the support of the national vietnam and gulf war veterans coalition. according to the congressional budget office, it will reduce total outlays by $7 million. veterans of the first gulf war suffer from persistent symptoms including chronic headache, widespread pain, cognitive difficulties, debilitating fatigue, respiratory symptoms and other abnormalities that are not explained by traditional medicine or psychiatric diagnoses. research shows that as these brave veterans age, they're at double the risk for a.l.s. or lou gerhig's disease as they're nondeployed peers. they there may also be connections to multiple sclerosis and parkinson's disease. sadly there's no known treatments for the life-long pain these veterans endure. gulf war illness research was slated to receive a total of $25

million in fiscal year 2012, $15 million at the v.a. and $10 million at the d.o.d.'s gulf war illness research program. we've learned that the v.a. cut $10 million, cut $10 million from its f.y. 2013 program, which more or less supports allegations that v.a. officials have been discredited by the institute of medicine and the scientific community, that they're obstructing the research. the veterans of the first gulf war who remain without a cure should not have to pay the price of this controversy. that's why this amendment would restore $10 million into a research program that has proven itself. the defense department's gulf war illness research program. last year researchers funded by this program completed the first successful pilot study of a medication to treat one of the major symptoms of gulf war illness. the critical increase in funding for this amendment was built on progress that's already been made, including a follow-up

clinical trial as well as other promising studies which have been waiting for funding. the offset for this amendment comes from the $32 billion operations and maintenance, defensewide account entitled to. congress has a responsible to these gulf war veterans, has a responsibility to ensure that these individuals, who put it all on the line and are paying with a lifetime of pain and a potentially shortened life, it's our responsibility to make sure they're not left behind. . i ask my colleagues to support if amendment. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who rises in opposition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. >> mr. speaker, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: i'm happy i'm

finally giving the amendment to be supportive of an amendment offered by mr. kucinich, because so often i have to oppose his amendments. this bill already includes $10 million for the program. he's concerned that the veterans' affairs committee and military subcommittee did not have an additional $5 million and that's ok. medical research on gulf war illness is important. what we learned from this program could help us in other programs of diseases coming from iraq and afghanistan. if you get a chance to visit walter reed bethesda hospital see some very strange viruses and molds and funguses that are

coming from places that we never expected to see but we're seeing them now. this research program could help another research program to deal with these deadly diseases that are affecting our troops in large numbers. and so while we already give $10 million in this bill, i am going to agree with mr. kucinich and agree to his amendment to add the additional money. mr. dicks: if the gentleman will yield? mr. young: i do. mr. dicks: this gulf war illness has been something that bothered me a great deal. it's a very difficult diagnosis on what was causing this, but i think an additional investment here is worthy and i think we should accept the amendment. i'm glad the chairman accepts it. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for his comments and thank mr. kucinich for offering the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. 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's adopted. mr. kucinich: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. kucinich of ohio. page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $7,800,000. page 35, line 15, after the dollar amount insert increased by $6 million. page 35, line 16, after the dollar amount insert increased by $6 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kucinich: i want to thank the chairman. i also want to let the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member know that i appreciate their support for the gulf war veterans in the previous amendment. i also submit that this particular amendment addresses another area that is receiving

attention in the media but needs some money behind it to make sure that it receives attention from the department. this amendment to the defense appropriations bill will increase funding for suicide prevention among our soldiers by $6 million. now, i happen to know that there are members on this committee who are very concerned about the increased levels of suicide among those who serve, and it's a bipartisan concern. we know the heartbreak that's out there when someone who serves this country finds that the conditions that they're in, either during service or just afterwards are so horrendous that they take their own life. far too many troops coming home from war sustained numerous mental, including posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. they're stripped of hope. and they just feel they have to take their own lives. and sometimes they take their

lives, not only their lives but they might take the lives of their loved ones as well. there's a "new york times" article, june, 2012, which said the suicide rate among the nation's active duty military personnel has spiked this year eclipsing the number of troops dying in the battlefield. i want to go over that again. i want everyone to listen to this very carefully. "new york times," june, 2012, the suicide rate among the nation's active duty personnel has spiked this year eclipsing the number of troops dying in the battle. and it's on page to set a record high more than a decade ago. there's almost one troop suicide per day. women face additional difficulties and have a higher rate of attempted suicide. being the victim of sexual assault is a known risk factor for suicide. the disincentives to reporting such an assault, getting help

is harder. the epidemic of a veteran or active duty military suicides is not only reason to increase funding for prevention of sue sides, it's the reason to end the wars. some of the hundreds of reasons that are independently sufficient to end the wars. but until we end these wars, the very least we could do is to summon a good faith effort to do everything we can to prevent soldier sue sides. now, the amendments offsets come from the pentagon channel which houses programs like -- mr. dicks: if the gentleman will yield to me? mr. kucinich: of course i yield. mr. dicks: with all due respect, we have accepted the gentleman's previous amendment. on this one we have already added $20 million to the budget for this purpose, and we will, if necessary, go higher in conference because of the gentleman's concern, the chairman's concern, my concern.

but to totally eliminate funding for the pentagon channel i think is a mistake. there's very valuable information that is received by the military, by the congress, by everybody who watches this. so the source of the amendment. so i would ask the gentleman if he would withdraw the amendment and then work with us and we will do the best we can to get to a higher level in conference. mr. kucinich: the short answer is yes, and i want to -- mr. dicks: this has become the issue of this war when more people of dying of suicide than they are in combat. and we don't want to lose any life. it means there is a serious problem. and we want to work with you to address that. mr. kucinich: could i ask the chairman of the full committee if he would enter into a colloquy for this? mr. young: if the gentleman

will yield? mr. kucinich: first off, i want to acknowledge my friend from washington for his commitment. this isn't the first time he and i talked about this. this long commitment that you have to address this suicide prevention, i would ask the chairman of the full committee, would you be willing to support such an endeavor to plus up the funds for suicide prevention in the conference? mr. young: if the gentleman will yield? mr. kucinich: i certainly will. mr. young: this issue is extremely important to all of us. almost every one of our hearings we insisted on getting good answers from the military as to what they would -- could do, what would they do, what they plan to do to prevent the suicides. we have supported so many programs, added the additional money that mr. dicks has talked about. we have supported -- the chair: the time of the gentleman from ohio has expired.

mr. dicks: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: i yield to the gentleman. mr. young: the yellow ribbon foundation services men and women when they return to society to help them not commit suicide. just putting money here is not going to solve the money. it's going to take a lot of work on the part of the military, on the part of the social workers who deal with the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines coming out of the service. just money is not going to solve this money. it is a bigger issue than money. we have provided a lot of money. and we continue to keep pressure on the military organizations to do everything we can. mr. dicks: taking back my time for the moment. the point is we have also added money for traumatic brain injury, for posttraumatic

stress disorder. i mean, we have been -- our subcommittee has been at the forefront of providing additional resources beyond the administration's request for a number of years. the last -- since this has become a major issue. but i would just ask the gentleman to try to work with us on this one because of the source issue and we'll work together and do the best we can. mr. kucinich: if the gentleman will yield? mr. dicks: i yield. mr. kucinich: i have confidence and the depood faith of the chairman and the -- good faith of the chairman and the ranking member. i know that you're both concerned about this. you said so now but i also know you demonstrated this in other -- at other times. what i would ask we can work together to look at the amount that's in the program right now, find a way to plus it up so we can make sure that people active duty and those that left active duty know about programs, have access to programs and have access to the kind of treatment that is

necessary to cut down the number of sue sides. mr. dicks: i appreciate the gentleman's -- mr. kucinich: i -- in view of this colloquy, i will withdraw the amendment and, again, i thank -- i thank both gentlemen. the chair: is there objection? seeing none, the amendment is withdrawn. the gentleman from new york. for what purpose does he seek recognition? >> amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mr. hanna of new york. insert reduced by $30 million. page 32, line 6, insert increased by $30 million. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. hanna: thank you, mr. chair. i would first like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for the good work on this bill. i'm inclined to support the underlying bill but believe it could be and should be strengthened through this amendment.

the department of defense faces more than 10 million cyberattacks every day. the damage and frequency of these attacks have been rapidly increasing over recent years. attacks against our networks caused our businesses more than $1 trillion per year in loss in intellectual property resulting from theft of innovation and real damages to our economy and cost of american jobs. for example, a cyberattack in march of 2011 against the military contractor resulted in the loss of 24,000 defense files. the secretary of defense, leon panetta, has stated that 60,000 new software programs are identified every day which threaten our security, our economy, our citizens and our military. high-tech threats require high-tech defenses to combat the attacks that face our armed

services on the front line and our businesses here at home. proper funding for our cybersecurity defense and advanced research projects is critical to our national security in today's high-threat environment. the air force has always taken the lead in cyberspace defenses, yet over $1 billion is proposed to be cut from the research, development, test and evaluation programs under this bill. these cuts are not justified based on the frequency and magnitude of the threats. these cuts would further expose our networks and adversely affect our service departments and agencies such as strategic command, defense intelligence agency and national security agencies. . the secretary has stated, quote, the next pearl harbor could be a

cyber attack that cripples our systems, end quote. we simply need to protect our networks by providing the funding levels necessary to do just that. my amendment would restore $30 million to the air force research development test and evaluation program and reduce operations and maintenance by the same amount to support research of cyber defense, advanced communication and information technology programs. recognizing the need for fiscal restraint, if adopted, my amendment would still fund research, development, tests and evaluation accounts by $1.6 billion or 6% below this year's level. and overall maintenance would still receive $123.1 billion

above the enacted level. now is not the time to cut back on high tech research and development without justification. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment to refund and restore funding for these programs which are vital to our 21st century defenses. thank you. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: -- the chair: the gentleman cannot reserve. does the gentleman yield back? mr. hanna: i yield back. the chair: who seeks time? the gentleman from florida. mr. young: i reluctantly have to oppose this amendment with much of the same arts i used earlier by taking the money out of the defense-wide accounts which is where we provide for our readiness and we just cannot continue to take money out of this fund and use it as a slush

fund. readiness, we have got to maintain and can't take a chance of not being ready in the event a situation develops. now on the issue of cyber, there is no doubt that this is a growing threat and even a larger threat than most people realize today. and the members of this committee understand that because we spend a lot of time dealing with cyber. but there are other places in this bill where the gentleman can offer his amendment that would, i think, apply better. but if we're dealing with a nonmilitary cyber program, it should be done through the homeland security bill, and they do have money in that bill. if it has to do with the f.b.i.'s law enforcement work on cyber, it should be in the commerce, state, justice bill, where there is money there for that. i'm afraid this gets a little close to being an earmark that

is not an earmark. for example, there are those that are suggesting that members are increasing program amounts just so that program would favor something in their own district. this gets very close because of a particular laboratory in mr. hanna's district and i'm not opposed to his supporting his laboratory, but i think it does get to the point that maybe this is a program increase that could be directed to a specific district or a specific project. we have already funded a lot in the cyber. and we will continue to fund cyber every year. as it grows, we grow with it, but we can't do this at the expense of our defense-wide operation and maintenance accounts that provide for our readiness. and i'm not going to produce a bill or support a bill that cuts

into the readiness of our nation, the ability to defend our nation. we're not going to do it. the cyber accounts have their own place in the legislation. and they are being taken care of properly. so i'm opposing this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not adopted. the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. langevin of rhode island. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. langevin: my amendment

