georgia reserves a point of order. the gentleman from vermont is recognized for five minutes. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as you know the american taxpayer is spending $2 billion a week in afghanistan. among the expenditures, our payment for projects that are rebuilding infrastructure in afghanistan, roads, bridges, schools, in some cases hospitals. "the washington post" recently reported that the afghan government is taxing american aid. we send money there to build a road. we have to hire contractors in order to do that. and the afghan government is trying to tax that money for their own coffers. so it's not enough that our taxpayers are spending billions of dollars on projects to rebuild their infrastructure.

the afghan government is literally trying to reach in the pocket and double dip and tax our taxpayers for our taxpayers' generosity in giving them money. . how does that make any sense at all? after this was reported, they are stepping up their efforts to grab that cash. they are doing things like threatening to detain contractors. if they don't pay up, take money that's assigned to build that road and put that money in the afghan covers, the afghan officials are threatening to detain our contractors. they are denying licenses to our contractors in an effort to what i call a shakedown. revoking visas on unpaid tax bills. we are spending money rebuilding their infrastructure. we should not be taxed, nor should we allow our taxpayers

essentially to be stuck up by the afghan officials. this amendment offered by my colleague from washington, would end that practice. so we believe this is overdue and no tolerance by this double-dipping by the afghan government and our amendment is to crack down on that process. and i thank my colleague from washington in joining me in the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia reserves a point of order. mr. kingston: i would like to speak on the point of order. i make a point of order because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore, violates clause 2 of rule 21, because it requires a new determination. the chair: the gentleman makes a point of order. does any member wish to be heard

on the point of order? if not, the chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination of the use of funds by a foreign government entity. the amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> we are working on making this amendment something that can be passed as a part of this bill. ms. herrera beutler: i wanted to speak in support of it and i'm honored to be working with the gentleman from vermont on this. basically, we are in afghanistan right now, helping to rebuild or in many cases build from scratch

infrastructure and when we leave that country, we'll leave that infrastructure behind. power grids, trained law enforcement are the building blocks of a functioning society and we will have spent hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars on improvements meant to better the lives of the people in afghanistan. the reason i supported this amendment is we don't need to also be paying taxes to the afghan government for the privilege of rebuilding that country. and that's why i co-sponsored the amendment. the department of defense funding should be focused on providing soldiers in training on the field and front lines with the tools they need to protect themselves and defend our country. this amendment would uphold or was offered or we attempted, would uphold existing law and clarify existing agreements between the u.s. and afghanistan prohibiting afghanistan from taxing u.s. subcontractors doing work in afghanistan.

so this ban on levying taxes would apply to all subcontractors that may not have direct contracts with afghanistan. in other words, if a company is working on a project funded by the u.s. department of defense, whether that company is a prime contractor or subcontractor, that company should not be subject to taxes from the afghan government. seems pretty simple. these are the contractors doing the work of rebuilding in afghanistan, helping rebuild the infrastructure and hopefully allowing them to one day thrive independently. common sense and financial prudentens says the u.s. should not be subject to taxation for the rebuilding efforts it is paying for. and that was what we were getting at with this amendment. mr. kingston: i think the point that you have raised is a very valid point and something that's very good discussion matter. unfortunately, we believe that

it is authorizing an appropriation as the chair has confirmed. but that probably, the concern far more than the philosophical concern. so i think if you and the gentleman could work on other language and make another run on it, but there will be a lot of people who would have sympathies with you because you raise a very valid point. ms. herrera beutler: i will continue to work on this issue. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 4. the chair: the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4, printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five

minutes. mr. cole: in april, a draft executive order was circulated that would require all companies bidding on federal contracts to disclose all federal campaign contributions. if enacted, this executive order would effectively politicize the federal procurement process in my opinion. companies wouldn't be merely judged by the merits of their past performance, by their capability to do the job but would be considered on the basis of who they gave money to or against. this would clearly chill the constitutionally protected right to donate to particular parties, candidates and causes of one's choice and i think, frankly, that's exactly what the executive order -- proposed executive order is intended to do. my amendment would simply prohibit funds from this act for being used to implement such an executive order.

it doesn't change existing federal campaign contribution law in any way. doesn't prevent the disclosure of campaign contributions, but simply says we won't spend money from this bill to require campaign contribution information to be submitted along with bids for federal contracts. this house has agreed to this concept on three previous occasions. once in a bill, once in an amendment to the defense authorization act and once in an amendment to the defense appropriations act. finally, it's worth noting that congress has rejected an effort to do exactly what this proposed executive order intends to do when it failed to pass the disclose act in 2010. mr. chairman, pay to play has no place in the federal procurement contract. and we should to keep politics out of the selection of vendors and businesses and contractors

to go about doing federal work. i would urge the adoption of the amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i rise in opposition today to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: our system has been improved by having public disclosure of political contributions. the more the public knows about where the money is coming from, the better off the citizenry is. the amendment is a legislative attempt to circumvent a draft executive order, which would provide for increased disclosure of the political contributions of government contractors. especially contributions given to third-party entities. opposition exists for this effort, because some believe that this additional information could be used to create some kind of enemies' list, like

during the nixon administration. they argue that companies should not disclose more information because people in power could misuse that information to retaliate against them. using the opposition's logic, all campaign disclosures would be bad. government contractors already disclose contributions and expenditures by their p.a.c.'s and contributions to governments contractors are also required to be disclosed . these provisions are fine as they are written. the information is required to be provided already in law. and the executive order that the amendment would circumvent simply enhances the quality of that information. i mean, we should -- you know disclosure is good. disclosure of campaign contributions, to candidates is good. could disclosure of companies

making these disclosures is good. and i just worry we're having a situation here where, you know, they -- companies or major entities could make enormous contributions secretly and that's what we are trying to avoid. and the president's executive order is an attempt to do that. we already know and the boeings, lockheeds, they all make contributions and they are all disclosed. what is wrong with disclosure. i urge a no on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: i accept the amendment. this amendment actually does move us in that direction and would like to yield to mr. cole and ask him to clarify that -- i

want to confirm. mr. cole: i would say to my good friend from washington, whom i respect as much as i do anybody in this congress. the intent here is to make sure we never link political contributions with the awarding of government contracts. if we want to require additional disclosure, the congress has in its ability to do that and we considered something like this in 2010 and decided it was inappropriate. now it's time for my friends on the other side of the aisle were in of both houses as well as the presidency. i understand the concerns, but this is an inappropriate way to address it. the executive order, frankly, is legislating through the back door. if we want to change the campaign contribution laws in the united states, that needs to be done here, not by executive fiat. and to link it with the contracting process is

inevitably going to raise questions, create fears and doubts and chill political speech. let's keep contracting and the awarding of contracts by the government of the united states separate from partisan political considerations and contributions. i think we would be better off and i thank my friend from georgia for yielding. mr. kingston: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. eshoo: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. eshoo: i just listened with great curiosity to the comments that were made about the so-called intent of the legislation. i don't see my colleagues on the other side bringing forward legislation that you have the power to pass given the number of votes that you have for full disclosure.

