving to it and our funding is only fueling corruption and prove tering. mr. poe mentioned pakistan being third from the bottom ahead of nigeria and another nation. afghanistan is right there with them. they are fighting for the third to last place. afghanistan is historically a corrupt nation and what fosters corruption is this money and the moneys we give them, 97% comes from us. it's going into the pockets of people who aren't using it to build that infrastructure to help their own people. we are fostering corruption. afghans could build their own infrastructure for far less than we are investing. we need to pull back some of

this funding to focus on our domestic priorities but we need to be concerned about our deficit. let's keep america safe and strong and urge my republican colleagues to join with me in a bipartisan effort, and i urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, the a.i.f., the infrastructure fund for afghanistan, was created by this congress in the f.y. 2011 house-passed authorization bill. it was again fully authorized in the f.y. 2012 house authorization bill. we support the operations of

enduring freedom and the security fund. this is a counterinsurgency tool that general petraeus placed the highest priority when he recommended that we create the a.i.f.. and so, we did that and took money from that and put the money into the a.i.f. as part of general petraeus' counterinsurgency program. so we think this is not a good amendment and are opposed to the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conaway: i speak in opposition to my colleague's amendment. general petraeus stated that the

current counterinsurgency strategy deployed by u.s. forces and nato has success. i was there in mid-april and having been there since 2005, it is better than it has been since i started going over there in 2005. the afghan infrastructure fund is key and as improvements is necessary to attain support. general petraeus' strategy is dependent on the population and the intelligence they provide. local development projects increases the legitimacy, especially since these projects are conducted in areas that have influence. and mr. speaker, i'm going to oppose this amendment. the house armed services committee has authorized this program. the house appropriations committee has gone through this

bill with a fine tooth comb and believe these funds will be properly used and properly supervised in the building of afghan infrastructure as we continue to put in place the system we need when we leave and we will leave, the afghan people will sustain what they are doing. one of the messages i got when i was there in april, unlike some of the previous efforts, we will build things to afghan standards. that is a basic reality. they cannot maintain that road to u.s. standards but when they build it to afghan standards, they can maintain that infrastructure. good enough afghanistan is facing reality. it's different from the united states and different infrastructure projects will be brought to those afghan standards. i oppose the gentleman's amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. >> i request a roll call. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings offered by the amendment by the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cicilline: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island. insert after the dollar amount the following. reduce by $475 million, page 161, line 12, insert after the dollar amount, increase by $475 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cicilline: i join the efforts of my colleagues to in a variety of amendment designed to

ac st. sell rate the end of the war in afghanistan -- designed to accelerate the end of the war in afghanistan. we have been executing the american mission in afghanistan with bravely, dedication and extraordinary confidence. but what started out as a quick war in 2001 to bring osama bin laden to justice and dismantle al qaeda in afghanistan has turned into the longest war in the united states' history. the original mission has now been largely accomplished. and with bin laden's death in pakistan this provides an opportunity to re-examine our ongoing mission in afghanistan which some estimates indicate is costing us in excess of $8 billion per month. we should no longer be sending billions of american taxpayer dollars to the afghan people for their schools, their hospitals, their roads, bridges and police at the expense of making those same investments in our own country. especially when the afghanistan government under the leadership of president karzai has proven

itself incredibly corrupt. in fact, transparency international ranked afghanistan the third most corrupt country in the world. and "the new york times" recently reported about a road construction project just one example in afghanistan fund by american taxpayers, it's a 64-mile long project, it's expected to cost $176 million to build, that comes to $2.8 million a mile. undisclosed amounts of money have gone to pay off local strongmen to buy security while the project is ongoing and it was reported that the people collecting these bribes stage attacks on the construction crews in order to make the bribes necessary in the first place. with this kind of corruption and many other examples we simply cannot afford to continue to finance the infrastructure projects associated with this war. and don't forget, mr. chairman, on top of everything else we're not even paying for this war. it's actually being financed on the national credit card.

these are difficult economic and budgetary times. it's time to reassess u.s. involvement in afghanistan so we can focus on building our own economy and rebuilding our own economy, putting americans back to work and making sure our nation can compete in the 21st century. and that's why i'm offering this amendment today, to strike $475 million from the afghanistan infrastructure fund. vital investments to our country's economic stability, the education of our children, the health of our seniors and the employment of our work force have time and again been put on the chopping block in this congress. we're told that we can't afford to adequately arepair our infrastructure here in america, we're told that pell grants and student loans are expensive and we need to change the safety nets for our nation's seniors and most vulnerable populations and in the same breath we're told we should continue to borrow billions and billions of dollars for nation building in afghanistan. what we really should be doing is nation building right here at

home. instead of building roads and bridges and hospitals and schools halfway around the world in afghanistan we should be investing resources on the urgent needs of our own country. budgets are a reflection of our priorities. are we going to pay down our nation's debt, are we going to make the much-needed investments in our own roads and bridges and ports, are we going to protect our seniors are we going to ensure that access to college remains affordable? if we continue to spend billions and billions of dollars in afghanistan then we cannot have ale bad discussion of these priorities and these choices. and as we debate the merits of raising the debt ceiling, as we consider our domestic priorities, i urge my colleagues to support my amendment which strikes $475 million from nation building in afghanistan, to keep those dollars right here at home, to invest in our future and reduce our debt. there was a recent report, mr. chairman, done by the eisenhower research project at brown university's watson institute

for international studies, just this past week. this group's cost of war project has released new figures for a range of costs associated with u.s. military responses to september 11, including our activities in iraq, afghanistan and ac span -- pakistan. they project that the wlars cost americans between $3.2 trillion and 4 trillion in cost and 225,000 lives. it is time to end this spending, it's time to make these investments in infrastructure in our own country. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. cicilline: yes, mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, this is pretty much the same debate we just had. the difference is this particular amendment just eliminates the afghan insurgent fund or infrastructure fund altogether where the other amendment didn't do just that.

