made threats of terror activities, or engaged in atrocious human rights violations. none of these organizations are particularly friendly to the united states and each of them harbor hate towards our friend and ally, israel. further, i know that some make the argument that sometimes foreign aid eases diplomatic relations and certain entities. while i do not discount them, i do not believe that the united states should be disbursing any funding to any entity that promotes terror and violence, to that i say trust is a series of promises kept and that we need to start with upholding good behavior and that is by honoring previous promises. . this amendment is almost exactly the same as the one i offered to the last d.o.d. appropriations bill, except this has included damascus due todd regime's atrocities of late. i ask my colleagues to give my

revised amendment the same unanimous approval as last time. in the many -- in the words of the old american adaniel, we to not negotiate with terrorists. i thank the chairman and the committee for their work. i yield to the gentleman. mr. young: i would like to say that our side of the committee -- endorses your amendment. mr. gosar: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adepreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wish to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minute. >> today is my one-year

anniversary of being sworn in to this congress. it's hard to believe it's been a year. ms. bass: one of the things i came to do was -- ms. hahn: one of the things i came to do was end the war in afghanistan and iraq. as we look at operation enduring freedom, it's important to look at the staggering economic and other costs we have endured in this decade. we spent nearly $600 billion on the afghan war. this equates to an average of $8.8 billion a month, $2 billion a week, and nearly $300 million a day. with what it keep -- what it costs to keep the war going for a week, we could hire 45,000 more construction workers to help repair and build our own crumbling infrastructure. with what it costs to keep this war going for a month, we could

hire over 250,000 new teachers, nearly enough to hire back all the teachers and public school officials who have lost their jobs during this great recession. while these figures seem astounding, they don't begin to compare to the human toll that this war has taken on our active service members and military families. last october, on the weekend of the 10th anniversary of this war in afghanistan, i visited arlington west in california, an incredible memorial to the men and women who chied -- who died in iraq and afghanistan. it's truly a moving experience, walking thru row after row of crosses in the sand at santa monica beach. as of today, 2,041 u.s. soldiers have been killed in afghanistan and over 12,000 have been wounded. while many of us talk about these figures here on the house floor, i know many of us have even more personal experiences with families who have suffered

loss or illnesses or injuries of their loved ones. fortunately, i've been to walter reid twice -- unfortunately, i've been to walter reid twice in the last six months and seen the sacrifices we're asking these young men and women to bear. i think all of us should take the time to walk the halls of walter reid and see the full cost this has taken my own cousin a young man of 26, was only in afghanistan six months when he was shot in the leg. it's unclear if he'll get full recovery of his leg. i visited one of my former employees, whose son ben was in afghanistan, re-enlisted three times to go back. unfortunately, this last time, he has lost now both of his legs. his future, his family's future, has changed forever. you know when you walk the halls at walter reed, you're

made to remember the mothers bearing the crosses of their children, armed with only the memory of the love and lost and the yaw neek responsibility we have to the men and women who are still here. you're reminded of the struggle shared by the family, the mothers, the fathers, the sisters, the brothers, the sons an daughters of these veterans who bear the seen and unseen scars of four, five, even six tours of duty. these scars are most evident in the recent news that 154 active duty service members have committed suicide in the first 150 days of this year. this is nearly one per day. a heartbreaking statistic that bring into stark relief the heartbreaking toll of nearly 11 years of war. we need to bring these troops home. that's why i support this amendment that provides for the safe and orderly withdrawal of

u.s. forces from afghanistan and to help bring this war to an end. a decade at war is too long. i want to thank congresswoman lee for raising this incredibly important issue and i urge my colleagues to support this effort and help bring the troops home. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. ms. lee: it's lee 140. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment by ms. lee of of california, at thened of the bill, before is the the short title insert the following, section -- ms. lee: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered read. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the reading is dispensed with. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. lee: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to be joined by my colleagues in offering aen a

optometry set pentagon spending levels from the 2008 financial year adjusted for inflation or at $500 billion. i'm offering this amendment for one simple reason. the bloletted pentagon budget must be address -- the bloated pentagon budget mub addressed if we are serious about solving our deficit. our real national security is about rebuilding our economy, it's time to use these tax dollars to create jobs here at home. it's time to rebuild america and also to provide for the health and economic security of our brave troops and the communities that they live in back here at home. even with the modest cut, and it's very modest, $19.2 billion, the pentagon base budget would still be, mind you, a half trillion dollars, excluding war funding from afghanistan far outpacing any other nation in defense spending. americans across the country -- country have been forced to cut back and many are barely able to make ends meet while pentagon spending has doubled

over the past decade. the united states spends as much on its military as the next 14 countries combined. and all but three of these are close allies. americans believe no federal agencies should be immune from cuts, including the pentagon. in fact, the average american would pursue a much larger cut of over $100 billion, according to a poll released earlier this week by the stimson center. some have argued that defense cuts will result in job losses. the pentagon quite frankly is not a jobs program. even if it were, defense spending creates fewer jobs per billion dollars spent than investing in other sectors, education, health care, clean energy, or even tax cuts. the bloated pentagon budget has been immune from oversight and scrutiny for too long. we couldn't even pass my amendment yesterday calling for an audit of the pentagon.

this really has resulted in unbalanced spending where nearly 60 cents of every discretionary dollar goes to the pentagon. if we are serious about addressing the deficit we must take reasonable steps to rein in pentagon spending. my amendment makes modest cuts to defense spending while protecting our active military personnel and retire yeses from misguiding -- and retirees from misguided efforts in spending by prohibiting the additional cuts from active duty and national guard accounts from the health program. not a single penny would come from active duty or national guard accounts or -- personnel accounts or from the health program. president truman said we should spent as much as necessary on defense, which we all agree with, but not a penny more.