if you are opposed to a draft executive order, if you're opposed to my coming to the floor and blocking every time i offer an amendment for disclosure and transparency, change it. you were for it before you went against it -- the republicans were. that's what the record is. so i rise in opposition to representative cole's amendment, which blocks disclosure of contractor political spending. now, this is not to create any kind of list, you know. you can come up with all kinds of things about why you are against something and then try and label it. this is about disclosure. this is about sunshine. this is about disinfect ant and you're against it and that's a

bad place to be and that's the wrong side of history. the draft of the president's order would require disclosure requirements for contractors who do business with the federal government. now, any business that does business with the federal government is paid with taxpayer dollars. why shouldn't there be transparency, accountability and disclosure relative to those dollars? this amendment -- your amendment would prohibit disclosure, which i think is the exact wrong thing to do. we should oppose any amendment. we should oppose any amendment, republican or democrat, that's designed to keep the public less informed about what happens to their tax dollars. we know who supports this amendment. it's the american league of lobbyists. the lobbyists for the lobbyist.

surprise. surprise. . we should be fighting for the taxpayer, not for the uber superlobbyists. what with we here for? we are here for the public interest, for the people, and yet there is an amendment on the floor that would destroy any attempt at disclosure. again, i remember when the republicans supported disclosure, when we wanted contribution limits, republicans said no. we need disclosure instead. now that we're asking for disclosure, you're opposed to it. as i said, you were for it. now you're against it. the american people were very clear on this late last year when there was a cbs/"new york times" poll, and that poll found that 92% of americans

support requiring outside groups to disclose how much money they have raised, where it came from and how it was used. now, we're going directly to taxpayer dollars. those that do business with the federal government. it's very simple to disclose. we should be listening to the american people, and i would ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment. this is a bad amendment. it's not good for the country. it's not good for our system. i don't believe that's why the people sent us here and of all things to be stomping on and trying to snuff out, disclosure should not be one of them. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. so many as in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

the gentleman from indiana. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. franks: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered in the congressional record by mr. frank of massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. frank: it's a test of whether or not members of this body believe what they say. fortunately i think for all concerned, the oath we take at the beginning of this section does not carry over to specific statements. so the fact that i believe this will probably unfortunately show great gap between what people say and what they vote will have no consequences other than the public knowing it. we are at a time of austerity.

we are at a time when important programs, valid programs are being cut back, and we were told by some, everything's on the table. all those metaphors that is supposed to deal with everything. and then we get this appropriation from the appropriations committee for the military budget, and a time when we're cutting police officers on the streets of our cities, cutting backfire fighters, we're cutting back maintenance of highways, of the construction of bridges to replace old bridges, when we are cutting in almost every compass -- capacity, the military budget gets a $17 billion increase from this fiscal year to the next. a $17 billion increase in the military budget simply does not fit with this argument that we are putting everything on the table.

yes, they say that putting -- they're putting everything on the table but there's a problem with the prep significance here, not the proposition, the prep significance. the military budget is not on the table. the military budget is at the table and it's eating everybody else's lunch. for example, we have been told by some on the republican side that we cannot afford to go to the aid of those fellow citizens who have been the victims of natural disasters, who have suffered enormous physical and also therefore psychological damage from tornadoes, from floods unless we find the cuts elsewhere. but if we were not increasing the military budget by $17 billion over this year then there would be no need to do that and you would not have to worry about this aid. my colleagues, this is co-authored by the gentleman from california, mr. campbell, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, the gentleman from texas, mr. paul, the gentleman from new jersey,

mr. holt, the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore. we are being very moderate here. we are not saying don't give the pentagon any more money. this amendment reduces by 50% the increase for the pentagon. we are accepting $8.5 billion. by the way, this does not affect the wars in iraq and afghanistan. it just occurred to me, maybe this was said earlier, the budget for afghanistan, which we refuse to cut reluctantly, regret plea, was voted out of the committee before the president announced a 10,000 troop reduction. i think the president was kidding he would bring down 10,000 troops, we funded 10,000 troops that won't be there next year. that's a problem. we're saying to the pentagon, you find it. don't cut military personnel, don't cut health but perhaps some of the bases we maintain overseas, some of the subsidies we give to nato, lip services

paid here to an alliance in which the budget is based. unfortunately, mr. chairman, i have to say it's trivial. the obama administration and members of the appropriations committee, the armed services committee, they are the enablers of one of the great welfare dependencies in the history of the world. the ability of wealthy european nations 61 years after the foundation of nato to get subsidized by america. so then military budget can be a small percentage of ours as percentages of the g.d.p. so they can provide more services, better rail, better health care, earlier retirement for their own people. this says to the pentagon not that we're going to cut you, this gives them a greater than 1% increase at a time when everyone else is being cut and it means nothing to the pentagon. let's look at the basis we have -- bases we have all over the world. yes, there is inefficiency. you can't man inefficiencies from the outside when you give

the entity in question the ability to spend without limit. you'll never get efficiency, mr. chairman of the pentagon, that we don't subject it with the same kind of fiscal discipline. and it is undeniable that the pentagon is a great, anticipation here. we are going to be telling -- a great exception here. we are going to be telling the american people, reconstruction of project that help with the transportation, we're going to cut back on firefighters, we are going to quibble over financial disaster relief but give the pentagon $17 billion additional that we cannot afford. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma. >> i move to strike the last word and rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cole: mr. chairman, i want to offer somewhat different perspective than my friend from massachusetts does on the trend line of defense spending. looking at the long term, defense spending is over time

come down pretty dramatically as a percent of our gross domestic product. 1960, the height of the cold war, we spent about 9% of the g.d.p. on defense. 1980 in the great reagan defense buildup it was about 6%. it fell as low as about 3.5% on the evil of 9/11. it's barely 5% or in that range today. so this by historical standards, particularly since 1940, we do not spend a large portion of the national wealth on defense. by the way, the same thing is true of the federal budget. in 1960, about 50% of the federal budget was defense spending. it was about 33% in 1980. it's about 18% or 19% today. certainly a lot of money and that's not certainly the way to judge military spending. in terms of the size of the federal budget or the wealth of

the country, defense has been comparatively speaking a bargain compared to other parts of the budget. i'd also like to point out that frankly this defense subcommittee and the administration have worked to find additional economies. secretary gates made $78 billion in reductions over the next five years, and this budget itself is below what the president of the united states asked us to appropriate by $9 billion. in addition, the secretary has laid out a path from additional $400 billion worth of savings. i think most americans would be shocked to find out we're engaged in two or three wars, depending how you want to could you tell it, with an army that is almost 40% smaller than it was in 1992. so i yield to someone in terms of finding savings in defense.