this account, this afghan infrastructure favors created by congress in the fiscal 2011 authorization bill, again in the fiscal 2012 authorization bill which we just passed a few weeks ago at the request of general petraeus who made this one of the most important parts of his counterinsurgency strategy. if you don't believe that general petraeus know what is he's talking about, then maybe you should vote for this amendment. but those of us who have watched general petraeus skim skillfully function as the leader -- skillfully function as the leader in iraq and again at central command and there again in afghanistan, we believe that this is not a good amendment and it should be defeated the same as the other amendment that we just defeated. so i rise in opposition to this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> request to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conaway: mr. speaker, this is similar to the one we just debated except to the amount. it does strike the entire infrastructure account. i would like to make a couple of points that i didn't make earlier with respect to the previous amendment. none of the conversation prior to bin laden's death that i was ever aware of remotely said that the war was over, the fight was over if we killed bin laden. had my colleagues on the other side of the aisle been making the argue frment start one it might have some validity to it but that was just a marker in this long fight against islamic jihadists and these terrorists. the other issue of invoking costs while informative as to how we got to this point in time, looking at where we go from here to when we have all american troops out of there, how we make the intelligent decisions and intelligent investments in afghanistan between now and then is the

bigger question. whatever it costs to fight in afghanistan, whatever it costs to fight in iraq over the past eight years or whatever, i understand those are big numbers, but we are looking forward as to how we push the afghan security system to a point where they can take care of themselves and in fact begin to run their country as they should. most of my good colleagues' arguments were better suited for the conversation when he in april with reference to the overall budget. that budget passed, this amount that we're now going to spend on the department of defense fits under the discretionary spending cap that we put in place back in april. the subcommittee on defense appropriations had done their work, allocated their amount of moneys across a lot of priorities, it said yes to this issue, so i rise in opposition to my colleague's amendment and would urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. 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 rhode island.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is -- mr. cicilline: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 39 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. clarke of michigan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: mr. chairman. i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. mr. clarke: thank you, mr. chair. i also ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. clarke: thank you, mr. chair. this amendment would shift $236

million from the afghanistan infrastructure fund and return that money back to the taxpayers of the united states, the u.s. department of transportation's national infrastructure investments program. look, i understand that we're trying to fight terrorism by spending all this money in afghanistan. but the best way to protect the american people from terrorist attacks is to repeal -- repair our roads and bridges, secure our ports, help fund secure, rapid transit systems so we don't have to spend as much money buying foreign oil and you know that some of that money that goes to these foreign countries, when we buy oil, ends up in the hands of terrorists. let's redirect a share of the money that's going to rebuild roads in afghanistan to build and invest in transit in america. not only is this good for americans, peasking over these

pot holes that are damaging our cars and rapid transit programs are going to help provide people who can't afford a car or in my area, in metro detroit, people can't afford auto insurance even though they have good driving records because they're red lined. at least if we transfer some of that money to transit they'll have a way to go to work and to other events for leisure but the bottom line is this. if we invest this money in the united states as opposed to spending it all in afghanistan, we're going to create jobs here in the united states. and that's the best way to secure our country is to make sure we put as many people as possible here back to work. i urge your support on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from florida insist on the point of order? mr. young: mr. chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law. and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and

therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment gives affirmative direction in effect. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: the chair finds -- mr. clarke: mr. chair. i understand the honorable representative's point of order here. if there's anything that's not in order it's the nature of these rules. there are people out here in this country who are taxpayers, they don't want to see their money spent or borrowed in afghanistan rebuilding their roads when we have all these pot holes right here. mr. young: point of order.

the chair: the gentleman's comments must be confined to the point of order. mr. young: the chair is not debating the point of order. and so i insist on the point of order. choipt chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds that this amendment includes language in part directing the transfer of funds. it constitutes legislation in violation of clues 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. mr. clarke: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: page 135, line 1, afghanistan security forces fund $12,800,000,000 to remain available until september 13, 2013. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. mckeon: i wish to address the amendment that the clerk just read because i think that is my amendment and maybe we could do a nunc pro tunc and it could be the same.

that's just a latin facetious way of getting around a mistake. the chair: the clerk will report the -- the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cohen of tennessee, page 135, line 15, after the dollar amount insert reduce by $4 -- keen mr. cohen: i would ask that we waive the reading. the chair: is there objection? the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. cohen: the objection was to reading. the clerk: after the dollar amount insert increase by $4 billion. mr. cohen: we move unanimous consent that we waive the reading of the amendment and without objection so done. choipt amendment has been read. the gentleman -- the chair: the amendment has been read. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker.

i do realize the result of this amendment probably. there is another latin phrase besides nunc pro tunc which is basically we who are about to die salute you. i understand the votes today and i see them but i find it hard to fathom with the american public and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are indeed concerned about the deficit not going at the place where you can really get to the deficit. which is in spending in the defense budget. that's mobey dick. you don't throw your swords or your harpoons at a minnow. you throw your harpoon at the whale. this is the whale. . you see the big one and go for it. this would reduce the funds that we are giving to the afghanistan security forces by $4 billion. they still have 2/3 and reduce it by $4 billion and return

those funds to help the deficit. the $12.8 billion allocated to this fund is equivalent to the g.d.p. of afghanistan. they are at $$16 billion. let's understand this, we are giving the afghanistan people their entire g.d.p. and borrowing it from china and other places. this makes no sense. and we need to go after the big whale. six times the total annual revenue of the afghan government is what we are giving them. i understand these funds are used to provide assistance to the security forces of afghanistan and providing training and equipment supplies. i have seen soldiers killed over there. my constituents that were killed by afghanistan soldiers that we trained. we don't know which ones are taliban and we are training them and giving them weapons.