at a time when severn facing budget cuts and tightening their belt the pentagon should not be immune from justifying its expenses. i'm proposing a very modest proposal, over the course of a decade, it would equal less than $200 billion. the bowles-simpson commission outlined $750 billion in suggested defense cuts in the next decade. president reagan's assistant secretary of defense has proposed $1 trillion in cuts to the pentagon over the next 10 to 12 years. as i said, the average american would cut 18% of the pentagon budget or a little over $100 billion. so finding $19 billion in savings for next year is a very modest first step after an unchecked decade of runaway pentagon spending. while many americans would support a larger cut, this is a common sense amendment to change the direction of pentagon spending toward a reasonable level aligned with actual threats to our national

security. i hope my colleagues, many of whom speak out here on the house floor frequently about the importance of addressing our deficit, will support this amendment. if we are really concerned for the deficit, vote for this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, this is another amendment that slashes large amounts from our eaverl national defense appropriations bill. i would say that this subcommittee is not adverse -- is not averse to reducing defense spending when we can do so without having an adverse effect on readiness or without having an adverse effect on our troops, their medical care, their family. i understand the gentlelady does protect some of those issues in her amendment.

but this committee is already -- has already proved that we are willing to cut defense. in the last two fiscal years, this subcommittee, on a bipartisan basis new york a bipartisan way, was able to reduce by $39 billion, and we did so very carefully, by looking at every account, every project, every place that we could find weakness in the spending, in the contracting. in programs about to be terminated. we can do that. but just an across-the-board cut is not smart. here's what could happen. we could actually, with this amendment, and this reduction, we could require that we reduce or cancel training for our troop returning home from the battlefield. or cancel navy training

exercises because they're running very tighten of funding already. or reduce air force flight training. or delay or cancel maintenance of aircraft, ships, and vehicles. all of this relates to readiness. to make sure that the men and women in the military are ready, that they're trained properly, that they have -- that they have the equipment and that the equipment is ready. now, an interesting -- something new here interesting for this year, c.b.o., everybody understands that c.b.o. is a nonpartisan, nonpolitical organization, have just issued their analysis of the department's future year defense programs. the fydp. and determined that department plans will cost $123 billion more than they actually project. which means what they say we will get for the money, we

won't get that for the money. so further cuts would make it very difficult to meet the requirements of the department of defense. the army and the navy. the marine corps and the air force. we doacht want to do that. we've done amendments similar to this amendment numerous times yesterday and i expect that we will again numerous times today. this is not a good amendment. and it's one that i would hope that the members would reject and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: i'm proud to co-sponsor this amendment offered by my friend from california. as she clearly stated, this amendment would cut $19.2 billion of pentagon spending and bring the overall spending down to $500 billion.

while at the same time protecting the troops and their medical needs. even with this cut, the $500 billion that remains amounts to a generous appropriation for the defense department. with this cut, the pentagon budget would still be greater than the next 10 countries' defense budgets combined. that's right, military spending from china, japan, germany, the u.k., russia, india, france, saudi arabia, and brazil, combined, would still trail our united states military pentagon budget. by hundreds of billions of dollars. i don't know how someone can stand here and say half a trillion dollars isn't enough. how many more native cold war weapons systems do we have? how many helicopters was unreliable -- with unreliable

mechanical systems do we need? how many fire jets causing pilot blackouts do we need? how many private defense contracts do we need to pay and overpay? at some point we have to say, enough is enough. it's time, mr. chairman, for a reality check. it's time to accept that we spend too much on our bloated defense budget. i mean, ask any other department or agency if they would make do with half a trillion dollars. i think we all know what that answer is. they'd be delighted. so i urge you all, vote yes, bring some sanity back to our budget. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. lee: mr. chairman, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings

on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. brooks of alabama. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following -- section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of defense or a component thereof to provide the government of the russian federation with any information about the missile defense systems of the united states that is classified by the department or components thereof. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. brooks: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank representative mike turner, chairman of the house armed services committee's strategic forces subcommittee, and representative trent franks, co-chair of the missile defense caucus, for their support of this amendment. this amendment prohibits the administration from using funds to share united states

classified missile defense information with russia. it is similar to an amendment which passed with bipartisan support in the house version of the fiscal year 2013 national defense authorization act. in light of recent statements by president obama that he wanted, quote, more space, end quote, from the russians in regards to missile defense and his statement that he would, quote, have more flexibility, end quote, on this issue after the elections, i am concerned, mr. speaker, that the united states critical hit to kill and other valuable missile defense technology may become pawns in a political chess game with apiecements with the russians. statement by nikolai mocorof, in order to strengthen our missile defense sites in europe, he threatened the use of military force against the united states declaring, quote, a decision to use destructive

force preemptively will be taken if the situation worsens. mr. chairman, if russia's defense staff is willing to blatantly threaten the united states, why should the united states hand them the keys to technology that gives america's war fighter a decided advantage? the danger to national security is obvious, but there is more to this picture. the congressional research service estimates the united states has spent approximately $153 billion on missile defense. a vast majority, roughly 90%, was hit on hit-to-kill technology. it makes no sense to spend $153 billion of taxpayers' money on advanced weaponry just to give it away. had amendment builds on a letter that had broad bipartisan support in the united states senate and was signed by 39 senators in april, 2011, expressing concern about giving the russians sensitive missile defense data and

technologies. these senators were concerned, as i am, that the white house must not use america's missile defense technologies as a bargaining chip in negotiation with russia. this amendment helps the united states lead the world in missile defense technologies, preserves investments of billions of dollars and ensures the viability of current and future missile defense technologies. mr. chairman, at this point i yield two minutes to my colleague and good friend, congressman turner, from the great state of ohio. the chair: the gentleman may yield but not specific amounts of time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. turner: thank you, mr. brooks, mr. chairman. i just want to point out the importance of this amendment and also reiterate that this amendment says that classified information about our missile defense system should not be allowed to be provided to the russians. we have two areas of concern. obviously, one, iran and their growing icbm threat to the

united states. the -- i previously wrote a letter asking specific information for the rising icbm threat with iran. i want this included in the record. we know the president is in current negotiations with the russians. we saw that in the open mike discussions the president was having in south korea where he said he wanted greater flexibility until after the election. some of that flexibility should not be disclosing classified information concerning our missile defense system to the russians. this amendment would tell the president, that secret deal better not be sharing classified information of the united states with the russians about our missile defense. i also want to enter into the record may 23, 2012, letter that i had sent to the president asking him to disclose the terms of the secret deal. mr. brooks' amendment is important because it says, mr. president, we will not allow you to exchange information of the united states. i yield back to mr. brooks. mr. brooks: i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: mr. chairman, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, this actually may be the most critical amendment that we will consider on this bill today. there should be no secret deals on our missile defense with the russian president or any other person involving the security of our own nation. this amendment precludes that. mr. brooks has pointed out extremely well. mr. turner has certainly made a strong case. but let me add, our national defense interests have got to be our interests, not somebody else's. our national defense investments must be made based on, what is the threat to our