proposes to add $15 million to the idte for the purpose of augmenting the spinal cord injury research program within the medical research program. the spime cord injuries are a serious combat-related condition affecting many servicemen and women. in response, congress established the spime cord injury research program in 2009 to support research and to repairing damaged spinal cords and improving rehabilitatetive therapy. more than 30 years ago when i was first injured with a spinal cord injury, i was told i would never walk again and you can't pair the spime cord. some 30 years later, we know that that is not accurate and no longer a question if we can repair spinal cords, but when. and this offers great hope to our men and women in uniform

have have been the victims of a spinal cord injury in combat. recent research promises to make the repair of spinal cord injuries a reachable goal in the very near future. in one study, racked with severe spinal injuries following a groundbreaking new treatment, to walk, run, even climb stairs. scientists in charge of the trial said a similar approach could be used on human patients with a clinical trial possible within one or two years. so this and other research provides

well as the 1.275 million americans who are paralyzed as a result of spinal cord injuries. these therapist will not be able to undergo further development or clinical trial. the research is real and shows incredible promise, there is a genuine possibility we could repair these injuries that affect so many. i believe we must be sure and that the benefits of decades of research in the spime cord injury are realized. i just want to thank my good friend, chairman young and ranking member discs and committee staff for working closely with me on this legislation. the chair: who seeks time? the gentleman from washington? mr. dicks: i rise in strong support of this amendment. i commend my friend from rhode island for his efforts in this regard. and i just hope that this research will be successful. and i know with his leadership, it will be. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island -- the gentleman from florida. mr. young: the sponsor of the amendment has discussed this with us at length for quite some time. this is an immediate problem and a growing problem and one that we have to face up to. and we do not oppose this amendment and we agree with the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. the gentleman from texas. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sessions of texas. page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $10 million. page 35, line 15, after the dollar amount insert increase by $10 million. page 35, line 23, after the

dollar amount insert increased by $10 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sessions: i would like to recognize both the gentlemen, mr. dicks and mr. young for their outstanding service not only to our country but to this congress on behalf of making sure we have freedom and the men and women that protect this country, i express my gratitude to both of them. i thank mr. rogers and the gentleman from new jersey, who is from the committee here today and i want to thank him also. i stand up in support of the dedication and hard work this congress has done for work on something known as ptsd. this congress, as you may know, mr. chairman, has continued its increasing funding overall and

by this bill by $125 million. on may 18, 2012, during the national defense authorization act, the house adopted my amendment to create a pilot program administered by the department of defense that will strengthen treatment for our troops coming home with ptsd. today, congress has the opportunity to appropriate funds for this program. my amendment offered with my dear friend from california, the gentleman from mike thompson, moves $2 million from more than $31 billion in the operation and defense-wide budget to increase by $10 million. this money will directly assist the soldiers who have injuries by allowing them to be reimbursed to attend private-sector facilities. one in four of recent combat veterans treated by the veterans

health administration from 2004 to 2009 had a diagnoses of ptsd and 7% had been diagnosed with tbi. according to the study, numbers of active duty soldiers has increased by 64% due to brain health, whether it was t.b.i., ptsd. these soldiers leave at a rapid rate. our soldiers range from $6 billion to 6.2 billion. today, health-care providers all over the country are working to provide treatment to brain-injury treatments with new and innovative treatments with remarkable results. one such treatment uses oxygen to reduce or eliminate chronic

similarp tomorrows such as headaches, memory loss and mood swings. while the department of defense has made many strides under the direction of colonel scott miller, many treatments unform are not available within the military facilities. so this amendment that i offer today would allow these men and women who seek treatment to be able to do so at our leading-edge facilities that are private around the united states of america. my amendment will provide treatment and recovery that is desperately needed. i urge my amendment to be approved and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california? mr. thompson: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. thompson: i thank the chair and ranking member for the good work they are doing on this bill and i rise in strong support of

this amendment. the department of defense estimates that more than 230,000 service members have sustained a traumatic brain injury between 2000 and 2011. during that time, as the the gentleman from texas, my good friend, mr. sessions, pointed out, congress has dedicated unprecedented level of t.b.i. funding and research which has allowed d.o.d. to make great strides in identifying and treating brain injuries. but despite the increased funding, service members and veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress and t.b.i. are still limited as to where and when they can be treated. sometimes the very best treatment for their injuries can be found outside of the traditional d.o.d.-v.a. networks. there are some outstanding programs providing first class effective treatment to our returning soldiers, yet those

programs are not eligible for payment. i had a chance to visit one of these facilities, the pathway home program run out of the california veterans' home. just an outstanding program providing great service to some very deserving heroes. and they should be reimbursed. our troops and veterans have earned, they've earned the very best treatment and care that we can provide. but sometimes, as i said, the best treatments aren't available at military and veteran-medical facilities. the sessions-thompson amendment will make sure our heroes who return from combat with t.b.i. or p.t.s. have access to the highest quality care our nation has to offer. we have a responsibility to help those those who have sacrificed so much in defense of our great nation. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. . mr. frelinghuysen: i yield to the ranking member. mr. dicks: i just want to concur. i think this is a deserving amendment. we cannot do enough on these issues because this is going to have a lifetime affect on these people and the more we do as they come home and even before they go to find out who is susceptible, this is critically important, will save us a lot of money. and we will accept the amendment on our side. mr. frelinghuysen: yield back. the chair: the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted.

the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. andrews: i rise for the purpose of a colloquy. mr. ranking member, i recently wrote a letter to the secretary of defense to ask for his assistance in documenting the annual cost of military of treating service members and veterans who are living with hydrocephalus. it is a medical condition characterized by the abnormal accumulation of fluid within the brain. experts suspect that 2/3 of the 41,000 service members diagnosed with moderate to severe traumatic brain injuries over the past decade also suffer from hydrocephalus. the primary treatment for hydrocephalus, a shunt implanted in the brain, was developed decades ago and has the highest failure rate of any implants of medical device. veterans living with this condition will face a lifetime

of medical uncertainties and incur costly brain surgeries unless a better treatment is found. would the ranking member, the gentleman, be willing to work with us to help gain a better understanding of the incidents and costs of hydrocephalus among our injured service members and veterans so we can focus the appropriate amount of d.o.d. research dollars on finding a better treatment? i yield to the ranking member. mr. dicks: the committee recognizes the serious trouble of tra matin brain injury, as you just note -- traumatic brain injury, as you just noted, and i am willing to work with the gentleman from new jersey to understand this important issue as we confer with the other body and work with our majority members here who are deeply concerned as we are about this amendment. mr. andrews: i thank the chairman and i thank the ranking member. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back his time. the gentleman from minnesota. >> thank you, mr. chairman. amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. walz of minnesota. page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount insert the following, reduced by $5 million. page 35, line 15, after the dollar amount insert the following, increased by $5 million. page 35, line -- mr. walz: mr. chairman, i ask for dispensing of the reading of the amendment. the chair: without objection. mr. walz: i thank them for the commitment, not to the defense of this nation but for the care of the warriors who so dearly pay for that defense. what this amendment does is it increases the appropriation in the sensory injury from $5 million to $10 million for core vision and important research will be paid for by redirecting funds from operations and management budgets. you heard it from the last several speakers talking about traumatic brain injury and injuries that come from that. one of the first indicators of

mild traumatic brain injury is eye injury. the brave warriors that sustain these injuries, whether they're puncture jerts or from blast injuries start to manifest themselves in loss of vision and eye injuries. of all of the t.b.i.'s that happen in the war zone, 70% suffer some type of vision loss. the research to deal with this has some long-term benefits. it is one of the first indicators of brain injury. we can start to get early treatment on that. all the research seems to show that cognitive ability is affected positively the sooner we get on top of that. there are seven decisions towards research and battlefield injuries. 15% of all those injuries are eye injuries. the 10 million number that we're requesting is -- gives us basic adequate numbers, a floor number, if you will, to start getting that research done. so i'm very appreciative of the tough decisions made in this. i would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, to

beef up the eye injury research. i would argue it's morally the right thing to do. we've been trying to work with d.o.d. and v.a. to get that going. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: we are pleased to accept the gentleman from minnesota's amendment and we salute him for his advocacy. i could tell you from a personal visit from a soldier who lost his sight, tim fallon from long island, new jersey, to advocate these are dollars well spent, we need to spend more. these types of investments because too many soldiers are coming home with i think things could be potentially benefited -- benefit from this type of investment. mr. dicks: if the gentleman will yield? mr. frelinghuysen: i yield. mr. dicks: i concur with the chairman and i want to say to the gentleman from minnesota,

we appreciate his service to the country. you know a lot more about this than some of us who were not in the service. and we appreciate your leadership on this issue. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. 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. the amendment is adopted. the gentleman from new york. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. higgins of new york. page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount insert the following -- reduced by $10 million. page 32, line 18, after the dollar amount insert the following -- increased by $10 million. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. higgins: mr. chairman, the department of defense oversees important research into the varied threats that face our nation. this research is essential to safeguarding our communities and empowering research

institutions and universities to come up with the creative solutions to detect, confront and neutralize weapons of mass destruction. my amendment is very straightforward. it would increase funding by $10 million for the defensewide research, development, test and evaluation account. it's offset by reducing funding for the operation and maintenance defensewide account. the intent of this amendment is to support the ongoing work that is being performed through basic research programs at the defense threat reduction agency which is the department of defense's official combat support agency for countering weapons of mass destruction. the grants provided by this funding support 160 research projects across the nation. 21 universities participate in competitive research projects that help to define, detect and mitigate the proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction.

this important work is providing us with a better understanding of the threats we face and creating new innovative solutions to the security risks posed by chemical, biological or nuclear attack on the united states homeland. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and the important life-saving research being performed at important institutions across the country. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, we certainly object to the arbitrary reductions to the operation and maintenance defensewide appropriations account. the operations and maintenance appropriations account funding is critical. mr. young stated a few minutes ago to the readiness, safety and quality of life of our brave men and women who serve each and every day, who volunteer. cutting this account would hurt our readiness and that's something we can't do at this point in time so i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment's not adopted. are there any further amendments? the clerk will read. the clerk: page 10, line 16. operation and maintenance, army reserve. $3,199,423,000. operation and maintenance, navy reserve. $1,256,347,000. operation and maintenance, marine corps reserve, $277,377,000. operation and maintenance, air force reserve. $3,362,041,000. page 12, line 1, operation and i nantmante assistance, army

national guard, $7,187,731,000. operation and i maintenance, air national guard, $6,608,826,000. united states court of appeals for the armed forces, $13,516,000. environmental restoration, army, including transfer of funds, $335,921,000. environmental restoration, navy, including transfer of funds, $310,594,000. environmental restoration, air force, including transfer of funds, $529,263,000. environmental restoration, defensewide, including transfer of funds, $11,133,000. environmental restoration, formally used defense sites, including transfer of funds,

$237,543,000. overseas humanitarian, disaster and civic aid, $108,759,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. cooperative threat reduction account, $519,111,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015. department of defense acquisition work force development fund, $50,198,000. title 3, procurement. aircraft procurement, army, $6,115,226,000 to remain available for obligation under september 30, 2015. missile procurement, army, $1,602,689,000 to remain available for obligation until september 30, 2015.

procurement of weapons and track combat vehicles, army, $1,884,706,000 to remain available for obligation until september 30, 2015. procurement of ammunition, army, $1,576,768,000 to remain available for obligation until september 30, 2015. other procurement, army, $6,4 -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. bon meche of oregon. -- bonamici of oregon. . the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr.