roughly $6 billion of the $12.8 billion is for salaries and benefits. in light of the president's announcement in withdrawing troops, we need to make reductions all around and that includes reductions to security forces. this country should not fund the structure of the afghanistan government and at a time when we need to look at our deficit. i'm a fan of general petraeus, but he's sometimes wrong. and i think he was for us supporting the forces in libya and some of those people of general petraeus weren't supportive of germ petraeus and he's not right on these funds. these troops aren't going to use the weapons or resupply them. it's going to be a we. the general mike mullen talked

about our debt being our biggest security threat and accordingly we need to adjust our priorities and reduce our deficit. this is the way we can do it and save $4 billion, still give them $8.8 billion. plenty. i would like to see it all cut, but i realize that isn't realistic. but we are pulling out and aren't going to be able to train those troops where they will maintain the funds to pay those troops in the future. most of it is salaries. i have been to afghanistan. you have been to afghanistan. it's beyond third world. it's fourth world. and we are giving them the last of our dollars. if you really, really, really care about reducing the deficit, you have to go for the whale. you got to go to the defense budget and just giving this

money to afghanistan is a dereliction of duty. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. coffman: i rise in opposition. our marines, sailors, soldiers and airmen are fighting in the toughest places imaginable. this is to pull the support out from under our troops and leave a legacy of failure in afghanistan. i urge against supporting this amendment. although i applaud the bravery and skill of the men and women who brought osama bin laden to justice. this is not to increase our security in afghanistan. our men and women are working to increase afghan security forces.

but to transition lead responsibility of security to them is irresponsible to them. the forces did not suddenly become more proficient because of the death of osama bin laden. i'm in support of a transition, but only when they are fully prepared to assume that responsibility. i agree that nation building shall not be a principal tool. such campaigns are too expensive particularly given the circumstances our nation faces. this is not an excuse to negate the sacrifices are troops have made. a time line will hobble any efforts for a reconciliation. if they are certain that our forces are leaving before the time line in 2014, they will not work with the afghan government.

what this amendment does, what this amendment does is it cuts off funding for the development of afghan security forces. our entire exit strategy is based on developing afghan security forces so they are strong enough to allow to pull our forces out to complete a transition whereby they assume operation and control by 2014. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. cohen: half of the money we give them for salaries. when we pull out, we don't pay the salaries. their budget is like 15% of everything we give them. they can't pay the salaries. they can't borrow from china. what's going to happen then? mr. coffman: we have three security objectives in afghanistan. the first is to make sure the taliban don't take over the entire country. the second is to keep al qaeda out of the country and the third is to have a permissive

environment where we can strike targets in pakistan at will as we did with osama bin laden. cutting the legs under the current strategy of giving them the capability of standing up their own security forces completely undermines where we are right now and undermines the president's goal of being able to do that transfer of operational control until 2014. mr. cohen: thank you, sir. mr. coffman: mr. chairman. i urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: i want to compliment the the gentleman from colorado for having made an eloquent statement that is fack tall and gets to the point -- factual and

gets to the point. but earlier in the day, our members that are here tonight, i would suggest that i might say this again and again and again during this debate. this subcommittee that recommends this bill in a very nonpolitical way, in a very careful way, reviewed and analyzed all of the requests that we had from the administration in the president's budget request for fiscal year 2012 appropriation for national defense. we reduced the recommendation that we made, the original recommendation. we reduced by $9 billion and i think that is larger than the gentleman's will and it is a substantial cut and it was made without any regard to politics. we were extremely careful not to

reflect the war fighter and extremely careful not to affect our nation's readiness. this is not a good amendment and i oppose. and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. cohen: roll call requested. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. holt: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 44 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. holt: mr. chairman, my amendment is simple. it reduces the afghan security

forces account by about one part in 500, 1/500 in order to decrease the defense program account to save soldiers' lives and will give the pentagon a much needed infusion of funds to address a serious gap in our suicide prevention. i learned about this gap through the tragedy of a young constituent from new jersey who fell through the cracks. he took his own life in september of 2008. but it is not just one soldier. we have a broad problem here. in each of the past two years, more american soldiers have died at their own hands than have been killed in war fighting. coleman bean of east brunswick,

new jersey, he inlisted in the army in 2001. attended airborne school in fort beening and his first assignment was in italy and in 2003 he and the rest of the 173rd conducted a combat drop into iraq. he saw the horrors of war firsthand and like some, he sought treatment. from the v.a. for his diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder when he returned home in 2004. he was honorably discharged from active duty in 2005 and like other army members, he had four years of active duty commitment through the i.r.r. program. he was recalled to duty in iraq in 2007 through the i.r.r. and was assigned to serve in northern iraq. when he returned to new jersey the following year, he was still

suffering from the symptoms but managed to conceal his condition from those closest to him. no one reached out to him. tragically, he took his own life in september of 2008. tragically, a few weeks after coleman took his life, the v.a. called to say his appointment was ready. two federal agencies charged with helping prevent suicides utterly failed this soldier and his family. indeed earlier this year, the ninth circuit court siding with two veterans' groups that sued the department of veterans affairs for failing to provide timely care noted that an average of 18 veterans per day take their own lives. we must stop this epidemic. this amendment will help. we can't allow another family to

lose a son or a daughter, a father or a mother, husband or a wife because of buck passing. when i investigated bean's tragedy, the v.a. said they don't offer dedicated prevention programs for the i.r.r. the officials said treating i.r.r. meems is the v.a.'s problem. if you are a member of the individual ready reserve suffering from ptsd, you are on your own. the same category applies to other categories of reservists, the i.m.a.'s and the members of the inactive national guard. according to the defense department, there are at least 123,000 i.r.r., i.m.a. and i.n.g. members who have done at