nation. and dealing with missile defense, especially, the iranians have just shown a massive arsenal of missiles, short range, medium range and some long-range capability. those missiles would have the ability to target our troops, whatever they might be in the region -- in the persian gulf region. they could even reach to israel, one of our very best partners in coalition. we just can't let this happen. we can't let anyone make a secret deal with a russian president on missile defense. the threat is too great. the threat is growing, not only from iran but from north korea. the north koreans have invested a lot of time, a lot of money, a lot of technology in developing their missiles. and i don't suspect they are

for peaceful purposes, and we have to be always on guard that we protect americans and our interests and our troops, wherever they might be, from hostile attacks by somebody's missiles. so this is a critical amendment, and it is important that we have a very large vote and send a message we are not going to toy with the defense of our nation, especially missile defense. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: you know, frankly, we don't have any problem with this amendment. i would be very surprised if the administration would give any classified information to the russian government. now maybe the gentleman knows something i don't know, and i understand that there was an

inadvertent comment that -- suggesting that after the election there may be a better opportunity to work between the two governments. you know, those things are said at times. but i have no personal information that anyone is saying that we're going to give them this information. so i personally think it would be a mistake to give it to him unless it was declassified so the american people would know what the information was, but in this case, just to be sure, i am willing to go along with the gentleman's amendment. we have to be very careful here with classified information. there's no question about that. and there's been some concern expressed about classified information being released to the public which is -- is

another questionable activity. but i yield back my time and will support the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is -- the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? mr. castle: i rise for the purpose of -- ms. castor: i rise for the purpose of a colloquy and i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman strikes the last word and is recognized for five minutes. ms. castor: thank you very much. mr. chair, our military personnel have access to great health care through tricare, but in certain cases, and many would be surprised to learn this, tricare does not cover every health service, and this is -- comes in the place sometimes with children of

military families with special needs. there's also a circumstance when someone in the military is separating from the military but they don't have retirement benefits and their family, their children may not have access to health insurance. i ran into this in a case back home in tampa, florida, at mcdill air force base, not like many of our colleagues here who participate in forums for veterans and job fairs and the like, and the military health folks were -- they didn't know a lot about medicaid or the children's health insurance program, whether it applied to military families that they talk to all of the time or those families that are separating from the military and are no longer covered by tricare. so we tried to investigate this

with the pentagon a little bit, but they were not able to clarify anything for us. i've done a little research. there was one report entitled "medicaid's role in treating children in military families" and that report advised one in 12 children from military families rely on medicaid for some health service. and for children with special needs in the military families, one in nine. i was surprised to learn that, frankly. plus, we have many that have served in the military, have come back from iraq or afghanistan, they have a lot of questions about what it means for them finding a job, finding coverage for their family as they move on in their lives. so i had intended to offer an amendment that simply clarified the fact that nothing prohibits d.o.d. from providing that in , health fair or advising

military families that the medicaid coverage or the schip coverage could be an option, so i'd like to work with chairman young, the department of defense, ranking member dicks so that our military families don't have to worry about health coverage, whether they're in the military, they have children, children with special needs or they're separating from the military and they just simply need answers to questions about where they can turn. i'll reserve the balance of my time. or i yield to the chairman. mr. young: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i want to thank her for the attention and the hard work that she does to ensure that our military service members and their families have the very best information and resources regarding health care. that is only fair. one of our highest priorities has always been to take care of

the health of our men and women in uniform and their families. so i thank the gentlelady, again, my neighbor in florida, for her advocacy on this issue and guarantee that we will be very happy to work with her and the department to make sure that all relevant health care information is available to our service members, retirees and their families. i thank the gentlelady again. ms. castor: well, mr. chair, i thank the chairman. and this is especially meaningful coming from chairman young who has been -- no one has been more attentive to military families, our service members no matter what service, no matter their veteran status than mr. young, my colleague and friend from florida, and i thank the gentleman and yield back my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> i move to strike the requisite number of words and into a colloquy with the gentleman from florida. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. walden: i ask the gentleman if he'd be willing to enter into a colloquy. mr. young: i'd be happy to yield to my colleague, the very distinguished gentleman from oregon, mr. walden. mr. walden: thank you very much, mr. chairman. as chairman of the communications subcommittee, i've taken an interest in the use of our spectrum resources by federal and nonfederal users. spectrum is becoming an increasingly important as our nation's need for mobile communications grow. unfortunately, however, demand is quickly outpacing the supply of spectrum. the u.s. department of defense, the large user of spectrum, an efficient use of spectrum would therefore not only greatly benefit our country in terms of technological and economic development but also help our military conducting its critical mission. it's turned to ways that governmental and nongovernmental users might share spectrum to benefit both. it's come to my attention that the work of the department of

defense through research agency, the joint tactical radio system and other programs has been examining some of these sharing technologies, but with mixed results. it's my belief that congress would benefit greatly from a report on this research and i would suggest the department of defense draft such a report that the tails its work on cognitive radio, and any other spectrum sharing techniques around technologies. i would like to ask for your support, mr. chairman, and assistance in working with the department of defense to get additional information on the types of technologies under development and production, how much has been spent to date for these efforts as well. in addition, i believe that a clearer understanding of the efforts being pursued by the department of defense and the associated organizations for joint spectrum management development, what has been deployed and what future investments will achieve is important and should be pursued and we should fully understand what they're doing.

mr. young: if the gentleman would yield, i would say to him -- say to him that today spectrum is a commodity and the efficient management of that commodity is critical. i agree that understanding the department of defense's plans and budgets for research and development and deployment on these capabilities is critical. i look forward to working with mr. walden and the department of defense to understand the technologies and techniques being employed to improve government spectrum efficiencies. i thank the gentleman for raising this important issue. mr. walden: i thank the chairman for his work on not only this issue and working with us on this but also your terrific dedication in the country over the years especially in moving this legislation forward. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- gentlewoman from california rise? ms. lee: i have an amendment at the desk, lee 138.