chairman. i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. bonamici: this is for ms. buerkle and myself to help our military better perform their missions. this requires the national guard to complete a capability assessment of the medical equipment in its domestic humvee ambulances. should be required to require in federal and state missions. right now these ambulances have no requirement to carry cardiac monitoring and resuscitation equipment. limiting their capabilities to adequately treat a wide range of injuries in emergency situations. mrap ambulances used in oversea contingens operations do, however, carry cardiac monitoring and resuscitation equipment. this capability assessment would determine whether or not guard humvee ambulances used domestically should carry cardiac monitoring and resuscitation equipment

compable to mrap ambulances -- comparable to mrap ambulances. homeland security emergencies, natural disasters and providing defense support to civilian authorities. how account guard carry out its required missions if it does not have the proper equipment necessary to deal with severe injuries? as these humvee ambulances are currently equipped, medical personnel are extremely limited in the available treatment they can provide to an injured person. . an ambulance can provide basic care and transportation of a patient from one place to another. for example, i understand that medical personnel will be unable to treat a patient experiencing a cardiac arrest due to a serious problem. state and national guard units want this equipment and have indicated it could make a difference between life and

death in emergency situations. the add jutant generals in eight different states, including, montana, arizona, and others have submitted resolutions for emergency procurement of cardiac monitoring equipment to be utilized. because the national guard bureau does not view this equipment as required, it has backed out of a plan to purchase it despite the support of multiple states. this amendment will require the national guard bureau to re-examine whether cardiac monitoring equipment is required and necessary for the guard to fulfill its homeland security, terrorist attack, natural disaster response and defense support to civil authorities responsibilities. should the capability assessment find that the equipment is necessary under this amendment, the army may use funds from this

section to retrofit and install the equipment in domestic humvee ambulances currently in use by the national guard. this is a commonsense issue. the guards men and women should be provided the best capability available to save lives across this country in the event of an emergency. i urge colleagues' support of this bipartisan amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: move to strike the last word. we want to thank the the gentlewoman from for bringing this issue to our attention. we have no objection to it. i guess we would accept it. it would be valuable to be made -- mr. dicks: i commend the gentlewoman for her amendment. it is well thought out and i hope it has the desired effect and i congratulate her in offering it. and i yield back. the chair: the question is on

the amendment offered by the gentlelady from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 22, line 3, aircraft procurement, navy, $17,000 518,000 324,000 000, to remain available for obligation until september 30. $3 billion to remain available for obligation until september 30, 2015. procurement of ammunition at navy and marine corps, $677 ,233,000 to remain for obligation until september 30, 2015. ship building and conversion, navy, outfitting conversions and first destination transportation

$284,859,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. quigley of illinois, page 24, line 14, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $985 million. insert reduced by 988 million. page 153 line 15, after the dollar amount insert increased by $988 million. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. quigley: i join my colleagues from illinois to offer a bipartisan amendment to the department of defense appropriation bill. our amendment cuts $988 million from the bill which the committee added but the navy did not request.

i also put the savings towards deficit reduction. let's back up. as part of the department of defense's new strategy, they are realigning and making new investments. to this end, the navy has a multi year procurement to purchase nine destroyers over the next five years. in order to fulfill one year of this arrangement the navy requested over $3 billion in the budget, but the committee took it upon itself to give the navy an extra billion dollars it didn't request and doesn't need for a tenth destroyer. there was talk of purchasing a 10th destroyer but on march 29, 2012, the navy's acquisition

executive testified before a house armed services committee that he thought he could get 10 ships for the price of nine. he noted that the navy has quote, competition on its program. two builders building the 51's and the competition has been healthy, end of quote. and he explains how he hopes to get 10 ships, saying we are allowed nine ships but when we go out with this procurement, we are willing to go out with a procurement that allows the procurement of 10 ships. if we are going to achieve the savings we are targeting across this multi-year arrangement. he said the navy could lose competition to get 10 ships for the price of nine. but rather than letting the navy do its job and let the competition acquisition process work by putting billion dollars

up front, the navy cut out the legs from the competitive process. extra billion dollars for another ship and put the billion on the table that we don't have to spend. why not let the acquisition process take its course and see what happens. i don't think we need 10 ships and even for those who do support a 10th destroyer, cutting this funding does not preclude them from adding it later if it's needed. unfortunately, this is one of the many examples of congress putting forth its interests first. this defense bill is riddled with projects we don't need to keep america safe. this bill includes special-member-interests back home. we cannot afford to stimulate

our economy and foreign policy. our deficit topping trillion dollars we bhuss right-size our budget. i would recognize the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman from illinois may not yield blocks of time. you may yield to the gentleman from illinois. mr. dold: we are focused on finding savings in every area of government spending. without a doubt, the defense department has made significant and painful contributions to our efforts to reduce the debt. i want to make sure we recognize that. the defense budget actually accounts for roughly 17% of all federal spending. yet, it has contributed over 50% of the deficit reduction. so i do want to recognize we are already cutting a significant amount of money, mr. speaker,

out of the department of defense. we need to be looking at commonsense ways for us to be able to save money. this amendment is about promoting efficiency in the department of defense and achieving savings wherever possible. the amount of funds provided in this bill for these ships is $1 billion above the navy's own budget request. so in the spirit of seeking to achieve cost savings, i believe it's appropriate for us to act in consistent to allow the competitive bidding process to play out which as a navy executive acquisition testified to allow the navy to purchase a 10th ship. if these bids come back and the 10th ship cannot be realized, i'm in support of providing additional resources next year but we should allow the navy to operate and at lower costs while

achieving -- the chair: time the gentleman from illinois has expired. question is on the amendment offered by -- the gentleman from florida. mr. young: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: all throughout this last year, we have heard from the administration and we have heard from the navy that it is important to be able to have a large presence in the pacific area. this is something that we're going to do. we are going to have an increased presence in the pacific. that is the administration's statement. and all of the hearings we have done in the central command area, the middle east, persian gulf, the straits of hormuz and threats from iran, we were told

by the military leadership who fight those wars there that they needed a larger naval presence in order to counter any threat from iran and similar threats and to keep open the persian gulf and especially the straits of hormuz. today, we don't really have as much naval capability as they suggest that we need. and so the committee added this 51 for this year. the navy actually asked for advanced procurement so they could build it next year. we were able to find the funds to actually build it this year so we could begin to prepare for the presence that the navy -- that the president has said that we have to maintain. and that's the 51. in addition, in order to

accomplish the coverage that the navy said they need, we have taken three cruisers that would have been taken out of service and reconfigured those cruisers. we have provided funding to reconfigure the cruisers to add to this effort, to add to the effort for more naval presence in the middle east and cover the pacific. everyone in the military and the white house has said we have got to have their presence. and so we oppose this amendment. we need this 51 in order to meet our obligations. now, it is interesting that we understand that some of these programs are costing more than were anticipated. c.b.o. just issued a report saying that the president's budget request is going to cost

-- in order to do the budget request will cost $123 billion more than they estimated it would cost. so we have a problem with numbers and with dollars. but covering the specific region and covering the middle east region, the persian gulf, straits of hormuz, that is important to our national security interests and important to our allies, to our troops overseas in that region. and so, mr. chairman, i oppose this amendment. it is not a good amendment and not good for our national defense. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amount offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 24, line 23,

completion of prior year's ship building programs $372 -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i have an amendment at the desk. will the gentleman kindly submit the amendment. the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: $15,236,326,,000 other procurement, navy.

$6,364,191,000 to remain for obligation until september 30, 2015. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: does the gentleman have an amendment? mr. cohen: i have an amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cohen of tennessee, page 26, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $506,360,. insert increase by $235 million. page 35, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $235 million. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. . mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. the administration requests $101 million for the operation and upgrading of cruiser ships used by the united states navy. that's what the pentagon and the administration requested.

$101 million. however, what has been recommended is $607 million. $607 million, that's an increase of over 500 -- $500 million from what the pentagon asked for. five times what the pentagon asked for. in a time when so many of my colleagues are calling for decrease in the spending on the federal government's spied, it seems that they -- side, it seems they should heed the requests of their constituents and the budget and the advice of congress in refrain from throwing $500 million at this program, that the department of defense is trying to phase out. now mirkse amendment would allocate -- now, my amendment would allocate $235 million of that excess to defense health programs. the rest would go toward deficit reduction. americans would be better served if that $235 million didn't go to a program of buying cruiser

ships that the department of defense doesn't want and rather have this money go to health care research which the department of defense does in the area of cancer research. breast cancer research, prostate cancer research. and other cancer research. the department of defense has a strong cancer research program and can always use more money to save lives. i've been a strong supporter all my life of putting money into research in the national institute of health. and joining with senator spectacularrer in getting an additional $10 million in the recovery and investment act for the national institutes of health. one day through research dollars we'll have a cure for cancer. a headline we want to see. a headline that cancer -- scientists find a cure for cancer and it may become because of an appropriation like this and not congress passes five times the amount of money the department of defense wants for cruiser ships. so my goal in offering this amendment is to see the cancer research programs are benefited, that they're doubled.

and this investment is in our nation's future. and an investment in every human being here that's a potential vict tim of cancer. there are -- victim of cancer. there are other diseases that are looked at, whether it's alzheimer's or diabetes or heart disease. the cures need to be found and government should be investing moneys in those places and this is one place where the department of defense emphasizes cancer research. even with thing of this investment on cancer research this amendment does also reduce the overall cost of the appropriations bill. in a time when we've seen cuts to other research programs like the national institute of health, it's important to identify every single collar can be used to further -- dollar can be used to further health research efforts. a vote for this amendment is a vote in favor of furthering our country's cancer research and protecting all citizens out there who are contingent and potential victims of this awful disease. and reducing the overall cost of this legislation as well. i urge you to vote yes on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

tennessee yields back his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kingston: mr. chairman, i want to point out, number one, that cancer research has already -- is already funded in this bill at a $246 million level. i also want to say that mr. young, mr. murtha, mr. dicks and mr. lewis have had a long tradition of leadership on cancer research in the defense appropriations committee. we've always been very supportive and will continue to. so the bill's already at $246 million. now secondly, why did we put the money into the cruiser program? and we did so because at a time when we are pivoting much of our navy fleet into the pacific area, we believe we needed to have as many of the ships capable of missile defense, or the agent system, as possible because the world is so unstable. so many of these ships will

probably go to the pacific. there's six of them that we are reoutfitting for the system. and then some of them may go to the middle east. i just got back from spending the night on a carrier with part of the 5th fleet in the persian gulf and our trip also included afghanistan, pakistan and yemen and i wish that members of congress could get some of the briefings that we got in terms of the missile threat in the middle east alone. because it is an unstable part of the globe right now and we have to have our best technology out there and our best airmen ready at all times in case there is a missile attack. and that's what the defense committee on a bipartisan basis recognized with this $506 million and so i would urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: request a vote. the yeas and nays. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 26, line 4, procurement marine corps, $1,482,081,000 to remain available for obligation until september 30, 2015. aircraft procurement, air force, $11,304,899,000 to remain available for obligation until september 30, 2015. missile procurement, air force, $5,449,146,000 to remain available for obligation until september 30, 2015. procurement of ammunition, air force, $599,194,000 to remain available for obligation until

september 30, 2015. other procurement, air force, $16,632,575,000 to remain available for obligation until september 30, 2015. procurement, defensewide, $4,429,335,000 to remain available for obligation until september 30, 2015. national guard and reserve equipment, $2 billion to remain available for obligation until september 30, 2015. defense production act purchases, $63,531,000. title 4, research, development, test and evaluation. research, development, test and evaluation, army, $8,593,055,000 to remain available for obligation until september 30, 2014. research, development, test and

evaluation, navy, $16,987,768,000 to remain available for obligation until september 30, 2014. research, development, test and evaluation, air force, $25,117,692,000 to remain available for obligation until september 30, 2014. research, development, test and evaluation -- the chair: the gentleman from kansas. the clerk: including transfer of funds. $19,100,316,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. pompeo of kansas. page 32, line 18, after the dollar amount insert, reduced by $250 million. page 32, line 20, after the dollar amount insert, reduced by $250 million. page 153, line 15, after the

dollar amount insert, increased by $250 million. the chair: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. pompeo: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise to strike the rapid innovation fund and save the taxpayers over $250 million. a as a veteran -- as a veteran i know how important it is that we use every single dollar that goes to our department of defense in an intelligent way. this fund, this rapid innovation fund, has been never requested by the pentagon. this is money that the pentagon doesn't say that this wants. it was created in f.y. 2011 defense bill in response frankly to the loss of earmarks here in the house of representatives. so far the appropriations committee has put over $700 million in two years into this fund. and yet to date the department of defense has spent only $32.5 million of the $7 million already appropriated and provided. but instead of waiting to see if the fund is working and if it can be successful or if it's any value to the war fighter, the committee is pushing for another