i think it ought to be clear as a percentage of our national wealth and our national budget, what we spend on defense has come down. and, frankly, we ought to remember we are at war, we are in a dangerous situation. this is not the first place to cut, although cut we have. in my opinion, i think it's the last place that we ought to cut. and the consequences of what my friend proposes i think would be terrific. it would be reducing and canceling training for returning troops, canceling navy training, exercises, reducing air force flight training, delaying and canceling maintenance of aircraft, ships and vehicles, delaying important safety and quality of life repair. this is not the time for us to embark on additional cuts on top of the restraints in spending that we've already done as a house. i would urge the rejection of my friend's amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i move to strike the rewick sit number of words.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise to support the amendment of the gentleman from massachusetts. you know, all of washington inside the beltway is abuzz of how much we can save by cutting federal spending. as my colleague from massachusetts, mr. frank, said to us this amendment is a test. where we put every federal agency's budget on the table to control spending and reduce debt or are there privileged categories? mr. holt: will we continue down the path of trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, the disabled, schoolchildren and seniors? the pentagon spending bill before us, some $650 billion, nearly 2/3 of a trillion dollars, is about equal to all military spending of all the rest of the world. all of our allies, all of our

potential adversaries, and all of the countries that americans rarely think about all put together. the amendment that mr. frank and i and some of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle are offering today is truly a modest proposal. it would simply cut the rate of increase in pentagon spending. instead of allowing a $17 billion increase over this year's level it would cut that incrows in half just to see if we're willing to do that. now, my colleague, mr. cole, puts this i think in the wrong context. i mean, we should talk about, sure, in 1960 it was a larger part of the budget. that's before we had medicare, before we had a lot of programs. but when you ask yourself, is our military structured to deal with the problems this country faces and to expect from other countries in the world their share of what must be done, the

answer surely is this is an unsustainable size. this amendment was born out of a series of discussions that mr. frank, mr. paul, mr. jones and some other members and i have had over several months. recently we sent a joint letter that outlined our concerns about the state of our spending on national security. we point out not only the excessive unquestioned overall size of military spending but also that this is a result of the military that is indeed a remnant of the cold war, to go back to mr. cole's comments, and it bears far more than our share of keeping the peace. and to overwhelm the soviet union more than to deal with today's actual threats to our security. to take one example that the co-sponsors of this amendment may or may not agree with me on but we might ask, why do we

need a replacement for the b-2 bomber? it was not the b-2 bomber or any bomber that killed osama bin laden but u.s. special operations. buying new nuclear bombers would simply be a form of i think defense sector corporate welfare to protect against a threat that went away decades ago. . i could cite disconnects, one that comes to mind is libya. as we note in our letter, it had been widely reported in the press that england and france have been pressing the united states to resume its earlier role in libya, because they have been unable to assume it themselves. the explanation is that only america has the capacity to respond. our point precisely. we have a lot of other nations in the world to grow into an

overdependence on america's military and america's tax dollars and the expenditure of american money and lives, far beyond what's appropriate for our share of world peacekeeping. all of us who support this amendment want to protect our country. that's precisely why we have offered our proposal and this amendment, to put ourselves on track for a better structured military. spending money on cold-war-era weapons is clear evidence of misguided, needlessly expensive priorities. if the house cannot even pass an amendment that simply cuts the rate of increase in pentagon spending, it will not pass an amendment that actually make the kinds of cuts that are truly necessary to restructure our defense to meet the real threats we face and to achieve the budget savings that we must

secure for our financial future. i urge my colleagues to support this modest first step to rein our out-of-control defense budget. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i rise in support of the amendment. this is a modest amendment. i wish the cut were greater than the cut being proposed here because i think everybody in this chamber knows that there is a great deal of waste and abuse that exists within our military spending. we have no bid defense contracts and we go right down that road of all the contracts that we have given out and how wasteful they are been and still preserving weapons systems that are part of the cold war and there are savings to be had within the military. the other point i want to make,

when we talk about national security and national strength, we ought to be talking about making sure the people in this country can earn a decent living. national security should mean jobs. it should mean the strength of our infrastructure, the quality of our education system, which we are neglecting, which my friends on the other side of the aisle want to balance the budget by cutting those programs that provide our strength, our economic strength. when you go home to your districts, the first thing that people want to talk about are jobs is economic security. why aren't we doing more to create jobs. why aren't we talking more about jobs here in the capitol. i make those two points because i think this amendment is a modest amendment that moves us in the right direction and moves the discussion in a better direction. at this point, i would like yield my time to the author. mr. frank: they get an increase, if you vote against this

amendment, apparently you believe that they are 101 1/2% at the current level, we would say 1 1/2% increase. people pay lip service whether there are some inefficiencies and won't get at them unless there are limited spending. the very odd notion we should decide to spend on the military today by using a standard what the situation was 51 years ago. that's the problem. 51 years ago, germany was divided. the communist controlled poland, east germany and our western allies were poor and still recovering from 1945. this is apparently -- oh, the soviet union was very strong. that's precisely the problem. this budget out of the appropriations committee and from the administration, which is also incorrect on this, acts

as if it was still 1960. the fact is, that it is no longer appropriate for the rest of the world to expect us to put out so much of the burden. and that's what the issue is. and the gentleman from oklahoma said, we have to cut this here and that here. why? why don't we cut some of the money we spend in europe and japan to other wealthy and secure nations? this amendment tells the pentagon, you're only going to get half of the $17 billion increase. you decide where to stop spending. well, are they unable to stop spending overseas? foreign aid is unpopular. i would like to help poor children and fight disease but the biggest foreign aid program in the history of the world is the american military budget and it's foreign aid for the wealthy. you want to talk about percentages of the g.d.p., what

about germany, what about england, france, denmark, netherlands, none of whom spends as much as half of a percentage was do. what we have now here is -- apparently the house is going to decide. when they should be subjected to fiscal discipline and other needs will be taken into account and deficit is the greatest threat to national security, mike mullen is saying that, do the members understand what that means? that means you don't even cut the pentagon or level-fund them but don't give them $17 billion at a time when you are requiring cuts in a very important program. i will close by saying, this is a house which says we can't afford to go to the aid of our fellow citizens who have been devastated by disasters in the southeastern part of this

country unless we make cuts. to the extent that you give the pentagon an additional $17 billion, you exacerbate that dilemma and make it harder to fund the funds. we want to keep the american people safe. i want to keep them safe from unsound bridges, from fires that can't be effectively combated, from food that isn't adequately tested, from diseases -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. >> i yield to the gentleman. mr. frank: we are cutting back on health research. the notion that the only danger to the american people is a soviet union which collapsed 20 years ago or other bases such as that and ignores the need for