the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. lee of california, at the end of the bill, before the short title -- ms. lee: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. lee: the lee-van hollen-smith amendment would limit the amount of defense spending under the budge control act of 2011 resulting in a $7.6 billion reduction in spending from the level authorized by the appropriations committee. this amendment is co-sponsored by my colleagues armed services ranking member adam smith, budget ranking member van hollen, johnson, nadler, polis, stark, welch, and woolsey, aamong others. as you know, mr. chairman, last year, congress passed the budget control act which put in place spending caps on discretionary spending. despite these statutory

limitations, the appropriations committee set overall military spending billions of dollars above what the pentagon requested or what was agreed to under the budget control act. a deal is a deal. while many of us did not support the discretionary caps under the budget control act, our amendment simply brings pentagon spending in line with the law. again, a deal is a deal. it does this while protecting our active duty military personnel and retirees from misguided efforts to cut their compensation and health care expenditures by prohibiting the additional cuts from coming from active duty and national guard personnel accounts or from the defense health program. let me repeat, not a single penny would come from active duty and national guard personnel accounts or from defense health program. the pentagon budget already consumes already 60 cents out of every discretionary dollar

we spend and adding billions of unrequested dollars, mind you, unrequested dollars, at the expense of struggling families during the ongoing economic downturn is wrong. once again, i just have to remind us yesterday of an amendment struck down, made out of ord , that we can't get an audit of the pentagon. here, once again, we're going against the law of the lavend and violating a deal and asking for more money. outrageous. at a time when american families, businesses, and government agencies are facing budget cuts and tightening their belts, why shouldn't the department of defense be asked to become more efficient and eliminate wasteful programs? while many of us would support a larger cut,s that commonsense amendment to keep spending in line with what was agreed to last year. remember, a deal is a deal. i hope my colleagues, many of whom speak here on the floor frequently about the importance of addressing our deficit, will

support this amendment. i ask my colleagues if we are really concerned with the deficit, then vote for this amendment. this is money the pentagon did not ask for and it does not need. some of us really do believe that your word is your bond. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from florida. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise in mr. young: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: first i would like to say that i really respect ms. lee's tenacity and her determination, there's no doubt that she's sincere. but i just disadepree with her amendment. actually, except for the number that was changed, this is basically the same amendment that has been offered before even today. so rather than repeat the arguments, i would just say the arguments are the same. this is not a good amendment and i would hope that the membership would oppose this

amendment as we have others similar to this. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> we have withdrawn from iraq, we are working on withdrawing from afghanistan. there is no need to increase the budget. our own military leaders have act knowledged that our debt and deficit are the largest national security threat our country faces. we need to build on the foundation b.c.a. layed -- laid in order to provide for our children's future and what they'll need. sticking to the b.c.a. framework is our strategic priority. we should remember where we were at this time last year.

mr. schrader: there was a real threat of government and economic shutdown. in the 11th hour, we passed the budget control act to forestall a debt crisis. by cutting $900 billion if the deficit and agreeing to cut another $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. even still, our national debt has increased by $1.3 trillion since we came to that agreement last august. in part this is due to the fail crur of the super committee to reform entitlements in our tax codes. we need -- in the coming months, we need to finish the jobs we began, reforming entitlements and instituting comprehensive tax reform as instituted by the bowles-simpson plan is a necessity. changes due to go into effect would harm the economy and the middle class while proving ineffective, back pedaling on the b.c.a. is irresponsible.

by holding this party to the bipartisan law we passed last august and reducing the underlying bill's appropriation by a mere $ 3579 billion in washington, d.c. terms, the amendment before you today will enhance our national economic security. we need to stick to spending caps and move on from f.y. 2013 appropriation process to work on getting the next framework put in place to responsibly address what has become known as a fiscal cliff. the american people, businesses in this country, deserve certainty about their future. we need to do right by them, avoid a crisis of our own making and lay the groundwork for restoring our economy and getting hard working americans back to work. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> move to strike se requisite number of words, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> i'd like to thank my friend, ms. lee, for bringing up this important amendment. she knows so well that the less experience people in this body have had with the military, the fiercer they are. that goes to the republicans wanting to exceed their own funding cap in the budget control act by $8 billion. it's a moderate amendment to bring us back under the budget control act. mr. stark: it's the 12th year we have been fighting and funding a war in afghanistan and that area and there's no peace. there's nothing. no stability. the war in afghanistan has basically contributed to our instability. nothing's happened over there. by 2001, we'll have spent $600 billion or $700 billion on this afghan war alone and the

defense department appropriations bill wants another $600 billion. republicans like to talk about entitle. s like medicare, driving the debt. let me tell you, defense spending has become just as much of an entitlement with a team of lobbyists and members of this body that are more interested in protecting defense contractors than protecting our country's health, education, and economic growth. this bill ignores administration proposals to delay or terminate military programs while providing funding, instead, for weapons that the department of defense doesn't want, doesn't need and won't work. apparently, funding wars and weapons instead of better health care, education, repairing our infrastructure, are more important to the republican majority than all other issues.

i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and start reining in our out-of-control defense budget. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm proud to join with my colleague, ms. lee, and the ranking member of the commerce committee on this amendment this amendment is different than every other amendment that's been offered on this bill and this amendment is very simple and very clear in its purpose. it's to make sure that this congress complies with the budget control act agreement that was set by this body in a bipartisan vote just last year. mr. van hollen: i would just refer my colleagues to the budget control act and refer them to section -- the section

302, enforcement of budget goals, it's right there in plain english what the 050 number will be, the defense appropriation number will be. that was the budget control act that was supported and voted on by the chairman of the budget committee, by the chairman of the armed variouses committee, and by the chairman of the appropriations committee and by the chairman and ranking member of the defense appropriations subcommittee. in fact, the chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. rogers, said last year when we passed it, and i quote, tough choices will have to be made, particularly when it comes to defense and national security priorities, but shared sacrifice will bring sheared results. he went on to say, the appropriations committee has already started making tough decisions on spending and will continue under the spending limits and guidelines provided in this bill, unquote, meaning the budget control act. that was august 1 of last year. the chairman of the full

committee was right last year but the bill that's coming to the floor today is in violation of that bipartisan agreement. and as a result of that violation, while the defense appropriation bill exceeds significantly what was requested by our own defense department, as what was necessary to meet our national security needs because this bill dramatically increased that level above what was requested, the reality is the other bills that are coming through the appropriations committee are taking very deep cuts, deep cuts to education, deep cuts to health care programs, in fact, the ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. dicks, described that labor h. bill as one of the most partisan bills that he's seen and it's true. that is a direct result of the fact that this bill that's before us today dramatically exceeds the budget control act agreements. now, mr. chairman, i would just