$250 million of taxpayer money to go into the so-called rapid innovation fund. i urge my colleagues to reject this effort. first of all, the pentagon as i said never asked for this money. the four d.o.d. agencies declined and an invitation to even participate in the fund. there's clearly no one in the military clamoring for what is essentially this slush fund. with a sequestration looming, now is the time to help the defense department make tough choices, not to add $250 million in wasteful spending. we must focus on very scarce -- our very scarce resources on validated military requirements. second, this rapid innovation fund is neither rapid nor innovative. the fund allows the department of federal acquisition regulation procedures to move forward, just as they do for any other procurement process. the first contracts took over a year to be signed. i don't find anything regard about that. -- rapid about that. it simply doles out money to projects.

there's nothing innovative about that either. let me be clear. this fund was created by congress because congress ended earmarks and some have wanted a way to earmark -- to have earmark-type projects continue to receive government money. this fund is wasteful and unnecessary. the d.o.d.'s base budget is well over $500 billion. built through a time-honored and trusted process to unsure the needs of our -- ensure the needs of our war fighters. this fund is completely outside of this process and therefore advances projects that have not been validated and are not proven in this same manner. finally, the fund itself is unproven. only $30 million and change has been spent on this fund and there is no data demonstrating that this fund holds any value to our military or to our taxpayers. but even if it does, there's still $670 million sitting in the fund today. why not just wait? at current spend rates there's over 10 years' worth of funds still available. why put $250 million more

taxpayer money at risk? as congress we have to be willing to make tough choices. certainly in our d.o.d. budget. but this one isn't even tough. we can't just throw good money into a hole and hope that it helps our nation's defense. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks time? the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the rapid innovation fund was authorized and appropriated by congress in 2011 to allow innovative small businesses to compete for funding within the department of defense. it is a competitive merit-based program designed to accelerate the fielding of innovative technologies into military systems. last fall each service in the osbp issued broad agency announcements to solicit

proposals for the first round of funding worth $500 million. of the 3,554 white papers received, 514 received high priority or strong evaluations valued at about $700 million. this bill provides an additional $250 million for this successful program for small businesses who are interested in working with the department of defense. and also this is -- this money can be used for joint urgent operational needs. this is when the commanders in the field say that they need something in an urgent way, this money is available for that kind of requirement. so, again, the gentleman raises a lot of insinuations that this was done because of doing away with the earmarks.

it was done because we feel that small businesses in this country have a lot to offer the defense department. not all of the innovations come from lockheed -- lockheed and boeing and general dynamics. a lot of the innovation comes from smaller businesses who were in essence going to be cut out and we already have an existing program, the small sbir program, which we wanted to enhance so that small businesses would have a place to go where they could compete, where we would be doing this on the merits basis. that we would be doing it on the services, saying this is areas where we need additional work. so, i am somewhat surprised that the gentleman would oppose something like this, knowing that i'm certain he's an advocate for small businesses in

our country, and i think this is a good program and one that should be supported on a bipartisan basis and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: i want to say this, while we all acknowledge there was a numerical explosion and a substantive explosion on earmarks, and that's why earmarks are banned, one of the advantages of earmarks is that it did let the small mom and pop innovative small businesses have a crack at the bat at the pentagon budget and most of us who are familiar with the pentagon budget would say it's broken, or at least it needs lots of improvement. what the earmarking did do was let small companies have a bite of the apple and so in the interest of banning earmarks, we set up this program to allow small businesses through. i'll give you a graphic example.

i had a man come to me one time, he said, i used to work with a large defense contractor. he named the contractor and i don't want to name them but he said, this is a circuit panel. it's a memory panel. this is about the size of this note book in my hand. he -- notebook in my hand. he said, this is for a nuclear submarine and it costs about $10 million. i know because i invented it when i was with the large defense contractor and all nuclear submarines now buy this kind of memory board. . but your cell phone has more memory in it than that big awkward panel. but the only way i'm going to get a crack at the business would be through the earmarking process. now, i could replace this $10 million circuit memory board for probably hundreds of thousands of dollars and i can't do that because you have thrown away that tool for both of us.

we have set up this board to try to let those small businesses have a crack at the bat. i agree with you there is money in the account that we need to be looking at it and you bring up some good points but i believe the reason why that program is out there is very important in order to keep the large defense contractors honest, if you will. mr. dicks: i appreciate what the gentleman has said. another thing here. the gentleman is saying they should rush out and spend this money. i don't mind a thorough professional way of going about this and to take some time to make sure they've got this right is to we want them to do. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i'm not urging anyone to rush

out and spend this money but to go into the pockets of the taxpayers. mr. pompeo: i was a small business owner and i made airplane parts for 10 years. i want the money to be in the taxpayers' pockets. mr. kingston: i can promise you you know how difficult it was to sell your product to the united states air force and this program would allow a small innovator to do that, and therefore, reduce the cost to the taxpayers of parts for airplanes. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the chair will remind members to refrain crossing the well while other members are speaking. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> i ask for a recorded vote.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. after the dollar amount insert reduced by $75 million. page 153, line 15, insert increased by $75 million. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: in this bill, not only do the republicans claim there is nothing, absolutely nothing to cut in the defense

budget, they are actually increasing spending beyond what the pentagon is asking for. the republicans have put an additional $75 million for missile defense in this bill. $75 million additional that the generals have not asked for. so my amendment today is simple. it would reduce funding for the ground-based mid-course defense program by $75 million to bring the 2013 funding level back to the administration's request. ground-based mid-course defense is star wars and it's a system that someday there is hope to shoot down an incoming nuclear warhead by launching our own missiles from alaska and california. but here, we have a situation of where basically republicans are

saying that they want to give the pentagon $75 million more than what the military says it needs right now. and if we can't decide just to take what the pentagon is asking and rubber stamping and giving it to them and even that's not enough in this period of fiscal austerity, than how are we going to be successful next year when $55 billion has to be cut? let's start here. you know, st. august ine's prayer is important here. republicans are saying, lord, let us reduce the deficit, but not just yet when it comes to defense spending. we want to give the pentagon even more than they are asking for of the let's get all of our sinning done before next january. let's really clear the deck on

all the gold-plated planning that -- i don't know, defense firms, because it's not the pentagon. the pentagon said the money that's in the bill as the president proposed is sufficient in order to provide for the development of this missile defense technology. the bill already funds this program to the tune of $900 million and the pentagon is saying enough. so i know you are talking about cancelling sequestration when it comes to defense spending, but this isn't a good sign. this isn't a good sign if we are ever going to reconcile the tension that exists between the need to not cut national institutes of health funding, not to cut programs that deal with grandma, medicaid and nursing homes, all the way down the line.

this just goes beyond anything that's even remotely reasonable. so i urge and -- an aye vote on the markey amendment. and i hope that it is adopted by the full house. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. . who seeks time? the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: i rise in opposition to the amendment. and i want to say most importantly, this was authorized in the national defense authorization this year which was passed on an overwhelming basis on a bipartisan vote. and their authorization actually was a lot more than the $75 million and the reason this money is in there is that there are some changes that are going on in the missile silos and rather than close down the shop, we are having to move these missiles and keep them current, keep them active and capable

while the construction is going on and when we finish the construction, put them back. and that's why the authorizing committee on a bipartisan basis authorized it and that's why our subcommittee has also supported it, although at a lower number. with that, i recommend a no vote and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. markey: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. the gentleman from mississippi. mr. pallone: i rise to oppose the gentleman from illinois' amendment to cut $988 million. the member of the house armed

services committee considered this ship building committee. we have met for months and discussed it with the navy leadership. the dbg-51 is preeminent and can conduct ballistic missile defense and has proven itself in every theater. this ship has been authorized with a multi year procurement strategy, which is an important cost-saving measure that the navy has used in multiple situations to save money for the taxpayer. this is one of the most successful ship building programs ever in the united states navy because it is one of the best built and best value for the taxpayer and requires a fair and open competition for contracting. right now, our navy has the lowest shipbuilding total in generations and many predictions are the numbers are going to shrink further. we cannot afford to be cutting additional ships from our budget. is extremely important to our

national security and i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks time? the clerk will read. the clerk: page 33, line 12, operational tests and evaluation, defense, $185,268,000 to remain available for obligation until september 30, 2014. title 5, revolving and management funds, defense working capital funds, $1,516,184,000. national defense funds, $564,3 36,000 to remain available until expended. title 6 -- the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 66 line 7 be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. the chair: is there objection? seeing none, so ordered. the clerk will read.

the clerk: section 8037, none of the funds made available maybe used to operate a field agency. the secretary acting through the office of economic adjustment of the department may use funds under the heading operation and maintainance defense-wide to make grants. section 8039, none of the funds shall be available -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. amash of michigan. strike section 8039. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. amash: the house has voted repeatedly to strike a-76 language from bills we have considered. the same change should be adopted in this legislation by

striking section 8039. my amendment does that. as drafted, the section prohibits the department of defense from contracting out any function unless it will save a minimum of $10 million or 10% of the department's performance costs even if it is less costly overall and can perform the work efficiently. public-private competition lower costs between 10% and 40% whether the competition is won by a private contractor or the government. rather than stand in the way of private-public competition, congress should cut the red tape and make use of the cost savings easier. the requirements in section 8039 are codified in existing section. retaining the section will potentially nullify any current efforts to reform the system and bring much needed transparency and consistency and reliability

to the process. instead of complicating the use of competition that improves service and lower costs, we should be encouraging agencies to find the most efficient way to deliver services. this amendment will send that message by reducing restrictions on the department of defense and making it easier to achieve reforms that will increase availability of cost-savings efficiencies throughout the department. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. thank you. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: mr. chairman, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: the amendment tries to remove language from the appropriations bill, which we don't agree with, by the way. it has been carried in appropriations bills for a number of years. however, when the laws were codified it became part of the permanent law.