least one tour in iraq and afghanistan. this would give the funding needed to expand the suicide prevention outreach program to ensure that members of these reserve units who have served a tour in iraq or afghanistan will receive a counseling call from a properly trained counselor not less than once every 90 days so long as the service member remembers in these three units. in these calls, the trained counselor would be required to determine the emotional, mental, medical and career needs and concerns of the reservists. covered reservists identified being at risk would be immediately referred to the nearest military treatment facility. i have discussed this program with the pentagon, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. dr. stanley assures me that the

department has more than adequate legal authority to carry this out. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dicks: i rise to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: and i rise in support of the amendment and urge that we accept it. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. dicks: i yield to the chairman. let's do this one first. yes, i yield to the chairman. mr. young: we'll accept the amendment. mr. dicks: let's have a vote on the amendment, mr. chairman. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. clarke: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 37 printed in the congressional recovered offered by mr. clarke of michigan. mr. clarke: i ask for unanimous consent to suspend the reading requirement. and i sk also ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitute legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if exchanging existing law. the amendment gives affirmative

direction in effect. and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: a point of order is reserved. does another member wish to be heard on the point of order? mr. clarke: mr. chair, i would like to speak on the amendment. the chair: the point of order is pending. mr. clarke: i would like to speak on the point of order. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clarke: this bill, this amendment which transfers money from the afghanistan security forces to homeland security, it better supports existing law, better supports this defense budget because it better protects the american people. the chair: the gentleman will speak to the point of order. mr. young: mr. chairman. the point of order -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: the gentleman is addressing the amendment and not the point of order. the chair: the chair will address members on the point of order.

the chair is prepared to rule. mr. clarke: mr. chair, just to clarify. i was explaining -- in order to explain my position on the point of order i had to explain the merits of this amendment. this defense budget is about protecting the american people. i'm saying -- the chair: the gentleman will speak to the point of order. the gentleman will speak to the point of order. the chair is prepared to rule. for the reasons stated in the previous ruling, the amendment violates clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained. the amendment is not in order. mr. young: mr. chairman, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: i made this announcement earlier in the day that i would allow a member to have the five minutes to speak on the amendment even though it was subject to a point of order. if that courtesy was not abused. in recent points of order that courtesy has been abused. i will continue to reserve that courtesy to members who do not abuys -- abuse their five

minutes and who do not abuse the point of order. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. clarke: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. clarke: as a new member in this body i have the utmost respect to this institution and the chair. to the extent that i attribute the out of bounds, i do apologize. it's the fact that this country's in crisis, we have a huge debt, we have so many people that need jobs and since the budget resolution was passed , april 15 osama bin laden was captured and killed. and that provided us with the opportunity to reassess our mission in afghanistan. i want us to take a little share of our money that we're spending in afghanistan and return it here to protect the american people. and also take the remainder of the savings to pay down our debt.

and i do understand what the rules provide. it's just, mr. chair, in closing i believe these rules are old and out of date. we need to, in this house need to respond more quickly and more effectively on behalf of the american people. in my closing point, it's this, we spent over $50 billion in economic aid to afghanistan. let's take a share of that money, redirect it back home, create jobs by repairing our roads and bridges. i understand that we don't want to have safe havens for terrorists around the world like afghanistan, the best way to protect the american people is to invest in homeland security, help fund our police and firefighters, they don't have the equipment this that they need to communicate -- the communication and radios that can talk to each other, that can share information and also, too, i believe it's the duty of this congress to find a way to provide more equipment and

funding for police and fire because this congress in the past had failed to effectively address the foreclosure crisis which really dropped property values so our local units of government don't have the revenue to hire more police and fire. so saying that i want to say to the chairman that i respect your position, i respect this institution, i'm here trying to fight for my people i represent in metro detroit and return american tax dollars back to americans, to create jobs here and to protect americans at home. thank you, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 137 line 1, pakistan counterinsurgency fund, $1,100,000,000,000 to remain available until september 30, twirt. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the gentleman has two amendments at the desk. could he specify which amendment he wishes to address? mr. poe: page 137, line 4. counterinsurgency fund amendment. it's $1 billion. i ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. without objection, the gentleman texas is recognized. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. poe of texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. chairman, i will be brief. i have had my argument on the other $1 billion that i asked to be deducted from the reimbursement account, to be spent to the spending reduction account. this is a separate fund that also gives money to pakistan. over $1 billion. i'm asking that $1 billion of that fund that goes into counterinsurgency also be sent to the spending reduction account. there are several reasons for that but the main one is

pakistan government is corrupt, we don't know where the money is going, we found out that after we took out osama bin laden that in that compound we found documents that revealed discussions of promises of no al qaeda attacks in pakistan in exchange for sheltering osama bin laden. that's the type of things that we wonder about, whether pakistan is on our side, on the side of our enemies, we don't know whose side they're on. so i'd ask the adoption of this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> move to strike the word. strike the final word. and speak in opposition of the bill and yield to mr. lewis for any comments he may have. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lewis: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise to support the goals of this amendment which is to demand accountability from a nation that until recently has been one of our good friends.