refer the body to the statements made by admiral mullen recently, who of course was the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, pointing out there are -- that our military strength depends on our economic strength and our economic strength depend on our long-term fiscal health and the soundness of our fiscal policy, and i quote admiral mullens, who said, our national debt is our biggest national security threat, he went on to say, everybody must do their part. he said, we can no longer afford to spend taxpayer resources without doing the analysis, this is admiral mullen, without ensuring every dollar is efficiently and effectively invested. we can no longer go along with business as usual if we are going to get our fiscal house in order: that is in cr house agreed to the budget control act -- that

is why this house agreed to the budget control act and it's unfortunate this bill comes to the floor in violation of the agreement, in violation of an understanding that in order to get our fiscal house in order we had to make tough decisions on defense and nondefense alike. and by violating the agreement in this regard, what the committee's saying is they're willing to make really tough decisions. in fact, they make irresponsible decisions with respect to the nondefense domestic spending, and i think we doubt we'll even see a labor-h bill on the floor because it's so bad. the reason it's bad is in part that budget control act was violated and so much was added to the defense department again, as my colleagues said, more requested than by the defense department. i agree with admiral mullen who said we all need to share in this responsibility. i agree what my republicans

said last year when we passed the budget control act, let's stick to an agreement and let the american people know when this congress comes together, we stick with it for the public good. and i thank the chairman and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. lee: on that, may i ask for a recorded vote, mr. chairman? the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, beamentbeament the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise to engage chairman, mr. young, in a colloquy if he will so engage. the chair: the gentleman strikes the last word and he's recognized for five minutes. >> i commend you for putting together this bill to provide our war fighters with the tools they need to keep our nation secure are our first priority

and i thank you for your service and do just that. i mitigate risk associated with shrinking budgets and this shows the tough decisions to fund the department of defense. mr. young: if the gentleman will yield and i thank him for the comment. mr. conaway: yes, i yield. i want to thank you for the navy to stand up on alternative energy market. these efforts go against the primary mission of the department and is a colossal waste of taxpayer money as we're struggling. it would help protect the u.s. from price shocks and volatility within the oil markets. i have yet to hear an argument that supports house spending on average $26 a gallon for biofuels will protect our fuel bidgets when we could be paying $3.66 a gallon. prices, mr. chairman, have

risen eight-followed for this to -- eight-fold for this to work. biofuels will still be needed -- convoys will still be needed to haul biofuels across dangerous areas to supply our needs, just like traditional fuels and less sufficient. the navy also claims that biofuels in setting their green fleet will send our americans to energy independence. witnesses fell to offer any verifiable analysis that the cost of achieving these goals or when these goals could be achieved. mr. chairman, time and time again, the current -- with this current administration we've seen instances of expectations like this and solyndra, where venture capitalists are making a fortune on programs that belong in the private sector. the department of defense

should be in the business of prosecuting wars, not wasting dollars on the pursuit of green fuel. i'd argue the department leadership should focus on buying the cheapest, most readily available fuel. and i yield to the gentleman. mr. young: if the gentleman will yield? thank you for yielding. i appreciate the gentleman's attention to this matter. and i support his efforts to prioritize spending within the defense department. i look forward tworking with him to ensure that our scarce defense dollars are spent in a responsible manner. and i thank the gentleman for raising this issue. mr. conaway: i thank the gentleman and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. kucinich of ohio. at the end of the bill before the short title, add the following new section. section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the administration of the armed services vocational

app tute battery for the student, high school testing program. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kucinich: just so you know, and i want the chairman and the ranking member to know, in offering this amendment, it's not my attention to wipe out military recruiting. it's very important for people to serve our country. it's an honorable profession. it's essential to america. what this amendment is about, really is about upholding the right of parents to be able to determine whether or not their young person should have to take a test that would be given to them under the auspices of the armed services vocational aptitude test. this is a test that's administered annually to one million military applicants, high school and postsecondary students, but it's more than just a test. here's the kind of information that students who take this test divulge. social security number, gender,

race, ethnicity, birth date, statement of future plans and most significantly, their aptitude in a battery of subcritical tests. now, if you ever wanted to make a case of the danger of big government to be able to reach in to schools, think about this. you have the largest organization in the government administering tests to high school kids based on the information they get about these young people and without their parent's consent. i have a problem with that. and we all should have a problem with that. now, if someone can tell me that you'll fix this and provide for an opt in or opt out or tell me that, you know, dennis, you're right. any young person who could end up in military service, their parents ought to consent to whether or not they should be able to take the test and/or

whether the results of the test should be released. it's about privacy. it's about parental rights, and it's also about not letting big government become big brother, gathering information about our children at a very early age in order to have some higher purpose. might be very altruistic here. this armed services vowvational aptitude test is -- vocational aptitude tests is administered in centers. fine. it's offered to high school and postsecondary students. according to the pentagon, career exploration program is designed to help students explore civilian and military careers, but the rise of this test in high schools has led countless students and parents to feel that they're being unfairly, potentially illegal and oftentimes unknowingly

recruited. the department of defense claims it's just a tool to screen students enlistment eligibility, but more, mr. chairman, more than 90% of the scores being sent -- are sent directly to military recruiters. so it's obvious this is a recruiting tool. fine. how about letting the parents know about it? how about giving parents a choice. most of the time you talk about someone who's under 18 years old. i don't oppose military recruitment. i am concerned that this test is being administered to kids in our public schools in a way that circumvents parental consent. the vast majority of students think they're taking the test as required by their high school. given a test. why? because their consent isn't required. let's get the parents in on this. now, you know, my dad

encouraged me to be in the military. i had a heart mr. murphy:. i couldn't serve. all my brothers and my sister did. but you know what, we had some feedback with our parents about this. you give a kid a test. that puts that child on a track to military service. parents don't know about it. are you kidding me? parents have a right here and we have to restrain the impulse of a big government organization to gather information about these kids that ordinarily the government would never be entitled to. so i want to make sure that my friends in the majority and my friend who is the ranking member understand that, you know, my amendment in no way stops consenting adults from pursuing a career in the military or from taking the test at a recruiting station or processing station. it doesn't prohibit military recruiter presence in our schools. we dealt with that in no child left behind. i was on the other side on