it doesn't neen need to be in the appropriations bills any longer. we have no objections to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks time? 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 ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i have an amendment

at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. baca of california. page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount insert the following, reduced by $10 million. page 32, line 18, after the dollar amount insert the following, increased by $10 million. the chair: is there objection to considering the amendment at this point in the reading? >> i reserve the right to object. mr. young: i will say this is a little unusual for us to agree to do this. but in this one case we will agree to it and let the gentleman present his amendment. i believe in as much openness as we can possibly provide, for all of our members. but we can't -- we just can't make a habit of going back once the bill has been read, once the regular order has been followed. but in this case we will yield.

the chair: does the gentleman withdraw his objection? -- mr. young: i withdraw my objection. the chair: the gentleman withdraws his objection. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. baca: thank you very much, and i'd like to thank the chairman for allowing me and member dicks for allowing me this effort on this legislation. i also want to thank my colleague, gary miller, for supporting this amendment. this is a baca-miller amendment. it's a bipartisan that directs $10 million to be moved from operations in management portion of the department of defense budget to the research and development portion of the budget. moving these funds will allow the d.o.d. to develop a cost effective solution to environmental problems. these funds will allow the strategy environmental research and development program and the environmental security technology certification program to support, and i say the, grants. this is a grant, it's not an ear mash, that provides clear water. my communities in california,

including gary miller's district , must deal with contaminated water. it's a rocket fuel additive that can be harmful to women, children and elderly that effects both gary miller and my district. this contamination has resulted in millions of dollars in costs to the region for cleanup, litigation. congress should support the d.o.d. efforts to develop solutions to problems like this contamination. i ask my colleagues to support the baca-miller amendment, a bipartisan bill. again i thank the chair mnds the -- and the ranking member. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: mr. chair, while i did not object to him taking up this amendment, i will object to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: this was an earmark in the f.y. 2010, it was funded as an earmark at $1.6 million.

it also takes the money from that source that i have objected to before, the defensewide operation and maintenance accounts, and i just really cannot support anything that's going to effect -- affect our readiness to defend our country. and so i just strongly object to this amendment. although i did agree to allow us to go back to consider the amendment. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 71, line 1, section 8040, rescission, the following funds are herein rescinded. research, development, test and evaluation air force 2012-2013, $179,600,000. section 8041, none of the funds may be used to reduce the authorized positions for

military technicians of the army national guard for the purpose of applying any administratively opposed ceiling on military technicians. section 8042, none of the funds may be obligated or expended for assistance to the democratic people's republic of korea unless specifically appropriated for that purpose. section 8043, funds for operation and maintenance of the military departments combatant, command and defense agencies shall be available for reimbursement of pay, allowances or other expenses which would otherwise be incurred against appropriations for the national guard and reserve. section 8044, none of the funds may be used to reduce the civilian medical and medical support personnel below the september 30, 2003, level. section 8045, none of the funds for drug interdiction or counterdrug activities may be transferred to any other

department or agency except as specifically provided in an appropriations law. section 8046, none of the funds may be used for the procurement of roller bearings other than those produced by a domestic source. section 8047, none of the funds may be used to purchase any supercomputer which is not manufactured in the united states. section 8048, none of the funds may be used to pay the salary of any officer or employee of the department who approves or implements the transfer of administrative responsibilities. section 8049, none of the funds made available to the department may be obligated or expended to transfer to another nation unless the congressional defense committees, the committee on foreign affairs of the house, and the committee on foreign relations of the senate are notified and advance -- in advance. section 8050, none of the funds shall be obligated or expended to pay a contractor for cost of any amount paid by the

contractor to an employee when such costs are for hours for a bonus or otherwise in excess of the normal salary paid. section 8051, including transfer of funds, no more than $30 million may be transferred to appropriations available for pay of military personnel to be used in support of such personnel in connection with support for eligible organizations outside the department pursuant to section 2012 of title 10, united states code. section 8052, in the case of an appropriation count for which availability for obligation has expired and which has negative unliquidated balance, an obligation or an adjustment of an obligation may be charged to any current appropriation account for the same purpose as the expired or closed account if the obligation would have been properly chargeable. section 8053, the chief of a

national guard bureau may permit the use of equipment of the national guard's defense learning project by any person on a space available reimbursement basis. section 8054, using funds made available, the secretary of the air force may implement cost effective agreements for required facility monitoring and military community in the federal republican of germany -- republic of germany. section 8055, none of the funds in title 4 may be used to procure end items to delivery for military forces for operational training. section 8056, the secretary may waive each limitation on the procurement of defense items from foreign sources. section 8057, none of the funds maybe used to support any training program involving the uses of a foreign country if the secretary has received credible information from the department of state that the unit has

committed a gross violation of human rights. section 8058, none of the funds available may be obligated or expended for the purpose of reforming repairs to military family housing units of the department including areas in such military family housing that may be used for the purpose of conducting official department business. section 8059, funds appropriated under the heading research, development, test and evaluation defensewide may only be obligated 45 days after a report . section 8060, the secretary shall provide a quarterly report beginning 30 days after enactment of this act to the committee. section 8061, none of the funds may be used to provide support to another department or agency if such department is more than 90 days in the rears. section 8062, a reserve who is a member of the national guard serving on full time national

guard duty may perform duties in support of the ground-based elements of the national ballistic missile defense system. section 8063, none of the funds may be used to transfer to any nongovernmental entity ammunition held by the department that has a center fire cartridge. section 8064, the chief of the national guard bureau may waive payment under section 2667 of title 10, united states code, section 8065, none of the funds shall be used for the support of any nonappropriated funds activity of the department that procures malt beverages. section 8066, including transfer of funds, under the heading operation and maintenance army, $133,381,000. section 8067, section 8106 of

the department of defense appropriations act, 1997, shall continue in effect to apply to dispersements that are made by the department, section 8068, $4 million is hereby appropriated to the department to remain available for obligation until expended. section 8069, including transfer of funds under the heading research, development, test and evaluation defensewide, $948,736,000 shall be for the israeli cooperative program. section 8070, none of the funds may be obligated to modify command and control relationships to give fleet forces command, operational and administrative control of u.s. navy forces assigned to the pacific fleet. section 8071, under the heading ship building and conversion, navy, $372,573,000 shall be available until september 30, 2013, to fund prior year ship

building cost increases. section 8072, funds appropriated or made available by the transfer of funds in this act for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically authorized by the congress for purposes of section 504 of the national security act of 1947. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 120, line 12 be considered as read and printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: is there objection to the unanimous consent request? seeing none, so ordered. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 120, line 13, section 8120, none of the funds may be used to transfer a veterans memorial object to a foreign country. section 8121, none of the funds may be used to sponsor -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> mr. chair, you rise of a

point of order against section 8121 of the bill. the chair: the gentleman will state his point of order. >> section 8121 dons fought tos legislation because it requires that the secretary determine what qualifies as semiprofessional, a sporting event and mixed martial arts. mr. palazzo: these are not terms that the secretary know. thus this violates clause 2 of rule 221. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does anybody else wish to be heard on the point of order? seeing none, the chair is prepared to rule. the gentleman from mississippi makes a point of order that section 8121 proposes to change existing law in violation of clause 2-b of rule 21, section 821 -- section 8121 is in the form of a limitation on funds in the bill. as recorded in the precedence, volume 8, even though a

limitation might refrain from explicitly assigning new duties to officers of the government, if it implicitly requires them to make investigations, judgments or determinations not otherwise required of them by law, then it assumes that the character of legislation -- it assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a point of order under clause 20 of rule 21. the fact that a limitation may impose certain incident burdens on executive officials does not destroy the character of the limitation as long as its dedescriptive of functions and findings already required to be undertaken by existing law. the proponent of a limitation assumes the burden of establishing that any duties or determinations imposed by the provision are merely ministerial or already required by law. as noted in dess lar's precedence, volume h., the question is not whether an official routinely makes such

determinations but whether such determinations are required by law. the chair finds that the limitation in section 8121 does more than merely impose a negative restriction on the funds of the bill. instead it would require thesee determinations such as what qualifies as, quote, semiprofessional, end of quote, as, quote, mixed martial arts, end of quote, or as, quote, sporting events, end of quote. the proponent of this language has not proven that these are matters with which the -- which the secretary in charge under existing law. the chair finds the proceedings of august 20, 1980, pertinent. on that day a limitation on funds in an appropriation bill to dispose of, quote, agricultural, end of quote, land, was held to impose new duties in violation of clause 2 of rule 21 because the determination whether lands were, quote, agricultural, end of quote, was not required by law.

on these premises, the chair concludes that the section proposes to change existing law. accordingly the point of order is sustained. and the section is stricken from the bill. . mr. dicks: i ask unanimous consent to request a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. amash. the chair: is there are objection to the unanimous consent request? seeing none, pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. amash, will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: title 9, overseas deployment and other activities, page 121, line 6, title 9. military personnel, military personnel army, $9 billion.

military personnel navy, $-- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. jones of north carolina, page 121 line 12, insert increase by $98,967,. incertificate increase $9,373 ,,000. incertificate increase by $17,482,000,000 after the dollar amendment increase $13 million $857,000,000. page 22, line 17, after the dollar amount insert increase, page 122 line 24, after the

dollar amount insert increase by $424,000. page 123, line 6 after the dollar amount insert increased by $266,000. page 123 line 13, after the dollar amount insert increased by $273,000. page 123, line 20, after the dollar amount insert increase $6 ,287,000,000 page 124, line 23, increase by $113,000. page 132, line 23, after the dollar amount reduce $402 million $--. mr. jones: there is $412 million for afghan soldiers. under title 9, $13 million

labeled incentive pay for american soldiers. this is a problem for our military. my amendment, which is supported by the veterans of foreign wars is very simple. all it does is move some incentive pay from afghan soldiers to american soldiers. last month, the department of defense published their review of military compensation, a report required by law every four years. the report concluded that our system of combat pay is broken. i quote, there is little correlation between exposure to danger and compensation pay. a recent article on the report by the marine corps times outlined how a navy captain assigned to bahrain received more than $1,000 a month while a marine, lance corp. tral patroling the streets in hellman province received much less in combat pay. that's not right.

if you compare the $412 million against the $13 million for our troops, the inequity is clear. it moves the incentive pay for the afghan soldiers to the american soldiers. this money should go to the junior enlisted service members facing the most risk in afghanistan. my amendment does not touch afghanistan base pay. that $450 million is still in the bill. it does not touch their pay for food. that $71 million is still there and doesn't touch their recruiting money either. it doesn't even touch the money we spent to host welcome home concerts for the afghan army when they return from deployment. that comes out of the information-operations fund. if anyone says this will hurt america's effort, i invite you to look at the number of this

number, the afghan security forces are well funded. and mr. speaker, with that, i will reserve -- i can't reserve. i hope that this amendment will be accepted. and i will at that time yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks time? the gentleman from florida. mr. young: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: i do not object to what the gentleman is trying to do, although i would have to be very honest and his amendment does not accomplish what he thinks it would accomplish. we are ok to transfer the money and won't reject the amendment, but this is controlled by law, this isn't by appropriations. this is controlled by the national defense authorization act, not by the appropriations bill. while i understand what the

gentleman wants to do, but this won't do it. but i won't object to it. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 121, line 17, military personnel navy, $870 ,000 425,000. $1 billion. military personnel air force, $1 billion. reserve personnel army $156, 893,000 reserve personnel navy $39,335,000,000. reserve personnel marine corporation, $25,438,000,000.