better public safety here, better public health here, research on disease, protection against disasters, because it's one thing to go to the aid to people after the disaster, but let's rebuild infrastructure that will diminish it. are the members of the house going to say, that, no, we didn't really mean. no, the pentagon is not subject to fiscal discipline. the gentleman from oklahoma is saying there are cuts. this is a $17 billion increase. how can that be a cut? it may be a cut from a $30 billion increase and a $30 billion increase is a cut from a $200 billion increase, but it's not a cut. so the question is not only are we going to treat the pentagon more generously with less

discipline than any other entity, we have conceded that, we are only asking that you cut in half to the extent which you are going to tell american cities to lay off cops and say we don't have enough to provide disaster relief. you are going to cut health research, cut food inspection, cut fire service, cut the reconstruction of bridges in america. but billions and billions, tens of billions will be spent in western europe and our allies that needed it 51 years ago but don't need it today. and in japan where we are subsidizing their military budgets -- and by the way, let me close with this. we talk about competition in things that count. our ability to spend money on community colleges to provide aid so people can become scientists and engineers, our ability to develop technology, all of those things are hampered by the drain on resources we get

from spending military dollars imprecisely those country with which we are competing, england and germany and france and the netherlands and denmark and japan can all spend more on their education, on their technology, on those areas where we are competitive in a friendly way, because we allow them to keep their military budget to a much lower percentage of g. dmple p. than ours. and that's the relevant measure. so we have a test. are members so caught up in the history -- and again i thank the gentleman from oklahoma for helping make the point. 1960 is his reference point. well, stay with the concerns of 1960 and use that as a reference point and things aren't going to look good in 2011. i thank my colleague from indiana for yielding. >> i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: i move to strike the last word.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, i'm having a hard time believing what i'm hearing in this chamber when it comes to national defense. you don't get a book keeper or an accountant to make some slight of hand number to come up with a defense number. it's not how you do it. the way you do it is decide what is the threat. what is the threat in america? what is threatening our allies overseas? what is our threatening our troops or businesses around the world? besides what that threat is and then decide how we're going to meet that threat and that's how you come up with a defense number. i'm not go to go yield. you have had plenty of time. just imagine, we are going back to the good old days of this slashing defense, getting the victory fund and hangar queens

are airplanes that can't fly because they don't have engines or don't have parts. in order to make one airplane fly, they had to take apart two or three others and get the parts to make one airplane fly. if you need three or four airplanes in the air but only one flies, somebody is in trouble. we don't want to go back to the days of the hangar queen. and what about the troops? in combat, facing a vicious enemy. and it gets to the point where they haven't experience what they are about to experience because we didn't get that far in our training, because the training was curtailed. when we start cutting back the money, you start cutting back

the training and the flying hours, start cutting back the ability of that soldier to reach out and say, hey, i know exactly how to do this because i was trained properly. don't cut the training. don't do it. don't cut our readiness by cutting training. don't cut our readiness by having hangars full of hangar queens that can't fly or garages full of vehicles that can't run because of the lack of spare parts. this is just not good defense. you don't make your defense decisions based on some magical scheme or some solution that an accountant might come up with. you have to be very careful about what the threat is. we don't want any more pearl hashors or 9/11's or any more

attacks on the pentagon. we weren't well enough prepared then with our intelligence. we have to invest enough in intelligence to make sure that we stop those things before it happens. defense is not something to stand up and say, i'm a cost cutter. all of us are cost cutters in our own way. some of us just have different priorities for what those costs ought to be cut. mr. chairman, this is a very important amendment. and this subcommittee did a very good job in reducing and saving over $9 billion on this bill alone. and this is a terrible amendment. and i hope we overwhelmingly defeat this 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 gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. frank: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts, will be posted. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. fortenberry of nebraska, at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following, section 2, none of the funds made available by this act for international military education and training, foreign military financing, excess defense articles, assistance under section 1206 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2006, public law 109-163, 1193456, issueance for direct commercial sales of military equipment or

peacekeeping operations for the countries of chad, yemen, somalia, sudan, democratic republic of congo or burma may be used to support mill temporary operations that include child soldiers as defined by the child soldiers prevention act of 2008. mr. fortenberry: i move that we dispense with further reading. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for five minutes. mr. fortenberry: in 2008, this body declared that the united states would not provide military assistance to countries found guilty of using child soldiers. with broud bipartisan support, we declared -- with broad bipartisan support this is an afront to human dignity and to civilization itself and we reafffirmed this earlier this year in the continuing resolution. it is the policy of our nation, that children, all children, belong on playgrounds and not

battle grounds, mr. chairman. that policy is at risk and this body has an important decision to make. six governments were found guilty of using child soldiers in 2010. burma, chad, the democratic republic of the congo, somalia, sudan and yemen. as the law we passed provided, four were granted national security interest waivers last year in the hopes, mr. chairman, that they would take serious an aggressive stride toward ending this serious human rights violation. somalia was to receive peacekeeping assistance sanchinging only burma, a country we provided no military assistance any way. . mr. chairman, it's no surprise that in the newly released 2007 child sold -- 2011 child

soldiers report this was entered again. mr. chairman, where was the progress? the report needs to stand as a challenge to president obama, the administration and this congress as well. we are operating inconsistently, obligated by law and civilized order itself to combat this most serious human rights violation, especially prevalent in the world's ungoverned spaces. but we continue with military assistance with inattentiveness to stopping the pernicious use of child soldiers. mr. chairman, my amendment reaffirms current u.s. policy, les we forget it. in the 2011 continuing resolution we extended the child soldiers prevention act to cover peacekeeping operations, and my amendment is consistent with this. it also clarifies a point of law not mentioned in the child soldiers prevention act. section 1206 of the national defense authorization act for

fiscal year 2006 provides the department of defense the authority to train and equip foreign military forces, but according to its own terms and the state department, section 1206 authorities may not be used to provide any type of equipment, supplies or training that is otherwise prohibited by any other provision of law. mr. chairman, children in these cups are being preyed upon -- countries are being preyed upon. innocent lives are being lost. children are being thrown into psychological hell. girl soldiers and boys are subject to gross sexual slavery and violence. their lives are not their own. they're stripped of dignity and hope and a future, made to do unfathomable things by the world's worst criminals. mr. chairman, these criminals just aren't faceless rebels in