that, but my amendment doesn't stop that, but it stops the administration of this test in schools so it can't be used as a recruiting tool disguised as test that targets children for illegally too young to consent to a career in the armed forces. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. this amendment would basically prohibit funds for being used to administer the armed services vocational aptitude battery test. this amendment would negatively impact both the education and recruiting communities. this test is administered free of charge on a voluntary basis. on a voluntary basis to high school and college students as part of a comprehensive career exploration program. this program integrates student

aptitudes and interests, to help them explore postsecondary including college, technical schools, civilian as well as military career. as education resources grow together, many schools rely on this free test to provide a valuable career exploration experience and we as a nation benefit. through this amendment, the gentleman would effectively prohibit high schools from offering this test which would be unfortunate and we are strongly opposed to the bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. 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 gentleman from florida. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: mr. chairman, i move to trike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, i think it's time to advise members of something that they might be exposed to here shortly. recently i had an opportunity to experience what i call an ambush journalism on an issue that i really felt it hard to believe that this investigative reporter would raise the issue. he was very upset because of the money -- the amount of money that we spend to return our killed in action heroes from dover when they arrive in the united states back to their

families at their home base. i was really shocked that that would be a concern to anybody because i believe that those heroes should be treated with the utmost respect, and i told this distinguished gentleman that i would do everything that i possibly could to make sure that the proper respect and dignity was awarded these heroes as their remains return home to their families. . i explained the law. this gentleman thought that the congress actually set the schedules, decided which airplanes to fly the soldiers back home. i explained the law. i explained that was not the case. i explained that the pentagon had a lot of people who did administrative things like that, including scheduling. i just expect that many of you might also face this same

investigative reporter and ask the same question. and i'm just -- i just want you to be aware that that is the issue. i don't understand it. why anybody would want to deny a hero killed in action the dignity and the respect as he returns home to his family. it is just exasperating to me, i would say, mr. chairman, and i just wanted members to be aware. you may be faced with this very same question, this very same issue. i hope you're not, but you might be. i bring this to your attention just in case. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i move to strike words. -- strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. dicks: i had the chance to talk to mr. young of florida about this issue. i can tell you based on long experience that no one cares more about our wounded warriors but also those who have lost their life. they were coming home for the last time. and i think that the way the department of defense handles this is appropriate. they are trying to get these bodies back to the parents, the family as expeditiously as possible. and obviously congress doesn't tell them how to do this. obviously we fund it, we fund that program, but i just appreciate mr. young's history of concern about our troops, and i know that he stood up to a

journalist, as most of us have had to do from time to time, who think they know all the answers but have not gotten all the information. and as was suggested, this is the decision about how to do this from dover to the home are made by the department of defense. and i think that it's done appropriately. i think it's done in a dignified way and a way that all of us can be proud of. so i appreciate what mr. young has done here and i just want him to know that i support him and will be glad to talk to any reporter. i see the distinguished chairman of the authorizing committee's here as well and maybe it's necessary to have another meeting and bring in some of the senior members of the house who are leaders in defense to talk to this reporter.

try to make him understand how this actually functions. i yield back my time and just want my good friend, mr. young, to know that we support him and this is not something that he has day-to-day responsibility for and should not be -- should not be blamed in any way. we just know that, again, that he and his wife have been such great supporters of the troops. to have any insinuation here is not appropriate. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california -- >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckeon: i rise with great pride to stand with chairman young to reaffirm my commitment and the commitment of the members of the armed services committee to the dignified and respectful transportation of the remains of our war casualties to their final resting place.

the current process of airlifting our fallen warriors was initiated by the committee on armed services and legislated in 2006. following a series of unfortunate cases where the transfer remained simply did not meet the high standard that the people of our nation demanded. as it was clear that the routine treatment of our warriors on their return home was not meeting the expectation of families and communities across the nation. without this law, the department of defense would be required to transport by cheapest means, in other words to transport remapes without an escort in the -- remains without an escort in the cargo hold with the suitcases and fedex packages. no one wants to see that. that is not how the american people wish to treat those that have made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf.

the soul of the nation can be measured by its commitment to honor those who have sacrificed all to defend that nation. if a nation takes the bookkeeper's approach to measuring that commitment, then in this nation's case the cost of arlington, of all the national cemeteries, of the cemeteries within -- that we maintain overseas, of the efforts made to account for our war dead and missing, is too high. when it comes to upholding traditions so intrinsically linked to the values treasured by the american people, our nation will never be accused of possessing a bookkeeper's mentality. there is overwhelm one standard for the treatment of our fallen heroes and the american people will demand that the standard will be met in the most dignified and respectful manner possible. i commepped the gentleman from florida for taking the moment to

reaffirm the commitment of congress and the american people on this important issue. i cannot understand nip that would challenge him on his key votion -- devotion to our service people. he and his wife both have dedicated the ultimate measure to see that our service people are given the respect and the things that they need. i don't know anyone that visits the hospital more, who have really cared about our people. i commend the chairman for this, for his devotion to those who wear the uniform. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back his time. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes.

>> as a united states marine that served in iraq and afghanistan, saw the bodies and the caskets, the flag-draped caskets get put in the back of airplanes and sent off of the battlefield in those two theaters with dignity and respect, i want to thank you for standing up for the fact that we accept them back into our arms in this nation with the same dignity and respect. mr. hunter: i would like to go a little further. beyond saying it's congress' job, if it wasn't for congress, the bodies of our dead military men and women that come back to this nation, would be in the cargo holds of commercial airliners. as the moms and dads watch their sons and daughters get forklifted off a commercial airline cargo hold and set on the ground with no military escort, with no flag draped coffin, that is what we should be ashamed of. i would say this is an issue that resonates with anybody that has worn a uniform or any family

that has received the remains of a loved one. those that died for this nation should be handled by honor guards not by forklifts. it's harsh but true, but people who question the necessity of this process need to examine their soul and ask themselves if they are even worthy of the freedoms that are protected and secured by our military heroes. there is no extravagant cost. there are no luxury accommodations. those who pay for our freedom with their lives deserve to be treated with respect and heroes that they are. there's plent of places in the defense budget where we can find savings, but the one suggests the way we treat our war dead is a waste of money and resources is a shame. they should not bring that up to any more representatives in the future. i want to thank chairman young for his extraordinary service and the way he honors our wounded and our k.i.a.'s. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back his time. who seeks recognition?