pakistan has faced serious problems throughout its history. and the united states has played a leading role in helping stabilize that troubled nation. we have sent billions and billions of dollars in military support and billions and billions more in economic assistance. we have worked as close as we can with pakistan's military and intelligence agencies in order to stabilize the border region near afghanistan where al qaeda and the taliban are trying to overthrow both afghanistan and the pakistan governments. it is therefore hard to express the anger and frustration of all americans when we discovered that osama bin laden, the man who produced the death of thousands on the american soil, was living in comfort just a short drive from islamabad. and we have asked in vein how this could occur, rather than help us get to the bottom of how this international criminal

could live for years within blocks of their military school, we received protests from pakistany officials that our brave special forces captured and killed bin laden under their noses. but, mr. chairman, what has really outraged me and many of my colleagues is that the pakistanis have had the audacity to arrest and detain the informants who helped us bring this ultimate terrorist to justice. it is almost too much to take and it is time that we made it clear to the pakistanis that our friendship is at the breaking point. for this reason i am convinced that we must cafrle -- carefully scrutinize every dollar we're spending in pakistan in this bill and especially in the foreign operations appropriations bill and, mr. chairman, i -- while i want to support chairman young and the work of mr. dicks as well as the rest of my colleagues on this committee, i do want to serve in

the that as we go forward and i'm able to gather more information i could very well be presenting a very similar amendment in the foreign operations bill. it is high time that we get the answers that we seek here and know really which friends are truly our friends. so i would yield back the balance of my time. mr. frelinghuysen: continue to be opposed and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there's no question that the pakistanis are a troubled ally, they're an unstable islamic country with extremist tendencies and a country that has nuclear weapons. the funding that we're talking about right now is that which is for -- training them in counterinsurgency operations.

mr. coffman: we have troops in combat at this time in afghanistan. the taliban, the afghan taliban who are fighting or forces in the field -- our forces in the field will oftentimes have sanctuary in pakistan. we are trying to stand up our pakistani military that is not simply exclusively engaged or is exclusively focused on a conventional war with india, but is able to launch counterinsurgency operations particularly in the federally administered tribal areas. i think this funding is critical so long as we have troops in the field in afghanistan, that we seek to maintain or certainly increase the capability of the pakistani military and counterinsurgency operations. with that, mr. chairman, i rise

in opposition to this amendment and would urge my colleagues to vote against it. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. does the gentleman from texas wish to offer his next amendment? mr. poe: i have no further amendments. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: page 138 line 12, procurement aircraft procurement army, $387,900,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. army, $118,412,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. procurement of weapons and combat vehicles army,

$37,117,000 to remain available until september 30, 014. procurement of ammunition army $208,381,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. under procurement army $1,398,195,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. aircraft procurement navy $492,060,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. weapons procurement navy $41,70,000 -- $41,050,000. procurement of ammunition navy and marine corps $317,100,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. other procurement navy $249,514,000 to remain available until september 14, -- september 30, 2014.

procurement marine corps $1,183,996,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. aircraft procurement air force $440,265,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. missile procurement air force $ 46,920,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. procurement of ammunition air force $139,510,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. other procurement air force $3,213,010,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. . national guard and reserve

equipment, $1,500,000 remain reavailable. mine resistant ambush vehicle fund to remain available until september 30, 2013. research development, task evaluation, research evaluation, army, $8,513,000 to remain available until 2013. research development, task and evaluation, navy, $53,843,000 to remain available until september 30, 2013. research and development, air force, $182 million to remain available until september 30, 2013. research development, defense-wide, $192,361,000 to remain available until september

30, 2013. reself-ing and management funds, $435,213,. other department of defense programs, defense health programs, $1 billion 2 28,088,000. drug counterdrug activities $469 million to remain available until september 30, 2013. joint improvised explosive devices to remain available until september 30, 2014. office of the inspector general, 11 million 55,. general provisions, section 9001. funds made available are in addition to amounts appropriated for the department for 2012.

section 9,002. upon the determination of the secretary that action is necessary in the nag interests, the secretary may transfer up to $3 billion up to the appropriations or funds made available to the department in this title. section 9003, sferings and administration costs associated with a construction project available for afghanistan infrastructure funds or afghanistan security forces fund may be obligated at the time of construction contracts is awarded. section 9004, funds made available in this title, the secretary may purchase a passenger motor vehicle up to a limit of $75,000 per vehicle and heavy and light armored vehicles up to $250,000 per vehicle. section 9005, not to exceed $400 million appropriated in this

title under operation and maintenance army may be used to fund the commanders' emergency response program for enabling military commanders in afghanistan to respond to small scale humanitarian relief. section 9006, funds available for operation and maintenance may be used to provide supplies, services, transportation, including airlift and sea delept lift providing stability operations in iraq and afghanistan. section 9007, none of the funds shall be obligated or expended to establish any military installation for the purpose of providing permanent installation for the forces in iraq. section 9008, none of the funds may be used to implement the united nations convention against torture and other cruel

punishment. the secretary shall submit to committees a report on the use of all funds appropriated by this or any prior act under the heading afghanistan security forces fund, afghanistan infrastructure fund and pakistan -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentleman from new jersey be recognized mr. frelinghuysen: i ask that the reading be waived. the chair: no objection. the clerk will read. the gentlelady is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i'm going to use -- i have three amendments, 040 is my first amendment. the chair: the clerk will read the next paragraph of the bill. the clerk: title 10, additional

general provisions spending reduction account. section 100001 made by the committee exceeds the amount proposed by the budget authority is zero dollars. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by

mismccollum, insert the following, section, the total amount of appropriations made available by this act is hereby reduced by $124,800,000. ms. mccollum: this amendment cuts dollars from the overall bill. my colleagues say they are commited to deficit reduction, this is their chance to prove it. reduces the funding for military bands to the authorized level. currently this bill in the pentagon's budget includes a total of $324.8 million, 450 military bands, full-time professional military musicians. this amendment would reduce the total funding for military bands to $200 million.

the limit set for spending on military bands including a voice vote in the 2012 defense authorization bill, h.r. 1540. let me be clear. this amendment brings the defense appropriations bill in line with the spending on military bands established in the defense authorization bill. again, the house is already on rorled voted to limit spending on military bands to $200 million. earlier, representative carter of texas had an amendment that struck the language that i had inserted in the defense appropriations bill that would limit the military bands to $200 million. this amendment was agreed to on voice vote. but i do not believe the majority of republicans and democrats in this house want to be on record adding, adding over