the bush either. while there are plenty of those we are talking now about governments that are guilty of this pernicious practice, and we need to make it clear, are we going to tolerate this or not? the british statesman and unyielding abolitionist for whom our anti-trafficking law is name once said this, you may choose to look the other way but you can never again say you did not know. we must make it clear to those governments that we do now know and that we cannot look the other way, mr. chairman. with that i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is -- for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: mr. chairman, i rise to strike the last word and to express support for this good amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nebraska. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in the congressional record on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order -- amendment number 2 by the gentleman from virginia, amendment number 61 by ms. foxx of north carolina, amendment by mr. mulvaney of south carolina, amendment number 8 by mr. sherman of california, amendment by mr. rohrabacher of california, amendment by mr. gohmert of texas, amendment by mr. welsh of vermont, amendment number 4 by mr. cole of oklahoma, amendment number 79 by mr. frank of massachusetts. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first series of votes.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from virginia on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. rigell of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 176 and the nays are 249. the amendment is not adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 61 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx. on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas reprailed sbi voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 61 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. foxx of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are -- the nays are 175, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from south carolina, mr. full veiny. on which further proceedings were -- mr. mulvaney, on which further proceedings were postponed. the clerk will redisneat the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 131 --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 135 and the nays are 290, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 8 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from california, mr. sherman, on which further proceedings were

postponed and on which the pace in prevailed by voice vote -- nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 offered by mr. sherman of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. ffedfd -- [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 316 and the nays are 111. the amendment is adopted. the unfunny issued business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, on which sfurt proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. rohrabacher of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a rodded vote will rise and be counted.

a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 87 --

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are --

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 89 and the nays shall 338. the amendment is not adopted. its unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment offered by mr. gohmert on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gohmert of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 162 and the nays are 265. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. welch of vermont.

the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 169 and the nays are 257. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the

request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. cole of oklahoma. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas

are 256 and the nays are 170. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on number 79 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from massachusetts , mr. frank, on which the further proceedings were post uponned and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 97 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. frank of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 1 -- on this vote the yeas are 181, the nays are 244 and the amendment fails. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise.

the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the motionsy do notted. -- motion is adopted. the committee will rise. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2219 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2219 and has come to no resolution thereon.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report for filing under the rule. the chair: the clerk -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report are to accompany house resolution 340rks resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1309, to extend the authorization of the national flood insurance program, to achieve reforms to improve the financial integrity and stability of the program and to increase the role of private markets in the management of flood insurance risk and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on the motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. vote vote -- the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 268 on which

the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 268, resolution reaffirming the united states commitment to a negotiated settlement of the mr. israel: conflict -- of the israeli-palestinian conflict and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this bill, there is 407 yeas, 6 nays, 13 present. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as co-sponsor for h.r. 2417. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 320 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2219.

will the gentleman from florida, mr. mack, kindly resume the chair. the chair: the committee will be in order. the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2219, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012 and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, the bill had been read through page 161 line 12. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fortenberry: mr. chairman i rise to engage in a col "with my

colleagues to ensure our defense department has the resources necessary to carry out an important mandate that this body passed earlier this year. the lord's resistance army has terrorized central africa. but congress and the administration took unprecedented steps to end the group's campaign of violence. this body passed bipartisan legislation called the lord's resistance army disarmament and northern uganda recovery act, requiring the administration to prepare and present to congress a come puerto ricans i have strategy to bring l.r.a. commanders to justice. with the administration's strategy released in november, we should move to help end the atrocities committed by the l.r.a. and protect innocent civilians and stabilize a region of africa that is critical to

the united states' interests. through over 20 years of civil war, this brutal insurgency has created a humanitarian crisis that has resulted in the abduction of over 20,000 children and one of the world's most difficult ungoverned spaces. i would like to yield to the gentleman from massachusetts, who is continuing to take a lead role in this international effort. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman for yielding and his support. the lmple r.a. has terrorized civilians and abducted tens of thousands of children, many of whom who have been forced into soldiering or sex slavery. it expands in the democratic of congo and central african republic. it is the deadliest group and has displaced several of hundreds of thousands of people where u.s. investments in peace

and stability are critical as the region establishes independence. mr. chairman, we could have a decisive impact on seeing one of africa's most long-standing human rights crisis brought to an end by implementing the administration's plan. i yield back to the gentleman from nebraska in hopes that we implement this strategy. mr. fortenberry: i thank the gentleman for his leadership. mr. chairman, my colleagues and i believe that resources in ending this conflict will not only save innocent lives but will reduce the need for a very expensive humanitarian aid and promote stability in one of frabling's most volatile regions. i would like to yield to the gentleman from florida. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank the gentleman both for their attention to this important issue and i want to work with them to continue to work with them as we move this bill forward in the hopes we can

bring a swift end and successful end to this tragedy. mr. fortenberry: with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 96 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. defazio: colleagues, 1990, congress passed a law that required that all, all federal agencies, including the department of defense, must have audittable financial statements every year. since that time, the department of defense has spent $10 trillion, $10,000 billion dollars and yet no audit has been conducted. in fact, there are numerous

problems with the accounting at d.o.d. and their financial management has been rated as high risk by the government accountability office. unfortunately, the pentagon, being incapable of being audited, sought an exemption from audit. so in 2005, congress passed a ban on completing an audit. it was contained in section 376 of the 2006 national defense authorization act. but 2007, 2009, they said we exempt you, but let's have a goal of you doing an audit by 2017. yet last september, in a hearing, pentagon officials stated that meeting a deadline

of 2017 for having their first ever audit of their books and they will spend $4 trillion between now and 2017 without an audit, they said they would need more money, more money to be audittable. that's incredible. what we are attempting to do is to say we are going to suspend the exemption. it's time for them to get their books in order. there is nothing more important for men and women in uniform to know that every dollar, every precious tax dollar is being spent properly to give them the tools they need to defend our nation and the taxpayers concerned about our massive deficits and the concerns about our deficit talks downtown, the taxpayers need to know we aren't wasting money in the single largest annual account of the federal budget which is not aweded, -- audited. in fiscal year 2010, half of

d.o.d.'s contract awards were not competed. that's that's half. 140 billion of them, there was no competition at all. in 48 billion there was one, one competitor. we have a lot of work to do here. in 2000, the pentagon inspector general found that $7.6 trillion in accounting errors, of entries, $2.3 trillion, were not supported by adequate audit trails to determine their validity. meaning we don't know where the $2.3 trillion went. it's time to stop treating them with kid gloves. the pentagon is the tough -- is a tough institution, the toughest department of defense in the world. it's time for them to own up here and audit their books and trace every dollar. it's a new era. so i urge my colleagues to support this. by the de-funding this special

exemption, then the pentagon will be subject to audit over the next year which could provide tremendous benefits to our men and women in uniform and certainly tremendous savings for the american taxpayers. with that, i wield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: i'm not sure how this amendment accomplishes what the gentleman says. since it prohibits enforcement of a section of a fiscal year 2006 bill which only alied to that fiscal year. i'm not opposed to the amendment, i just don't believe it does anything. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico rise? >> to trick the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins.