national guard personnel air force $10473,000. operation and maintainance army $26,682,43,,000 operation and maintainance navy including transfer of funds $5,580,593,000 operation and maintainance marine corporation $ 9,136,236,000 operation and maintainance defense-wide -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 3

printed in the congressional record offered by mr. poe of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. poe: my amendment cuts $1.3 billion in this bill that is going to afghanistan as stated in the report language of this bill. afghanistan is the benedict arnold in the list of countries that we call allies and have proven to be deceptive and deceitful to the united states and here is some of the evidence. pakistan closed down the southern supply route. it transported 40% of all nature oove supplies into the country and into afghanistan. pakistan still refuses to go after the terrorist sank you takers in the tribal areas. terrorist groups like the pakistani taliban and al qaeda frequently cross over into afghanistan, kill our troops and then run back into pakistan and

hide where our troops cannot follow them. on may 23, 2012, pakistan sent the doctor that helped the united states get osama bin laden to 33 years in prison. i thought getting the world's number one terrorist, the terrorist that killed thousands of americans was a good thing. but apparently pakistan prosecuted him. in february, 2012, nato report confirmed our suspicion. the i.s.i. is aiding the taliban and other extremeist groups in afghanistan and pakistan by providing resources, sanctuary and training. in june, 2011, making i.e.d.'s not once but twice after we told them where the bomb-making factories were and asked pakistan to go after them. in 2011, pakistan tried to cheat the united states by billing out bogus reimbursement claims for

allegedly going after militants when they weren't doing that at all. there is more, september 11, 2011, admiral mullen testified before the senate armed services committee that, quote, with i.s.i. support our operatetives planned and conducted that truck bomb attack as well as our embassy. the truck bombing wounded 70 u.s. troops. he said the haqqani network acts as an arm of the pakistan's intelligence agency. what more do we need to hear? pakistan doesn't deserve american money. by the end of fiscal year, 2011, pakistan has 21.5 billion of american money since f.y. 2002. has america received its money's worth?

the answer is no. i want to address a couple of arguments i have heard from the other side. first some say the money in this bill for pakistan is only to reimburse them for going after terrorists. they say we shouldn't take away that carrot. but since 2002, congress has already appropriated over $8 billion to the coalition support fund specifically for pakistan. and where i come from, if you try something that doesn't work, you don't continue to do it. we have been doing the same thing for over 10 years and it's time for a new strategy. more money isn't going to solve the problem. second, they say pakistan just reopened the southern supply route. pakistan closed it from november , 2011 to this month. pakistan was a bad ally before they closed the supply route. it adds to the long list of evidence that shows they are no friend of ours. it also shows we don't need them to win the war in afghanistan. we were able to pursue our

mission in afghanistan without them. what really endanger our troops is not access to the southern supply route, but failure to get access through pakistan's tribal areas where pakistan gives terrorist a safe haven. pakistan is playing america. the only thing pakistan's military rulers understand is dollars and as long as we keep the money flowing they have no incentive to change their evil ways. our message should be this, pakistan has a raging insurgency in their country with al qaeda. pakistan, taliban and the haqqani network. pakistan can either receive assistance and go after these terrorists with us or don't take any of our money and we'll find our own way to take these terrorists out. i urge my colleagues to join me in telling pakistan they will no longer get american money. we don't need to pay pakistan to betray us. they will do it if for free. i yield back. the chair:heemanields his time.

the gentlefrom frida. me toung: i last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: i agree with everything mr. poe said. you cannot have an ally who is an ally today, but not an ally tomorrow, and that has been our experience with pakistan. the defense department will tell you it's very complicated because that they enjoy a nuclear capability that could be dangerous if it got in the wrong hands. i would ask mr. poe a question and i would yield to him for an answer, but your amendment is not limited to pakistan. your amendment would go across the board and reduce money for jordan, who is one of our most important partners in the

coalition in the region, funding for the northern distribution network and numerous other coalition partners who are helping in the fight against terrorism. i wonder if we could talk you into amending your amendment to make it specifically to pakistan. and let me say this to you before you answer and i'll yield to you. in this bill, the money to pakistan can't be spent unless -- cannot be spent. and the secretary of defense with the concurrence of the secretary of state certifies to congress that the government of pakistan is -- cooperating with the united states in counterterrorism efforts including taking steps to end support for terrorist groups and prevent them from basing and operating in pakistan and carrying out crossborder

attacks. pakistan supporting terrorist activities against the united states or coalition forces in afghanistan. pakistan dismantling i.e.d. networks and interdicting precursor chemicals usually used in making i.e.d.'s. preventing the proliferation -- there are four or five and i won't take the time. i don't want to have an adverse effect on our coalition partners that we rely on so much and i would yield. . mr. poe: the report language, to specify a certain country would not be used in in order. that's why i used the 1.3 with the floor statement that applies only to pakistan and none of our coalition countries that you have mentioned. so i am open to an amendment that would be ruled in order and i'd be glad to work with the chairman on that amendment.

mr. young: we would probably have to take a few minutes to do that. which i would be really happy to do because wyou want to do, i want to do the same thing. so if we could get -- let me inquiry, where are we in this bill so, that we can have an opportunity to -- bill, so that we can have an opportunity to amend this amendment and still not get beyond the point of reading? the chair: the reading has progressed to page 125. mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent for another two minutes. mr. young: would the gentleman be willing to do just that? withdraw your amendment now and let us take a few minutes and guarantee you that these coalition partners are not included? mr. poe: yes, i would be

certainly willing to do that. so i will withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection, -- mr. young: i thank the gentleman very much. the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 127, line 3, operation and maintenance, army reserve, $152,387,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will read the amendment. the clerk: increase by $5,500,000. page 128, line 1 1, after the dollar amount insert the following, increase by $10 million. page 129, line 4, after the dollar amount insert the following, reduced by $18,500,000. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. altmire: mr. chairman, i

rise to offer an amendment that will restore $15.5 million that was cut from the yellow ribbon program under this bill. while i understand the tough budget constraints we face, i think we can all agree that programs that provide essential services to the brave men and women who risk their lives to serve our country should not be on the chopping block. simply put, no one should stand ahead of our nation's veterans and our member and women in uniform -- men and women in uniform when it comes to making federal funding decisions. congress established the yellow ribbon program in 2008 to provide tailored support to meet the unique needs of the national guard and reserve combat veterans and their families before, during and after their deployments. the services it provide includes suicide prevention, career counseling, access to health care, veteran and education benefits. and last year alone, the yellow

ribbon program held over 2,100 events across the country reaching over 300,000 service men and women and their families. as a number of returning national guard and reserve combat veterans increases, the need for these services increases along with it. my amendment will help to ensure the yellow ribbon program is there to meet the increasing need. my amendment simply restores funding for the yellow ribbon program to its level from the previous year, fiscal year 2012, paid for by transferring funds from the overseas contingency operations transfer account. the $15.5 million returned to the yellow ribbon program represents only 1/2 of 1% of this account. while i recognize its importance, i think a small part of the funding can and should be used to help our national guard and reserve veterans and their

families navigate through the challenges associated with their deployment. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does any member seek time in opposition? for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: mr. chairman, i rise to support this amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: the yellow ribbon program is really a really great program and the gentleman has made the case very powerfully and i am in support of what he's trying to do so i support the amendment. mr. dicks: we gladly support it. mr. young: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment. the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ace have it -- ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 127, line 10, operation and maintenance, navy reserve, $55,924,000. operation and maintenance, marine corps reserve, $25,477,000. operation and maintenance, air force reserve, $120,680 -- $120,618,000. army national guard, operation and maintenance, air national guard, $34,500,000. overseas contingency operations transfer fund, including transfer of funds, $3,250,000,000. afghan infrastructure fund, including transfer of funds, $375 million to remain available

until september 30, 2014. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island. page 130, line 14, after the dollaran amount insert, reduce by $375 million. page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $375 million. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for five minutes. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in opposition to the continued appropriation of hundreds of millions of dollars to the afghanistan infrastructure fund while our national infrastructure is crumbling right here in america. president obama's laid out a broad vision for completing our work in afghanistan, turning security responsibilities over to the afghan people and bringing our troops home. now is the time to focus our resources here in the united states, on our own roads, bridges, schools and infrastructure.

we have already spent billions of dollars toward rebuilding the infrastructure of afghanistan. as we begin drawing down combat operations in afghanistan, it's the responsibility of the afghan people to build, operate and maintain their own civilian and military institutions in their -- and their own infrastructure. my amendment which i offer along with congressman honda, the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez, and the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, would strike the funding to the afghanistan infrastructure fund and apply the savings to the spending reduction account. established by congress in the fiscal year 2011 national defense authorization, in its first year the afghanistan infrastructure fund received an appropriation of $400 million. these funds have been dedicated to projects that are jointly approved by the department of state and the department of defense and the projects include power generation and transmission, roads and construction and other large infrastructure projects. according to the april, 2012, report by the special inspector

general for afghanistan reconstruction, from fiscal year 2002 through the end of march in fiscal year 2012, the united states appropriated approximately $89.4 billion for relief and reconstruction in afghanistan. approximately $800 million has been provided thus far for the afghanistan infrastructure fund. as the nonpartisan congressional research service indicates, from 2012 to 2010, the u.s. agency for international development allocated more than $2 billion towards road construction and more than $1.2 billion toward electric power in afghanistan. while we spent billions of dollars in infrastructure in afghanistan, we've also seen reports from the government accountability office and others that have highlighted the challenges in accounting for how construction funds are spent and the overall impact these are having on the society there. and yet according to a 2011 report by the american society of civil engineers, the cost of

our crumbling infrastructure right here in america is real. by the year 2020 our nation's crumbling surface transportation infrastructure is slated to cost the united states economy more than $876 -- 876,000 jobs and suppress the growth of the country's gross domestic product by $897 billion by 2020. these costs are only going to increase more and more if we don't take action to make the much-needed and long deferred investments in our own transportation systems and our own infrastructure. when we look at the bigger picture including water and wastewater, energy, schools, ports and more, the american society of civil engineers zimented that over the next five years -- estimated that over the next five years we'd need an investment of $2.2 trillion just to bring our nation's infrastructure to a condition they describe as good. every year that we wait to take meaningful steps to do this, the cost to taxpayers and to our economy keeps growing and growing and growing. over the past 18 months, constituents have expressed to

me tremendous frustration that we're devoting so much of our resources and energy to rebuilding the infrastructure in afghanistan. they ask why are we dedicating so much to nation building halfway around the world when there's so many families right here in our own country who are struggling to find work and make ends meet? we need to do nation building right here at home in america. this amendment is a strong step in support of reinvesting in our own economy, our own infrastructure, right here at home. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, this gets to be a very serious issue, if we want to get our troops out of afghanistan. at numerous hearings with general adam, who commands in

afghanistan, general mattis, general of central command, this was their recommendation. this is what they said they needed in order to get us and get our troops out of afghanistan. which i think we all want to see happen as quickly as possible. certainly i can tell you that i do. we did not fund it totally because some of the plans were not sufficient or sufficiently considered. but generally this is what our commanders in the field, those responsible for fighting the fight, those responsible for leading our troops, this is what they tell us they need to get our troops out of afghanistan. and so i do object and oppose this 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 rhode island. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. cicilline: i ask for the yeas and nays, mr. chairman. a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman requests a recorded vote? mr. cicilline: yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. page 130, line 14, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $175 million. page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount insert, increased by $175 million. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, sir. i'm not going to repeat some of the arguments that were made by my colleague from rhode island, but i understand them. there's indeed a large need for infrastructure in our country. we're falling far behind. and we've invested a lot of money in afghanistan that has