$124 million in spending for military bands. this amendment gives all my colleagues the opportunity to reduce the cost to government by cutting $124 million while allowing the pentagon to continue to spend $200 million for choirs, jazz bands and other musical missions. there is no doubt that bands are important. we enjoy listening to military bands and military music. but in times of fiscal crisis, $200 million is set aside for this. many of you believe that spending $225 million is in our national security interests. a national priority that cannot be cut or reduced. i couldn't disagree more. there are members in this house who in good conscience cut programs for hungry and poor but

is this house serious that allow increases in military bands. republicans are forcing cuts from law enforcement, firefighters, homeless veterans and take a stand on opposing limits for funding military bands at $200 million is a fluret priority. if this congress is go to go raise the debt creeg so it can pay $325 mill ion. these are truly misplaced priorities. this congress faces record deficits and it is time for smart investments and tough choices. in the $650 million -- $650 billion defense appropriations bill, this amendment proposes an extremely modest test in this house's willingness to cut expenses. last year, the army commander

had a $4.4 million state of the art building constructed for army material command bands while school, health care sent rs and food banks are being cut, $4.4 million indicates to me that no one told the pentagon. the pentagon does not need any more band-aid. mr. carter argued against this and he was correct. this amendment saves u.s. taxpayers $124.8 million and makes a lot of sense to the people i represent and should make a lot of sense to my tea party colleagues. this gives a chance to show our colleagues a deficit reduction. mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields

back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: strike the last word. mr. chairman, the gentlewoman's amendment would cap funding at $200 million and reverse the decision of the body earlier this evening. the band's main mission is music. band members train for security and given the shortage of guards, security -- the members go to war. every soldier is taught their basic combat skills. the department of defense strongly believes that military bands are vital to recruiting, and they provide patriotic inspirational music to instill in soldiers, sailors and airmen and insteel in them the will to fight and win in support of our

citizens and promote -- mr. chairman, i oppose the bill and urge others to do it and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. ms. mccollum: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings offered by the women from the the gentlewoman from minnesota will be postponed. the chair: does the the gentlewoman from seek recognition? ms. mccollum: just to be clear, the parliamentary said we have two amendments left and this deals with nascar.

the clerk: the clerk: amendment offered by mismccollum. before the short title add the following new section, section not more than $20 million of the funds made available by this act may be used to pay motor sports drivers, racing teams or racing cars in the national association for stock car auto race car, the national hot rod association, the indie racing league, indie car series or the motor cycle association or otherwise conduct recruiting outreach under the authority of 561-b of the flide

d. spence as enacted into law. 114-1654-a -- 129. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: my amendment requires the department of defense to limit what they spend on motor sports sponsorships for indy car series no more than $20 million in fiscal year 2012. with our nation in fiscal crisis i can't imagine anyone wanting to spend more than $20 million. as members of congress, we must make choices as to what to do with american taxpayers' money. congress needs to set priorities to reduce the deficit and grow our economy. this year the department of defense will spend $63 million in taxpayer funds to sponsor

motor sports for recruitment purposes. in the last decade, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent to sponsor motor sport racing and what do the american people get? the millions of tax dollars by big stickers on race cars, they pay for multi-million dollar race tracks for race car drivers and racing team owners. for example, the national guard is currently spending $20 million in taxpayer dollars to sponsor one race car driver, $20 million. at a time when our nation is fighting two wars why are we borrowing money from russia to pay for sponsorship? how does that advance national security? .

men say this is for a volunteer military. i respect their passion despite that's flo -- there's no fact to demonstrate that it's effective in recruiting. and that's why my amendment maintains a significant investment in motorsports sponsorships. $20 million. to allow the pentagon to demonstrate to us and to the taxpayers it does work. now, as members of congress we must do a better job of exercising our oversight over the pentagon's recruiting budget. right now 75% of americans ages 17 to 24 years old are not qualified. let me repeat. 75% of young americans ages 17 to 25 -- 24 years old are not equal tied to serve in the armed forces. motorsport sponsorships are not the answer to making america's youth more physically fit or more academically prepared to serve. according to a 2010 report by a retired military leaders entitled too fat to fight, the

u.s. military faces serious long-term recruiting challenges. let me quote the report directly. when weight problems are combined with educational deficits, criminal records and other disequal fires such as asthma or drug abuse, 75% of americans 17 to 24 years old are unable to join the military for more than one of those reasons. the military will have to have more fit young men and women if they are going to find enough recruits with the excellent qualifications needed for our modern military. but we're not talking about $63 million to sponsor academic sports. while these alarming trends facing america's young people, the pentagon needs to be leading the national effort to ensure young people around this country from coast-to-coast are educationally prepared, physically fit, morally sound and dedicated to serving our country. those young men and women aren't just found at race tracks, some of them -- yet that is where our branches of military are

spending disprorpt amount of money on a small number of recruiting targets. here's an example of a motorsport recruiting power. in 2010 the national guard spent $645,000 to sponsor one single nascar race. according to the air national guard that $650,000 sponsorship generated 439 recruits. only six of those were qualified leads or recruited eligible. how many enlists for $650,000? zero. zero enlistments, zero contracts signed. other branches of the armed forces found a sponsorship, the marine corps and navy have canceled their motorsport sponsorship years a ago. i respect the patriotism and passion of motorsports fans. i do. and i encourage the u.s.