>> i rise today in support of this amendment and one which i have co-sponsored with this gentleman this looks to add accountability to how the pentagon spends our taxpayer dollars. mr. sherman: they performed an audit and concluded that the -- mr. garrett: as was pointed out, over half of that involves overruns. what they say in the report, quote, indicative of production problems and inefficiencies are flawed initial cost estimates. since then, we have not had a complete audit and overruns have only multiplied. just this past week, i had the opportunity to serve in budget committee, where we had c.b.o. come in and we asked them point-blank for some of the information we would like to have with regard to these audits. we would like that information from them to pinpoint, as we

say on the floor, the waste, fraud, and abuse that goes on, but more specifically, where the inefficiencies are. the answer from them was somewhat telling. they said they can't supply the congress with the information we would like because they don't get the information themselves from the d.o.d. and that's the problem. they're consistently over budget in accusation, 92% of major accusation programs, 75% of them are over budget. 20% of them are over-budget by more than 50%. this amendment will once again hold the pentagon accountable, assuring that taxpayers' dollars are spent prudently as intended. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the -- on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from alaska is recognized for five minutes. mr. junge: i'd like at this time to ask the chairman to participate in a colloquy with me. mr. chairman, i rise today to express my concern about strategic ports. i want to thank the chairman for discussing this important chairman with me. i think the chairman will understand that addressing vital infrastructure needs is a major -- is of major importance. mr. young: will the gentleman yield? mr. young: yes. mr. young: i do agree that assessing and correcting infrastructure problems at the nation's sea ports which are an

integral part of our nation's readiness is of vital importance. mr. young: the sea port program has moved security through the sea ports. each sea port has been table contribute to the department of deft. -- defense. however the existing infrastructure at many strategic ports may not be adequate to meet the needs of the military. i think it's time to address these needs. that's why i worked with chairman mckeon to include language that requires study of the infrastructure needs of the strategic ports. once that study has been conducted, it's vitally important that we address the needs of the ports. mr. young: mr. chairman, i also believe the ports to be critical to our defense and i

would be happy to work with the gentleman from alaska to consider the appropriate measures an funding to address the infrastructure needs of our strategic sea ports. mr. young: i want to thank the chairman for discussing this issue with me. i would like to say to the chairman, i appreciate the fact that we recognize the importance of ports to move our products. i yield back the balance of our time and thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. conyers of michigan. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for, one, deploying members of the armed forces -- the chair: the clerk will suspend.

mr. conyers: may i withdraw that amendment temporarily? the chair: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise to engage in a colloquy with the chairman and ranking member on outreach. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. becerra: some areas have been harder to reach an others. to ease this problem, congress should work to ensure the military academies have the ability to reach out from rural and urban areas. past outreach efforts have been effective at military academies. for example in the u.s. naval academy's increased outreach efforts, we have seen results that show that some 19,145 applicants have come out for

the class of 2015. that's an increase of 25% over the past two years. the navy has been able to conduct recruitment blitzes in parts of the country that were traditionally underrepresented. in my home state of kale, the navy increased applicants by 25%, from some 2,400 for the class of 2013, to over 3,000 for the class of 2015. i believe it's important for the academies to have the resources to continue building upon this success. this critical investment would help america find the best and the brightest for our military and for america's future. i yield to the chairman. mr. young: i agree with the gentleman it is important that the military academies bring in the best young people from across the country. the committee will work with him toward this objective. >> will the gentleman yield?

mr. beer is va: certainly. mr. dicks: i also stand ready to work with the gentlemanism commend him for the work he's been doing over the years, but we'll reach out to reach the best and brightest for the armed forces academies. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman. i yield back my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk, designated as number one. the clerk: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: -- the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one offered by mr. flake of arizona. it is for defense-wide is hereby reduced by $250 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: this would reduce orings and maintenance by $250 million, the same amount

appropriated by section 281 of the bill. section 8122 appropriates another $250 million in f.y. 2012 for the secretary of defense to use through the office of economic adjustments or to transfer to the secretary of education to make grants to public schools located on military bases for construction, renovation and repairs. i'll just summarize what's happening here. we have some schools that are on military bases. now, some of the schools on military bases are run by the department of defense. that's not what we're speaking about here. the schools we're talking about here are l.e.a.'s or local education agencies run them. and in the f.y. 2011 budget, we appropriated $250 million of defense money, this is in the defense bill, to go to schools that are the responsibility of local education agencies. now some of these schools are

in disrepair. they're in bad shape. nobody is questioning that. education budgets are tight everywhere around the country. ask your own states, ask your local school districts. but we cannot continue to divert money from the department of defense simply because that's where money is and few people question it. i'm sure the gentleman will stand up and say, these schools are in bad shape, they're on military bases, we have got to fix them. the department of defense has said these schools are the local -- or the local education agencies are saying they are in disrepair. but why take money that should be going to the troops, to other purposes, and diverting it to local schools that are the responsibility of local education agencies? i have here one of the contracts for one of these schools being discussed here. it says the permitee or designee shall at his own cost and expense, protech, preserve, maintain, repair and keep in

good order these schools. this is a local education agency, not the department of defense. that shouldn't be the responsibility of the department of defense and we're bleeding off $250 million. i'm sure the gentleman will stand up an say, this is needed. this isn't going to be a continual thing. we've just got to bring these schools up to repair. they'll say that the department of defense has said that these schools are in disrepair. they are. nobody is questioning that. the question is, where should this money come from? and if we have this kind of money to throw around for defense, then we ought to be cutting more defense funding. this funding, there's a problem, it should go through the local -- i'm sorry, the local education agencies or convince the federal department of education through impact aid to send money to these schools. but not the department of defense. that has been the practice, unfortunate, around here for quite a while now. we say, all right, what account

can we take money from for earmarks or whatever else that few people will question? it's defense spending. so we take that out for education or research or whatever else and pretty soon we're diverting a lot of money that should go to the troops to other purposes. like i said, nobody is questioning that the schools are in bad repair. "newsweek" ran an article on june 27, said 39% of the schools run by the public schools fell in the failing or poor category. i don't question that. nobody does. the question here is another $250 million. we appropriated in the f.y. 2011 budget $250 million system of apparently this is going to become a standard practice now? and then you start to get to the prospect of members of congress starting to submit their local bases and saying, hey, the cool there is are bad and we get into the old

earmarking game by letter or phone marking or whatever else because it won't be -- it'll be the spoil system all over again as to who gets the defense money to actually fix these schools. so this would simply say, this money, $250 million, requested for this purpose, shall not be spent the gentleman may stand up and say, this is generally taken from the department of defense or office of -- from the operations and maintenance and so that's not specific enough. believe me, the secretary of defense if they have the choice to fund the troops or the schools, will fund the troops because the schools are under the responsibility of the local education agency. the department of defense may submit a list and say, these schools are in disrepair. but it's not the responsibility of the department of defense to fund these schools. with that, -- >> will the gentleman yield? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