been wasted. a tremendous amount of money has been wasted. the most recent report i saw said we cannot even begin to proximate how much money has been stolen and wasted in afghanistan. we're not providing infrastructure for the people, we're providing a ruling class, a limited -- we talk about the 2% here, we're talking about the .1% in afghanistan, if that. and giving them the opportunity to put money in their pocket that should be going to the people. but i ask the gentleman on the other side of the aisle, who opposed the last amendment, to consider this one. which almost passed last year, same base amendment. this takes -- basic amendment. this leaves $200 million in the fund, but it says they've got to prioritize. pick their projects. and pick what they do. it doesn't decimate the fund, it just prioritizes and takes $175 million out of the afghan

infrastructure fund. we rebuilt iraq, their partners with iran now. didn't do us a lot of good. most of us have been to after depan stan, or many of us have, we could do all the infrastructure in the world and they can't maintain it. they don't have vehicles to use on the roads. it's crazy to fill the roads when they don't have car, they have oxes and carts. i say we reduce it by $175 million and leave $200 million. i went and visited with 124 soldiers who were in memphis, visited with them yesterday morning, all police people. i suspect one of those people may not come back. i hated the idea that those people were leaving memphis to go to afghanistan. it will be the last troops

going over. i want them out. mr. young understands, i guess, there's some magic to this money, there'll be $200 million left, if it's roads to get them out or airports to get them out, fine, but i have to submit that i think a lot of that money is for roads, hospitals, grids, that hasing in to do with our troops getting out but is a policy that's failed to build up good will toward america or to see that the moneys go where they belong. i ask that we think of america first, get our troops out, we leave $200 million in the fund, we approve this amendment and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i thank the speak for the time and yield back the balance thereof. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i rise to oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: i say to the sporn they have -- of the amendment,s

that more reasonable approach, yes, it is, but it cuts the fund in half. that's a major cut. on something our military commanders in the field say they really need to have. the committee took a $25 million cut but that was in agreement with the commanders. they felt they could observe -- absorb that cut and still do the program. but i don't think i can support cutting this program in half. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. young: of course. >> why are these funds needed to get our troops out? do we not have airplanes and roads and boats to get our folks out? mr. young: we're having a little trouble hearing.

mr. cohen: you said these funds are needed to get our troops out are we building runways to get them out, roads to get our troops out? mr. young: let me respond, reclaiming my time. i want our troops out of the -- out of afghanistan as soon as our military commanders advise us and the president that we can do so and do so safely. on my weekly visits to the walter reed bethesda hospital i have seen the terrible, terrible tragic cost of this what. -- of this war. that doesn't even talk about those who have lost their lives. i don't want any -- i don't want to walk through that hospital and see any more quadrubele or triple pupil tees. i don't want to see that. i want our military commanders -- our military commanders must make that decision. we are not in position to make that decision of how, when,

where d we accomplish this departure from afghanistan with victory. i still have to express my objection to this amendment because it cuts the funds that our military commanders tell us they need, it cuts it in half. and so i oppose the amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. mr. cohen: i request the yeas and nays, the roll call version of voting, the traditional way we show our colors on the board. the chair: a roll call vote is requested. further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise in support of an amendment offered by

congressman poe which i understand may well be re-bro deuced once the wording is worked on a little bit by the end of this discussion. let me just, then, move forward with my support for judge poe's amendment, the basic concept he's presented, which is to eliminate funding for pakistan and basically we need to end the charade once and for all that we are buying pakistani cooperation against terrorist forces in south asia. pakistan isn't with us in the war against terrorism. they are at war with us by supporting and funding the very terrorists that we are up against. pakistan, at best is a war profiteer, collecting ransom by taxing our military supply lines that pass through their country. they are laughing, they are laughing all the way to the bank.

they are also laughing as their military intelligence, the i.s.i., takes huge sums of money that they are getting from us and then passing it on to terrorists and radical islam cysts who are killing their neighbors and killing american military personnel. after our seals went to get osama bin laden, the pakistani military took the wreck aling of our towned stealth helicopter and gave it for study to the communist chinese. then, they arrested and imprisoned the pakistani doctor who risked his life to help us find bin laden. doctor afriddi still languishes in a pakistani dungeon as we speak here today. some of us understand that this pakistani doctor, and i hope we all should understand this, that this pakistani doctor is an american hero he risked his life to bring justice to the

murderers of 3,000 americans who died on 9/11. it is a shame that we even consider giving pakistan aid, billions of dollars of aid, while he -- while they keep the doctor in a dungeon. who else will ever cooperate with us in the future? who is going to work with our military overseas, knowing that's the way we treat people who have committed hoe he roik acts. we shouldn't give the pakistanis one penny until the doctor is freed. recently, i was contacted by a distraught individual in pakistan, asking for help in locating a missing leading. sadly this leader is probably already dead, another victim of the pakistani government's kill and dump policy in which they repress their own people. we have to understand, we have lost over 2,000 american military personnel in

afghanistan, but who has been supporting the side that have been killing our people? the pakistanis have inspired and supported these very insurgents, they were the creators of the taliban and after 9/11 they have played us for fools ever since. yesterday this house passed a bill that pakistani's network should be listed as a terrorist organization. that terrorist organization has been helped and supplied by some members of the pakistani military. we should have quit bankrolling this rotten regime a long time ago. we should end the charade. there are people in southeast asia, south asia, i should say, that are our friends. due to the cold war, we ja lie -- allied ourselves with pakistan a long time ago and were told they were the bulwark against radical islam. but we needed them in the fight against the soviet union. the cold war is over. we should ally ourselves with people who share our values and

cherish, as we cherish them, a friendship between free people. as i say, we should go toward india, now that the cold war is over, to help us salvage a new type of relationship in south asia to preserve the peace and preserve the equilibrium in that part of the world. it is ridiculous for us to continue to support that country that government, that is the basis of support for the most radical people, they are killing our people and killing their people throughout the world. if we're having trouble getting out of afghanistan, it's pause the -- because the pakistanis are on the wrong side. we shouldn't give another penny thinking we're going to buy their friendship. they disdain us for it, they think we're weaklings for it. stand up for the doctor and stand up and be courageous in what we're doing in our policy

and not try to curry favor with gangsters who run a country like that. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire the clerk will read. the clerk: page 132, line 21, after an -- afghanistan security forces fund, $5,105, 200,000 to remain available until september 2013. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman ride? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: after the dollar amount, insert increased by $10 million. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to offer an amendment with my good friend from washington, mr. mcdermott, to provide greating funding for suicide preventionout -- outreach for our troops on active duty.

it would add $10 million for suicide pretchings and pay for it by transferring $22 million from the afghanistan security forces fund. this amendment is fully paid for, fiscally responsible and incredibly timely. this is the most recent issue of "time" magazine, reporting that military and veteran suicide is a tragic epidemic that has only gotten worse. we're currently losing one u.s. soldier every day to suicide and i know my colleague, dr. mcdermott, comes to this issue as an expert in the field. i come as a vietnam veteran and someone very passionate about providing heroes with the care and support they deserve. in 2007, the veteran suicide prevention act honored a young veteran from iowa who tragically took his life in front of his mother. to make sure veterans have 24/7

access to crisis hotline and mental health resources we passed that bill. since then, the veterans' crisis hotline has answered more than 600,000 calls and reportedly made more than 21,000 life-saving rescues. tragically, we still lose a veteran every day to suicide. i hope you will join me in supporting this amendment. we are losing too many of the -- of the heroes. it's up to us to act. with that, i yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott. mr. mcdermott: thank you, mr. boswell. we saw the vietnam war in different way he by flying a helicopter, me being a psychiatrist dealing with people who came home. i feel strongly that suicide

prevention and the internegligence that -- and the intervention that must become in military speak a core mission of the military this week's "time" magazine, as you see from that front page, describes military suicides as an epidemic. i would like to take $10 million out of a $19 billion fund in this amendment to go beyond the funding for existing suicide prevention services and toward modifying the culture that keeps some from seeking help. we must also note that any progress in suicide prevention will be fleeting if we don't focus on reducing the stigma associated with seeking psychological health services among our active duty people. i believe the pentagon can do more to eradicate the barriers to mental health care. that means ensuring that mental

health and substance abuse issues are treated as medical issues and are taken out of the rem of personnel matters. this means ensuring that seeking and receiving psychological health care does nothing to jeopardize a soldier's security clearance or prospects in his future career. i would also urge the pentagon to ensure that a portion of this money goes toward hiring and developing and retention of top-tier psychological mental health for our military at this time. it is the tale of cost of this war that nobody calculates when we go to war. what do we do when the people come home? we forget them. we think they should pull themselves together and go back to their regular life and many of them can't do it without some help. we need to provide it, they become desperate, figure there's no hope and take their

own life. that shouldn't happen to a 24-year-old kid, man or woman, who has been in afghanistan or iraq, giving to our country what we asked from them. their willingness to risk the whole business of going to war has to be dealt with when they come home. i yield back the balance of my time to mr. boswell. mr. boswell: we yield back and ask for everyone's support. the chair: the gentleman from iowa yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: i rise in support of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: i have opposed similar amendments in the past because of the source of the funding. the defensewide accounts, we we cannot afford to cut into our readiness accounts, this does not take funding from that account. and so i appreciate the gentleman's changing the source of his amendment and i'm

agreeing to the amendment. yes, of course. >> i just want to thank you again for your attention and dedication to this cause, mr. chairman. for years, you've worked together to do the right thing. thank you very much. mr. dicks: i want to commend the gentleman for his efforts here and my colleague from washington state, who i know has a concern about this, as i do. this is a tragedy. more people are dying from suicide than are in combat. and i know the army has tried, a general made an enormous effort to try to find the answers, and it's a serious, difficult problem and a lot of it relies on trying to deal with these

people before they go over. so that they can find the ones that are going to be susceptible , that have problems going in. and it's just a very difficult problem. and i commend the gentleman for his leadership on this. i yield back. mr. young: i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered a -- offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 134, line 7, procurement, aircraft procurement, army, $541,600,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015. missile procurement, army, $49,653,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015. procurement of weapons and tract combat vehicles, army,

$15,422,000 to remain available until september 30, twist. -- 2015. procurement of ammunition, army, $338,493,000 to remain available until september 30, 20 is a 15. other procure -- 2015. other procurement, army, $2,005,900,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015. aircraft procurement, navy, $146,277,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015. weapons procurement, navy, $22,500,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015. procurement of ammunition, navy and marine corps, $284,450,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015. other procurement, navy,

$98,882,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015. procurement, marine corps, $943,683,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015. aircraft procurement, air force, $305,600,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015. missile procurement, air force, 34,350,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015. procurement of ammunition, air force, 116,203,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015. other procurement, air force, $2,785,170,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015.