for what purpose does the jeement oregon rise? ms. bonamici: i rise for a colloquy. yesterday the house adopted an amendment i offered with congresswoman buerkle directing the national guard to conduct the capability assessment of the medical equipment in its domestic humvee ambulances. this will pave the way for the ambulances that lack cardiac monitoring and resuscitation equipment. as we know the national guard's mission includes responding to terrorist attacks, homeland security emergencies, natural disasters, and providing the support to civil authorities. this equipment will allow the guard to effectively carry out their mission. but the retrofitting of currently owned humvee

ambulances is not enough. to purchase ambulances in the future that lack cardiac monitoring and resuscitation equipment is, frankly, irresponsible. mr. chair and mr. ranking member, the generals and eight different states including washington, new york, and my home state of oregon have indicated this equipment is necessary to their missions and could make the difference between life and death in an emergency situation. mr. chair and mr. ranking member, both congresswoman buerkle and i appreciate your support for our amendment yesterday and your commitment to all who serve in our nation's national guard. congresswoman buerkle and i had another amendment to ensure that this important lifesaving equipment would be included in humvee ambulances purchased for the guard in the future. in lieu of that amendment, i ask, will you work with ms. buerkle and me to ensure that future humvee ambulances purchased for guard use contain

adequate cardiac monitoring and resuscitation equipment? i would be happy to yield to the distinguished chairman. mr. young: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i thank the gentlelady for raising this issue. the attention and hard work to ensure the proper equipment of humvee ambulances and units of our national guard is extremely important. in today's wars, because we have these increased benefits, we have these better training, we have better medicines, we are able to move soldiers from the battlefield almost as soon as they are hurt. and lives are being saved. troops are being -- are surviving who in previous wars would never survive. so the gentlelady's work is very important part of this capability. i agree that the humvee ambulances and national guard units should be outfitted with proper medical equipment to

effectively accomplish the assigned missions and that any new purchases of humvee ambulances should include the equipment necessary for mission accomplishment. the capability assessment that the national guard will soon conduct will gravely assist this effort and i thank the gentlelady for her advocacy in this extremely important issue of saving the lives of our heroes on the battlefield. mr. dicks: will the gentlelady yield? i agree with my colleague and look forward to working with you on this issue. our national guard humvee ambulances must have the cardiac monitoring and resuscitation equipment and cape inters needed to -- cape inters needed to -- capabilities needed to respond to terrorist attack, natural disasters, and homeland security emergencies. and this should be given careful thought when the department of defense makes future purchases. i might point out that this

probably comes in other procurement army, but also the committee has provided $2 billion in national guard equipment so that this money goes through and the national guard actually gets to decide what that equipment is. so we look forward to working with you, with the army and national guard torques see if there's an answer to this problem. i appreciate the gentlelady yielding. ms. bonamici: i sincerely thank the chairman and ranking member for their attention, cooperation, and willingness to work on and address this very important issue. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from oregon yields back her time. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. moran of virginia, at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following,

section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant to or provide a loan or loan guarantee to roseo burro export. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment is about what is happening in syria. it's happening today as we speak. it began as a peaceful demonstration against the nonrepresentative government, but it quickly became violent where assad chose the path of violence over an inclusionary government. since the uprising began in march of last year, at least 1,000 syrians have been killed. countless thousands have been seriously injured, and at least

200,000 people have been displaced. neighborhoods as well as defenseless refugee camps, women and children are being attacked, sexually assaulted, summarily executed. the civilian sympathizers are being brutally tortured and i won't go into the manner in which they are torturing them with the acid burns and sexual assaults. the country's violence is only going to get worse. we read what happened yesterday as some of president assad's closest military advisors, including the minister of defense, were assassinated. as the unrest spreads, as all this violence continues, the international community has had to sit on the sidelines. unable to take action because of russian opposition at the united nations. mr. chairman.

perhaps one reason the russians oppose more forceful steps against syria is because they have the re-- they are the regime's principal supplier. they have a vested economic interest. that's why they won't cooperate with the rest of the international community. in particular a russian state-owned firm, named rosa borne export, has provided assad's regime with mortars, attack helicopters, even recently agreed to provide advance fighter jets. in a recent letter from the pentagon to the congress, the pentagon wrote there is evidence that this ros borne exports firm has their arms are being used to kill the civilians in syria. we know that. as we speak more russian arms, including refurbished

helicopters, are steaming towards syria on a ship. i raise this ongoing humanitarian disaster in syria in the role of this particular rush for a minute because the u.s. government has substantial business dealings with rosa borne export, and that makes us in some ways complicit in what is happening. to date the department of defense has purchased 23 m.i. 17 helicopters from rosa borne export for use by the afghan national security forces, and just this past weekend d.o.d. agreed to purchase 10 more, which will not be delivered until 20816. two years after we have left afghanistan. i couldn't know -- don't know about you, but i'm nervous how those helicopters might be used two years after we have already left the country. who are they going to be used by and against?

even more distressing is that d.o.d. is buying these helicopters for our afghan allies from syria's main arm supplier through a no-bid contract. it's an earmark. for russians no less. there's never been competition for supplying rotor craft for the afghan national security forces, and if there had been, our american firms would -- mr. chairman, i should think it's troubling to all of us that we are purchasing helicopters from a russian firm that has is directly complicit in the deaths of thousands of innocent syrian men, women, and children. this has got to stop. and what this amendment would do is to simply say, no more purchases from this russian arms supplier. we don't need to be purchasing anymore helicopters for years in advance when we are not even present in the country.