mr. dicks: i -- >> i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: the gentleman was good at making the -- making the case against this amendment. first of all, i rise in opposition to the amendment, the bill provides an additional $250 million to improve or replace inadequate schools located on department of defense bases operated by local education authorities and the department of education. most o the local authorities. they have identified 80 local education authority within the continental united states that are inadequate because of poor condition or lack of capacity to accommodate the number of students enrolled. initial funding in the fiscal 2011 bill will address approximately 13 of these schools. 42,000 school-aged dependents

are enrolled in schools on d.o.d. bases that are owned and operated by either l.e.a.'s or the u.s. department of education. it is based on former defense secretary of defense remarks at a town hall meeting in kansas. the secretary then called me, as the chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee and said norm, we have to do something about these schools. and we have these young men and women serving in iraq and afghanistan and the last thing we need to do is have them worry about their children because some of these schools, if there was a hurricane or an earthquake, these schools could go down. i walked out there and seen these schools at joint bounty

lewis-mccord. and if you are going to get money, you must take over the schools. the school districts will have to take them over from this point forward. we will get out of the responsibility, but we have to bring these schools up to codes and standards and rebuild most of them. and this list was developed by the army and army, air force and marine corps were involved. the former secretary indicated that his plan requires congressional approval. this is a vital contributor to quality of life and represents a prudent ent investment in our nation's future. i urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. in the military construction bill, it was $463 million for schools that are owned by the

department of defense. many of these schools are overseas in other countries and yet we are putting $463 million into those schools at the same time the gentleman from arizona wants to deny the young people of our country schools that they could go into. there is one in arizona. the gentleman is running for the other body, i think he would be concerned about the school in arizona that might not get funded if his amendment passes. i hope the people of arizona remember it. the people of washington will remember it. i will not yield. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose the amendment and society my remarks with the remarks of

ranking member. when you visit military bases, some of these schools are terrible. when we make a commitment to a young person in the military and they are married and they have children, they ought to be able to go to schools on their military base that are of high standards. i would be happy to yield to the gentleman if he wishes. mr. flake: i should mention, the gentleman from washington mentioned that the secretary of defense said we've got to do something about these schools. i should note that this was not in the defense request. if he thought that something ought to be done, you think they would have put it in the request. they didn't. it wasn't in the authorization bill. there is a department of education program, a competitive program for this already. if we think that -- mr. frelinghuysen: reclaiming my time. i yield to the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: they don't have any

money. the new majority is taking a lot of the money out of the department of education that they used for this purpose and they don't have the money. that's why the secretary called us and said and this is fort riley, kansas and a school in the district of a republican member and he said we've got to do something. we said, hey, these men and women in these striker brigades are in iraq and afghanistan and the last thing we need to do is have them be worried about their children in these schools that could go down if we have an earthquake and we have had natural disasters all over the country. and this is the most ridiculous amendment i have heard of yet. and he has had some lu-lu's and i hope we defeat this amendment. and i yield back. mr. frelinghuysen: reclaiming my time and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amend amendment is not agreed to. mr. flake: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise. mr. flake: i have an amendment designated as number two. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flake of arizona, insert the following new section, section, the amount otherwise provided by title 9 of overseas contingency operations transfer fund is hereby reduced by $3 billion.

the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: this amendment is straightforward and reduces the amount to the overseas transfer fund by $3.5 billion. we hear that constitution grants the congress the power of the purse and the president's budget is not sacrosanct. i was quite surprised that the committee included $5 million to the transfer fund but provided no guidance on how it should be spent. any obligations be, quote, pursuant to the global war on terrorism. that is roughly 4% of the overall war cost spending. i understand that funding could provide the department of defense with flexibility as it moves ahead with operations in afghanistan while at the same time withdrawing troops from afghanistan and iraq. i'm sympathetic to the need to fund the war in the way to budget for it.

but this $5 million has few strings attached that could be used for just about anything, including a bargaining chip with negotiations in the senate. an article that ran on june 14. i would submit it is an expensive bargaining chip. and it's a very risky gamble. the president announced his intent to withdraw 10,000 troops from afghanistan, which he'll make the case for in the months of ahead and the department of defense has some flexibility. it's fair to reduce the amount reduced to 1% of the war-related cost of the bill instead of 4%. overseas contingency transfer funds have been requested by the department of defense. we all understand, to give the department of defense some flexibility. what i'm saying is $5 billion is

too much flexibility. let's regain our prerogative to have the power of the purse and not let that amount, $1 billion. army requested $2 billion for transportation expenses. the house panel said the funding need was overstated because the army was assuming that all supplies were flown in when only 20% arrived by air. i commend the committee for drilling down on the request submitted by the services and identifying places where they are justified and needed. instead of pulling back the money, we should do better and take steps to make sure that money that doesn't have to be spent is not spent. that's what this amendment does. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rises? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to

strike the last word. i rise to oppose the the gentleman from arizona's amendment that would cut $3.6 billion. the committee believes that the america fiscal year 2012 operation and maintenance request for overseas contingency operation may be overstated due to unrealistic planning assumption. however, due to the great deal of uncertainty of the justification for the army's o and m budget's request, the committee added an appropriations account. and shifted $5 billion of funding from the army into this account. this account gives the secretary of defense flexibility to reprogram these funds for unforeseen requirments that emerged during 2012. if redeployment from afghanistan were to be accelerated and some

would suggest it should be, there would be a significant increase in personnel and equipment transportation costs in fiscal year 2012. examples of requirements which emerged during the year of budget execution in prior years include funding for the mine resistant ambush protective vehicles, additional body arm our that was needed and other force protection things, joint operational needs and there are spikes in fuel costs. so for these and many other reasons, mr. chairman, i rise to oppose the amendment and urge others to do so as well. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. flake: on that, i ask for a

recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. conyers: i have an amendment at the desk and ask that it be called up. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. conyers of, at the end of the bill before the short title incertificate the following, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for one, deploying members of the armed forces to the ground of libya for the purposes of engaging in military operation -- mr. conyers: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise with the assistance of my good friends tom mcclintock of california and lynn woolsey of california and barbara lee of

california. and it's my libyan amendment again, which would prevent funds appropriated in this act being used to deploy any type of ground troop presence for the purpose of pursuing military operations on libyan territory. this amendment would simply codify the policy endorsed by president obama and the international community and delby ensure our involvement in libya remains limited in scope. an identical amendment passed this house on may 26 by a vote of 416 to 5 as part of the national defense act. . it's also the intent of this amendment, as it was in my

earlier amendment that funds would be allowed to be used to rescue members of the armed forces participating in the nato know fly zone operation. the american people, obviously many of them have grown weary of the open-ended military conflicts that place our troops in harm's way and adds billions to our national debt. we simply cannot afford another afghanistan or iraq. and so the time has come for congress to once again exercise its constitutional authority to place boundaries on the use of our military forces overseas and clearly state that this conflict in libya will not escalate into an expensive occupation that would strain our resources. -- our resources and harm our national security interests.