military to continue its long standing relationship with the motorsports like nascar. this amendment does nothing to the additional $8 million the army spends on outreach to nascar racing events or the millions spent on military recruitment at races. but we are wasting taxpayer dollars on race cars and millionaire drivers with little or nothing to show from it. i've heard from supporters of race car, talk about passion points and media impressions, these sponsorship dollars produce along with television viewers. really? americans don't know that there's an army or an air force or american people don't know that we're at war in iraq and afghanistan? they don't need a racing car to tell them that we have a volunteer military and our country's at war. already this year the republican congress has voted to cut nutrition programs for the poor, hungry and for infants. and this majority is cutting investments in energy efficiency

and high gas prices. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and limit the motorship sponsor racing to $20 million. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: i compliment the gentlelady for her determination. she has really worked this amendment hard on more than one occasion. the house has already spoken on this issue that we considered earlier, h.r. 1. this amendment was defeated by more than 100 votes, 148-281. but this is a recruiting tool. i don't think any of us want to go back to a draft. i think we like the fact that we have an all volunteer service but if you have an all volunteer service, means you've got to

recruit and you use more than just nascar or sporting events or advertising in newspapers to gain recruits. so that we can have an all volunteer military as opposed to a con scripted drafted military. the army national guard estimated that it engaged more than 83,000 prospects in the year 2010. the air force reports that their nascar sponsorship is the second highest source of sports sponsorships. the army expects that they will this year engage 28,700 prospects and gain access to 18 schools through its -- 182 schools through its sponsorship of nascar. now, the gentlelady, as i said,

is persistent, she uses the owe case to mention the fact that -- occasion to mention the fact that the marine corps does not use sporting -- does not use nascar for recruiting. which is true. but that's no reason to why we should discontinue the program. the navy and the marine corps do not sponsor motorsports, nascar, but they both use the sponsorship of sporting events as part of their recruiting programs. the navy is a sponsor of the x games while the marine corps sponsors a variety of events including the ultimate fighting championship. the fact of the matter is we spend a lot of money for recruiting and the recruiting that -- programs that are successful ought to be continued and should not be denied because

of whatever the reason someone objects to using the money for sponsoring race car vehicles. the national car took seventh place by the way in daytona last week, this past weekend. and not only do we get the sponsorship, the excitement of the crowds and many of whom go to the recruiting stations, but we get newspaper coverage for free. we get television coverage for free. coverage that we don't have to pay for because of these events that we do sponsor. so as we did in the appropriations committee and as we did on h.r. 1 earlier this year, i just hope that we will once again defeat this amendment and i rise in opposition to the amendment. and 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 gentlelady from

minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. mccollum: i would like a recorded vote, please. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from minnesota will be postponed. does the gentlelady from minnesota seek recognition? ms. mccollum: yes, mr. chairman. i have my last and final amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. mccollum of minnesota, at the end of the bill, before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funs made available by this -- ms. mccollum: i ask that we suspend with the reading. the chair: without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chairman. section 95 of this defense appropriation bill includes language authorizing the pentagon under the direction and control of secretary of defense to operate task force for business and stability operations in afghanistan. the bill provides $150 million

to the secretary of defense to operate this business task force. our brave military men and women have been in afghanistan for 10 long years, confronting the taliban, killing terrorists and helping secure a better future for the afghan people. when in the course of this long war did it begin the department of defense's role to facilitate business opportunities for afghan and foreign countries? is it really within the pentagon's expertise or mission to excel at business development, farming or mineral exploration? this bill gives the department of defense authorization to carry out, quote, projects that include private investment, industrial development, banking and financial systems development, agricultural diversification and revitalization, energy development with respect to afghanistan. afghanistan is an act of -- active war zone. the american service mens -- members are under attack and our department of defense should

only be solely focused on their security. the pentagon's focus should not be on starting up businesses or facilitating business development towards for corporate c.e.o.'s. economic development is an important part of america's overall strategy in afghanistan but that is the role of civilian agencies like you said, the department of state or the department of congress. congress needs to invest in america's civilian capacity to carry out this function. unfortunately the republican leadership in this house does not believe in international development activities, a component of our national security. if they did they would not cut vital foreign assistance capacity and programs. every house member needs to ask why the pentagon is supporting the development of an afghan carpet industry while u.s. soldiers are under attack. afghan carpets should not be a strategic priority for the department of defense. every house member needs to ask the department of defense, is helping cate spade, an exclusive

new york hand bag designer, to source raw materials in afghanistan? since when did the pentagon's investment and taxpayer dollars go to promoting women's fashion? the deputy undersecretary of defense described his role in heading up the task force in the "washington post" and i quote him, we do capitalism. we're about helping companies make money. colleagues, helping companies make money is not the role of the department of defense. this is the worst example of mission creep. it is up to congress to perform its oversight duty and rein in the pentagon. getting people to work in afghanistan is important. afghanistan -- afghans who are working in the farms and the police and the military are likely not shooting at our troops. but this report that accompanies the defense authorization bill that passed in may said it best and i quote from the defense authorization bill, quote, the

function of a private sector business development falls outside the core competency of the department of defense. the house armed services committee went on to further state, quote, the mission should eventually fall under the jurisdiction of a different agency like usaid or the department of commerce. the task force for business and stability operations in afghanistan and its $115 million budget should not be funded and not authorized in the defense appropriations bill. this function and this money belongs in the state and foreign operations appropriation bill. this task force is another example of the militarization of foreign assistance that diverts the peb from -- pentagon from its core mission. it also dangerously blows a -- blurs the line between military affiliated personnel in a war zone and civilian personnel carrying out development activities.