procurement, defensewide, $217,849,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015. research, development, test and evaluation, research, development, test and evaluation, army, $14,860,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015 -- 2014. research, development, test and evaluation, navy, $60,119,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. research, development, test and evaluation, air force, $53,150,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. research, development, test and evaluation, defensewide, $107,387,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. revolving and management funds,

defense working capital funds, $293,600,000. other department of defense programs, defense health program, $993,898,000 which shall be for operation and maintenance to remain available until september 30, 2014. drug interdiction and counterdrug activities, defense, $469,025,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. joint improvised explosive devices fund, $1,614,900,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm here to offer an amendment to strike $120.5 million in undistributed funds from the joint improvised explosive device defeat fund. i have an amendment at the desk,

excuse me. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. speier of california. page 142, line 6, after the dollar amount insert, reduced by $120 million -- $120,500,000. page 153, line 15, after the dollar amount insert, increased by $120,500,000. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. speier: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm here to offer an amendment to strike $120.5 million in undistributed funds from the joint improvised explosive device defeat fund matching the senate authorizers and keeping in tact over $1.7 billion for this program. the joint improvised explosive device defeat fund, more commonly known as jiedd, is to defeat i.e.d.'s. more than $20 billion, congress

has received numerous reports that it has decidedly mixed outcomes. and after three attempts still has not developed the mechanism for tracking the pentagon's counteri.e.d. efforts. so we've -- counter-i.e.d. efforts. so we've spent $20 billion. the armed services committee cut $200 million. in their report they said it suffered from, quote, duplication of effort with the military services, excessive contractor support costs and an organizational inefficiencies, unquote. as "the washington post" recently reported, these excessive contractor support costs included noncompetitive contracts given to former government employees, profitting from washington's perpetual revolving door, and hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts being subcontracted out to other former military personnel. isn't this what our constituents dist disease like the most about -- disease like the most about what's going -- dislike the most

about what's going on here? that there are cronyism activities, that there are revolving doors, that military personnel after they retire become mentors? this bill also recognizes there's a problem here. the bill itself has actually reduced their budget by $60 million. the i.e. it -- i.e.d. threat remains significant but continues to robustly invest in counter-i.e.d. technology makes less sense, both tactically and strategically. from a tactical level, pentagon statistics show that i.e.d.'s were 25% less effective this year than the year before. strategically we are shifting away from ground wars and counteru.s. is missions -- counterinsurgency missions and must begin reallocating these funds. in february the g.a.o. told congress that jieddo's poor planning and management resulted in many funds going to duplicative projects, creating waste and likely slowing down the ability of the department of defense to meet its mission objectives.

for example, in 2008 the u.s. central command began development for a directed energy solution to the -- to defeating i.e.d.'s. jieddo undertook six different efforts to tackle the problem which cost taxpayers at least $1 04 million. when the commander of the u.s. central command still didn't have a solution by august, 2011, he had to write jieddo to urge them to coordinate their efforts in hoping of getting something he could fulfill what was a 3-year-old unmet requirement for the war fighters. jieddo coordinated the effort for these six promings but deferred in making decisions of shifting resources or canceling the project. the organization also admitted that they likely would not have been able to execute their mission to manage the pentagon's i.e.d. efforts without the commander's written protest. some soldiers in the field have also expressed disappointment at jieddo's results.

a marine that served in afghanistan in 2009 compared the i.e.d. detecting device issued by jieddo to a beach comber's faulty metal detector and said his i. determine. -- i.e.d. jammers were frequently broke. others report that dogs remain more reliable defecters -- detectors down range. it's time to stop signing a blank check for an organization that cannot track its projects or expenditures, that often gives contracts to its cronies and that the g.a.o. has said is duplicative. as we draw down in afghanistan and look to cut funds for much more productive and efficient parts of the federal budget, i urge you to support these cuts of an inefficient organization that lacks the management controls to prevent taxpayer dollars from being wasted and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, the joint i.e.d. defeat fund, we recognize

we're still a nation at war. the young men and women who come back from war, and god forbid some come back having paid the ultimate sacrifice, but many come back with an unbelievable wound. mr. frelinghuysen: double amputees, loss of different limbs. this joint i.e.d. task force has done a lot to minimize that possibility. the committee did recognize, and as the gentlewoman mentioned, we did reduce spending in this fund by $70 million. but we're a nation at war, they still have a critical mission, and it's important that the work that they continue to do to defeat sometimes the simplest i.e.d.'s and sometimes the most complex i.e.d.'s continue. it's an investment that we need to make to make sure that, as we finish our job in afghanistan, that we do our level best to

protect our troops, those who are volunteering there, and to bring them back home in one piece. so we oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not adopted. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 143, line 6, office of the inspectacular -- inspector general, $10,766,000. general provisions, this title, section 9001, funds made available in this title are in addition to amounts appropriated for the department of defense for fiscal year 2013. section 9002, including transfer of funds, upon the determination of the secretary that such action is necessary in the national interest the secretary

may with the approval of the office of management and budget transfer up to $3 billion between the appropriations or funds made available to the department. section 9003, supervision and administration costs associated with a construction project provided in this act may be obligated at the time a construction contract is awarded. section 9004, the funds made available, the secretary may purchase passenger motor vehicles up to a limit of $75,000 per vehicle. section 9005, not to commeed $250 million may be used to fund the commander's emergency response program for the purpose of enabling military commanders in afghanistan to respond to urgent, small-scale ewe mantarian relief and reconstruction -- humanitarian relief and reconstruction requirements within their areas of responsibility. section 9006, funds made available for operation and

maintenance may be used to provide supplies and other logistical support to forces supporting coalition forces in afghanistan. section 9007, none of the funds shall be obligated or expended for the united states government for a purpose as follows, to establish a military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of the united states armed forces in iraq. section 9008, none of the funds may be used in contravention of the following laws enacted to implement the united nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. section 2348-a of title 18 of united states code. section 9009, none of the funds may be obligated prior to approval of the oversight council of the department. section 9010, funds made available for operation and maintenance may be used to purr

chance items having an investment unit cost of not more than $250,000. section 9011, $88 million under the heading operation and maintenance, army, may be obligated for the purposes of the task force for business and stability operations. section 9012, under the heading operation and maintenance, air force, up to $508 million. section 9013, available of -- availability of funds. each amount designated by the congress for the overseas contingent war on terrorism shall only be a available if the president designates all such amounts. section, rescissions, funds are rescinded. section 9015, none of the funds under the heading operation and maintenance, defense-wide may be made available unless the secretary certifies to the

committees that the government of pakistan is cooperating with the united states in counterterrorism efforts. title 10. additional general provisions. spend regular ducks account. section 10001, the amount by which the ap apublicable allocation of new budget authority made by the committee on appropriations is $0. >> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. free ling hughesen we have reached the end of the reading and -- mr. frelinghuysen: we have

reached the end of the reading and i urge members with amendments to come forward. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman -- for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i rise to enter into a colloquy with the chairman. the chair: does the gentleman move to strike the last word? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i share the concerns of many members of the house that represent army depots, i ask for unanimous consent to submit the following letter for the record that fully addresses our concerns. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered by general leave. >> i thank the speaker.

mr. shuster: after further analysis and adal -- additional feedback provided by the army, we feel these cuts could have a lasting negative impact on the organic industrial base. it is my understanding that the house appropriations me agrees these current general provisions should be modified and is already developing an alternative plan. as a member of the house armed services committee, i look forward to working with the chairman to address these concerns and ensure we provide adequate funding for depots and arsenals. i know we are in favor of strong, capable organic industrial base and the critical role our depee -- depots and arsenals play in maintaining that. at this time, i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from iowa, mr. loebsack. the chair: the gentleman may not yield a clock time.

mr. shuster: i yield my time to the gentleman from iowa. mr. loebsack: thank you. i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania. our depots and arsenals are critical to our security and our ability to rapidly equip our soldiers. in 2003, our arsenal produced 5,000 humvee add-on armor kits within three months of receiving the order. we must strengthen our arsenals and depots to produce equipment that is vitally needed by men and women in uniform. i'm strongly concerned that the effects of the bill's reductions will be felt beyond 2013 and across the organic industrial base. i appreciate the chairman's willingness to working with us. i look forward to collaborating with him in support of our arsenals and depots and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i thank the gentleman from iowa.

the gentleman from texas who is not here on the floor, i'd like to talk about his situation down at the corpus christi army depot, an industry leader of repair and overhaul for our aviation helicopters, employing over 6,000 civilians, 56% are veterans. without ccad, the army would be unable to sustain maximum combat power for the war fighter. further the depot's stewardship of taxpayer dollars is evident in the cost effective overhaul and repair of rotary systems. in 2011, a record production year, more than $47,000 in cost savings with us documented at the ccad. with unmanned aircraft systems flying in record numbers, their work has become invaluable to the aircraft to remain air worthy. i am concerned that any lapse in production of the uh-60 blackhawk would have a negative

impact on supporting programs and major contracts. i know the gentleman from texas looks forward to working with the chairman as i do -- as do i and other member os they have house that represent arsenals and depots and the house appropriations committee as this bill moves forward to conference. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word and continue to colloquy with the gentleman from pennsylvania. i thank the -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentlemen for their meants and we share in their support of a strong, organic industrial base and a strong, ready military. we are pleased to work closely with members of the army depot and arsenal delegation throughout the conference proceedings to ensure their concerns are fully addressed and the necessary adjustments to dee pe -- depot and arsenal funding are made.

i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: will the gentlelady specify the amendment. ms. woolsey: my amendment is woolsey-041. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. woolsey of california, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the fol logue, section, the total amount of appropriations made available by this act is hereby reduced by $181 million. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, our nation's transportation infrastructure

is in terrible, terrible disrepair. more than ever, we need to be putting resources into transportation projects and into initiatives for that end. we need to upgrade and modernize our roads and highways. but we also need to build up mass transit systems, buses, rail lines, etc. doing so improves lives in our communities, allowing people to move around more freely and easily. and it also creates jobs. by recusing our dependency on automobile travel, this transportation is clean energy, efficient, and environmentally sensitive as well. luckily, we have a federal agency, the federal transit administration, or f.c.a., that exists to make exactly these investments. i'm proud to say that my home district has benefited from

f.t.a. grants of millions of dollars over the last few years. the smart train that connects the cities in my district is just one of the local projects that is putting f.t.a. money to good use. so in a -- so at a moment when our transportation needs are so great across the country, wouldn't it make sense to increase the f.t.a. budget? except that the house, expressing the priorities of its republican majority, recently passed a fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill that cut $181 million from current f.t.a. spending levels and at the same time, they're now presenting us with a different -- with -- excuse me work a department of defense spending bill that calls for $1.1 billion more in military spending over current levels.

why are we all being asked to tighten our belts while the military-industrial complex gets to loosen theirs by a few notches year after year after year? if the federal budget crisis is so dire, mr. chairman so dire we can pinch pennies on badly needed infrastructure, surely we can do the same with a bloated pentagon budget that has been growing out of control for more than a decade now. and that's a simple concept we find behind my amendment. in the interest of fairness and shared sacrifice, i'm proposing a $181 million cut to the defense appropriations bill. identical to the reduction in f.t.a. spending passed by the house a few yeek -- a few weeks ago. i trust that all my republican colleagues, each one more fiscally responsible than the

next, will jump at this chance to further cut federal spending. with that, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. i'm the first to admit that defense should not be immune to reasonable deductions, which are what we've already done over the past few years. just two years ago, when congress considered the fiscal year 2011 defense budget, the department was planning on a fiscal year 2013 budget of roughly $562 billion. their actual request for 2013, however, was only $516 billion. $46 billion less. in fact, the past two fiscal years, our committee has produced defense budgets