>> we agree with your amendment and would be willing to accept it. mr. conyers: thank you, sir, i appreciate that. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman -- does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. woolsey: i rise in strongport of -- support of the amendment offered by my good friend from michigan, mr. conyers, which i am very proud to be a co-sponsor. the war in libya, which was not offered by this body or our senate colleagues has lingered for more than 100 days. mr. chairman, despite the legal contortions coming from the other end of pennsylvania avenue, the dropping of bombs, the killing of civilians and the use of drones in libya mos

def lit -- definitely constitutes hostilities. it's our duty to make sure these hostilities don't escalate to a full-blown ground war and the u.s. becoming an occupying force in libya. the president assured us that this won't happen and i believe a ground war is not his intention. but it wouldn't be the first time, mr. chairman, in the history of the united states warfare that there was a shift in strategy with a military campaign beginning as one thing and ending as quite another. it's critical that we assert ourselves using the congressional authority to appropriate funds to say no to launching a third ground war. our authority rests on how we use the people's money. today's amendment denies the use of our tax dollars to send

troops into libya. with that, i would like to include the rest of my remarks into the record and to thank the majority for accepting this amendment. thank you. the chair: without objection. the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i'd like to ask subcommittee chairman young if he'd enter into a colloquy regarding the department of defense's future plans for data storage. the chair: i would be pleased to enter into a colloquy on behalf of chairman young with

you sir. >> with the daily reports on cyberattacks and intrusions, i feel congress needs to express its concerns before there's a cyberevent that will impact and damage national security. the department of defense is the world's largest target for cyberattacks. there are many aspects of cyberdefense infrastructure but i'd like to focus on one critical piece, the physical location of classified data. i'm concerned that the department of defense will not weigh the physical storage of classified data sufficiently in their effort to save money through the modernization of the innovation technology infrastructure. in addition, i worry that unnecessarily storing classified tai ta abroad cowl increase the risk the information could be stolen,

damaging national security and harm our troops. i would ask the chairman if he would be willing to work with me to ensure the department of defense's future plans for data storage address these concerns, maintain the highest standards of protection for data. keeping critical defense data under positive control and securing that day is common sense for national security. building and operating data centers here will create american jobs and make it easier to control access and make it harder for foreign operatives to steal things such as nuclear credits, weapon systems designs and battle plans. with that, i yield. mr. young: -- mr. frelinghuysen: we share the gentleman's concern for the protection of classified data. we believe the threat from cyberattacks is real and growing. we commend the gentleman for leadership in this area and we will be happy to work with you and the ranking member to

ensure that our troops and nation maintain control of all classified data. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? mr. lipinski: i yield to the gentleman. mr. dicks: i think the gentleman brings up a good point and i look forward to working with the gentleman to make sure that classified data is protected from misuse and theft. the department of defense itself is hit 250,000 times per hour which is unbelievable, but it's true. so we need to work on this. i'm glad the gentleman has taken an breast in this important subject. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. lipinski: i do -- mr. lipinski: does the gentleman yield back? mr. dicks: i do.

mr. lipinski: i want to thank the gentleman. i know the gentleman is also concerned about cybersecurity. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk designated as number three. the chair: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: amendment number three offered by mr. flake of arizona. by reducing the amount made available for research, doment, tests and evaluation, navy, by reducing the amount made available for research, development, tests and evaluation, defense-wide and by reducing the amount made available for operational tests and evaluation defense by $93,811,660.

$177,989,500, $263,132 -- mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered read. the chair: is there objection? without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: this would increase -- decrease accounts roughly $171 billion below the appropriatings -- appropriation prvided in this measure. during one of these debates the chairman of the defense subcommittee made the point, quote, if we're going to reduce the defense budget, there ought to be a good reason. i agree and i would submit that both the severity of the fiscal situation we face and the consequences of inaction are good reasons to reduce the defense budget along with everything else. the appropriations committee started a positive trend in the consideration of the appropriations for fiscal year 2011 when it reduced the already t&e accounts below the

levels funded in recent years. i applaud the committee for taking a serious look at these and other accounts and acting accordingly but i think we need to do better. we're going to have to get used to cutting defense budgets here if we're going to get our fiscal situation in order. the defense budget accounts for roughly half of the discretionary spending considered in the regular appropriations process during the year. according to the commission restoring america's future, rtd & e budgets have increased to $80.2 billion in f.y. 2010. you're seeing amounts of about -- i'm sorry, about 80% higher now than they were in 2001. that's -- 63% increase. get my math wrong here. that report also suggests that reducing the rdt&e budget with imposed greater discipline on

research and development. in addition, there was an argument that the budget should be reduced saying it would be safe to cut it by 19% between fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2019. it would reduce the amount being spent and keep our level -- the united states' level above any other country. i'm not suggesting we make cuts that deep with this amendment. i realize they've taken a sizable hit in 2011. i also know my colleagues will tout the values of these accounts and highlight the successes we've achieved with weapons and other systems that wnt have been possible without these accounts. i recognize that. but we're all going to have to get used to voting for cuts in defense, cutting % of the $73 billion made available in rdt&e is far from draconian and will not preclude any future successes.

i urge adoption of the amendment and yield back the balance of many my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. 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 allocation has been reduced by $9 billion. funding has been reduced from the 2011 level by nearly $2 billion. further reductions risk harming critical technology development needed to keep current weapons relevant and needed to development next generation weapons and technology required to maintain the u.s. edge in military technologies. the reduction would aders arely affect many systems now in development including the joint strike fighter where we certainly do not want to fall behind, advanced submarine development, missile defense program, further development of precision weapons systems and many others. i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

>> the gentleman mentioned that the defense intunlt cut $ billion below? mr. dicks: $9 billion below the president's request. mr. flake: not below the budget for last year. mr. dicks: last year we were -- we were $17 billion below last year, $9 billion this year. we're making some serious cuts in this budget. mr. flake: this is not the most ridiculous amendment. mr. dicks: this one won't make the top 10. we're working to on this, i'll share it with the gentlemen down in the yim. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule

18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? for what purpose does the gentlelady from the virgin islands rise? mrs. christensen: i rise to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. christensen: i invite the ranking member to enter into me on a colloquy about health problems for our troops. lung cancer is the number one killer among those in every racial and ethnic group an the situation can be attributed to resource limitations and programs, dedicated to lung cancer research and the absence cancer research and the absence of a coordinated and