america needs the department of defense to take care of its top priorities, ensuring the national security of our country. we all know that there will be fewer and fewer military personnel in afghanistan in fewer months. troops stationed in afghanistan will be in increasing danger. we must allow those troops to focus on their security mission. if the secretary of defense truly believes business development and the work of the task force is vital to national security, then the pentagon can contract with professionals at usaid to carry out this function. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and get the business development and cooperative investment support out of the pentagon. mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. . mr. young: the americans and our

allies pretty much stabilized afghanistan and stopped the taliban. but before the job was completed, we all walked away. the taliban resurged, came back and created the situation that we face last year and the year before. let's not let that happen again. this task force is part of that operation to try to maintain stability once we clear out and stop the taliban once again. the mission of the task force is to assist the commander of u.s. central command in developing a link between u.s. military operations in afghanistan and economic elements of u.s. national power in order to reduce violence, enhance

stability to restore economic normalcy in afghanistan through business and economic activities such as agriculture diversification and energy development. the secretary may use up to $150 million of available operations for overseas contingency operations. this amendment would prohibit that. this amendment would not permit us to do the things that we need to do after winning on the battle flt, after eliminating the combat areas. we have got to maintain an afghanistan that is not any longer under the jurisdiction and the influence of the taliban. as i said, we did it once before at great costs. we basically stabilized afghanistan and then we walked away and didn't do the things

that this instability task force operations would do. let's do it this time so we don't have to go back and refight the war against the taliban in afghanistan. not a good amendment. it is not a good amendment and i rise in opposition to the amendment. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. . dick dick i agree with the gentleman on this particular amendment. i agree we should vote it down. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by gentlelady from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed to. does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. holt: i have an amendment at the desk. i believe it is number 43. the chair: the clerk will designate. the clerk: amendment number 43, printed in the congressional record offered by mr. holt of

new jersey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. holt: mr. chairman, over 19,000 people in new jersey depepped on the goods and services provided by the economies sear of fort mammoth which has cast a cloud among the active duty and reserve and retirees who count on the economies sear to live on their lives that we promised them. the secretary of the army recognize the importance of this facility and recommended to the pentagon leadership that the facility remain open. department regulations give the pentagon the ability to decide whether to keep it open after a base closes. i should point out that the active personnel at the naval weapons station earl which does not have a facility depends on it as well.

we in the new jersey strong agree with the secretary's recommendation which is currently under consideration in the pentagon. the amendment i am offering, but will withdraw pursuant to a discussion, a colloquy with my colleagues, would bar the use of fiscal 2012 funds to close the facility. and at this time, woy like to yield to mr. dicks. mr. dicks: i completely understand the gentleman's concern here and i have a copy of the letter from secretary mchugh, which we should put in the record. can we do it at this level? the chair: in the house. mr. dicks: we'll do it in the appropriate time in the house. i'm prepared to work with him on this and see if we can talk to the powers to be over at the pentagon and hopefully they can

accept secretary mchugh's recommendation. and i yield -- mr. holt: i yield to the gentleman from florida. mr. young: thank you for yielding. let me say that i agree with mr. dicks. we are more than happy to work with you to work out this problem. and thank you for yielding. mr. holt: i thank both gentlemen. and this means a great deal to the people of new jersey whose lives -- to whom we owe a great deal for their military work. with that understanding, mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. mr. young: mr. chairman, five minutes to 11:00 p.m., i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee do

now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the motion is adopted. the committee rises. the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 22319 and has come to no resolution.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate.

>> new and returning house and senate members, with contact information and committee assignments. order online at c-span.org/shop.

>> senate minority in the turret -- leader mitch mcconnell and other senators talked to reporters about negotiations over the debt ceiling and the federal budget. he said he hopes there will be some breakthrough tomorrow when republicans meet with president obama. from the capital, this is 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. senator kyl and i are looking forward to talking with the president one more time about the issue we have in front of us. we are going to do something about this $14 trillion that we have, not to mention liabilities on popular entitlement programs. this is the perfect time, as i have said repeatedly for months, a great opportunity to do something really big and important. the president has said he prefers a big package. we all do.

i hope there will be a breakthrough tomorrow. maybe he could begin telling us what he has in mind. we have had a difficult time trying to get a clear proposal out of the president and his people. maybe that will be forthcoming tomorrow. that is my hope. >> i to look forward to -- i.t. oh look forward to seeing if the president will come up with something tomorrow that will break the impasse. there is a sense republicans need to do something to make the president have be in order to reach an agreement. making the president happy is to agree to a tax hike. let us get back to the fundamental question. what is good for the economy? what will put americans back to work again? what is right and wrong. we are in a bad economic downturn. we know that. we have high unemployment. jobs and not being created. what is the right message? is it to add more taxes on to

the people who create jobs? the answer is no. the opposition to tax increases is not because of some in ideological fervor on the part of republicans. it is simply a response to the question of what is good for the nation. it is not adding more taxes on top of the job creators. they need helping, not hurting. >> the united states has tried a millionaire's tax before. it was in 1969. that is what it was called. it was designed to catch 130 to which people who were not paying enough taxes. the next year, the tax will affect 34 million american taxpayers. in millionaires' tax today may be your text tomorrow.

there has also been a tax on yachts before, in 1990. congress decided to tax luxuries', including yachts. what was the effect of it? it about put the american boating industry out of business. it cost 600 jobs. and the government lost money because of the cost of unemployment benefits and lost revenues. the democratic congress came back in 1993 and repealed it. what is disappointing about the president's comments is he is trivializing a serious issue. we are facing a spending prices and jobs crisis. the president of the united states should be talking about serious solutions to this serious problem. >> this week, we are here talking about a vague, ambiguous senate resolution instead of talking about a

budget. a senate resolution is no substitute for a budget that would do something about spending and debt. it has been 198 days since the senate passed the budget. it seems to me that the administration and the democratic leadership in the senate is more focused on distracting away from what the main issue is. the main issue is getting spending and debt under control, creating conditions conducive to economic growth, and getting people back to work. i spoke to a small business person in my state who employs a lot of people. he has gas stations, a motel, the cafe, and things like that. he is trying to figure out how he can keep his net income under $200,000 so he will not be hit with the tax increases. that is not what you want of critters thinking about. you want them thinking about how to invest and put people back to work. that is why