the russians have vetoed more forceful u.n. resolutions, they preventing an expansion of current u.n. mandate, so our affairs at least with rosa borne export have to be stopped. we have to divest ourselves from basically the lords of war. and this amendment would stop our business dealings with serious principal arms supplier. other weiss -- otherwise our condemnation of syria's regime ring hollow. mr. chairman, i urge support for this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut -- the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in support of my colleague's bipartisan amendment which prohibits any fund provided in this act from being used to fulfill the

defense department's current contract with rosa borne exports, the russian state arms dealer currently providing weapons to syria for m-17 helicopters for the afghan security forces. this amendment builds upon the bipartisan support of amendment added to the house authorization bill that prohibits future contracts along the same lines and requires future contracts to be competitively bid so that you as manufacturers can compete on these taxpayer funded deals. for over a year now we have seen syrian president assad respond to peaceful demonstration by the syrian people with a brutal crackdown. according to the syrian observatory for human rights, over 17,000 people have been killed by their regimes since violence began there in march 2011. fighting this week has further intensified in and around

damascus and there are reports after similar haven't in other cities more than 100 civilians have been massacred. this is on top of torture, sexual violence, inference with access to medical treatment, and many other grave human rights violations perpetrated by the al assad regime. at the same time russia continues to provide that regime with the means to perpetrate widespread, systematic attacks on its civilians. last year they reportedly sold damascus $1 billion in weapons. in january they signed a deal to supply syria with 36 combat jets. last month secretary of state clinton expressed concern that russia is sending attack helicopters to syria. "the new york times" last saturday in an article on the defection of an air force captain detailed the use of rocket equipped m-17 helicopters

by the regime. earlier today russia along with china just today, vetoed a u.n. security council resolution that would have sanctioned the assad regime for the continued use of heavy weapons. yet incredibly the u.s. defense department has purchased 21 mi-17 helicopters for the afghan security forces, and is reportedly purchasing 10 more for a no-bid contract with the russian company even though it supplies arms to syria and which for years on the u.s. sanctions list for providing illegal nuclear assistance to iran. if u.s. taxpayer dollars are going to be spent giving helicopters to the afghans, those dollars should be spent on american systems that create jobs here at home. there are american companies available to manufacture the aircraft which would increase

interoperability with both the u.s. and nato forces, and support american manufacturing. at a defense department is reportedly already training the afghans how to fly and maintain american made helicopters. at the very least there should be an open competition for procurement of these helicopters. a competition we believe superior american manufacturers would win. in any case american taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize al assad's murderous regime in syria. this amendment will end this no-bid contract, stop the use of federal dollars that subsidize the massacres being perpetrated by the regime. i urge you to support this bipartisan amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back her time. >> rise to strike the last word. the chair: gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, i had the opportunity to discuss this amendment numerous times with

mr. moran and with our colleagues on the armed services committee and i would like to say that i am here to support this amendment. however i would like to engage mr. moran and ask if he would be willing to -- as we move forward, i can't do it here on the floor today, to include a national security waiver in this language, when we get to conference as we move -- as this goes through the process, if the gentleman would have any difficulty supporting us in that effort to get a national security waiver. mr. moran: mr. chairman, i want to thank you, first of all, for your support of this amendment as well as your leadership of this committee. i think this is an excellent idea. perhaps if we were to get into conference with the senate on this bill, which i expect we will, we could add that national

security waiver at that time. and thus we would not be compromising things that don't need to be discussed on the floor. but i think that's an excellent suggestion and i appreciate the gentleman's deference to concerns that they might have. with that i do appreciate the very distinguished chairman's support. thank you. mr. young: i thank the gentleman very much. i do support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i support the amendment as well and i appreciate the work of my friend and colleague from virginia, mr. moran, and congresswoman rosa delauro, on this issue. just -- there are so many reasons why this m-17 helicopters are sold to the afghans. this is not just the blunder. it's because of the altitude in the country. so there is a legitimate

national security issue here that has to be addressed and i think we do have helicopters, maybe not blackhawks, that can go to a higher altitude. i don't know how much more expensive they are or anything about it, but i just want to point that out because i don't want the people to have the impression that there's just -- they just did this maliciously. there were some legitimate reasons for this. i yield back. mr. dicks: i move to strike to strike the last word. i yield to the gentleman. mr. moran: i thank my good friend and colleague, the ranking member of the committee, that is an important point to make. the pentagon not only has to be concerned about the operability in afghanistan, which is quite different -- very unique. quite the afghans need

helicopters that they can maintain after we leave. and they are used to maintaining russian helicopters during the occupation, they learned that. i understand they are easier to maintain than some of ours, but notwithstanding that i think the gentleman would agree that there is reason for some apprehension after we left the country to continue to be supplying these helicopters. mr. dicks: there ought to be a competition. there is no reason this should be sole sourced. there should be an opportunity for american contractors to compete. one thing we are going to have to work on is logistics and their ability to handle equipment. that's a very weak point right now with the afghan military. mr. moran: the other point if the gentleman would further yield, of course, is this firm is not someone we ought to be dealing with unless we absolutely have to. these are people that have violated our concerns about

providing nuclear capacity to iran. they have been cited about that. they are supplying a billion dollars of arms to assad. and its principle reason i suspect it's a state-owned firm russia won't comply with the rest of the world. it does need to be seen in that context as well to send this kind of message. it's not a message necessarily sending to the pentagon, it's a message we are trying to send to russia. let's get onboard. mr. dicks: in that respect i'm totally supportive of what the gentleman is trying to accomplish. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> first of all, mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to see there is broad bipartisan agreement on the issue. mr. ellison: it's always a great

benefit when we can work things out and occasionally we do just as we have just seen. that's a good thing. i do have an obligation to speak up for constituents in my own on this issue. mr. speaker, i have to say on the record that there have been more than 17,000 people killed in syria over the last 14 months. . when a nonviolence began in the city of darah, violence against civilians has escalated rapidly months and there have been large massacres in villages of hullah, kuber and possibly trumsa. the arab league is overwhelmingly condemned al asad's violent oppression. one country, russia, has refused to stopal assad and his campaign. in fact, a russian cargo ship

could deliver them this week. there is substantial evidence that al asad is using threats against innocent civilians in syria. i was surprised to learn that we are buying russian owned weapons. we are supporting syria's armed dealer which is enabling the syrian regime's blacky crackdown. this should stop and that's why i urge all to support this. we should not be supporting syria's armed dealer. if the military should want to buy helicopters they should buy american ones. our amendment does the right thing. it ends the u.s. purchases that the roseoburen and i am glad it has strong support and i urge

all colleagues to support it. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. moran: mr. chairman, i would request a recorded vote on that one. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. turner of ohio. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following -- section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to, one, reduce the nuclear forces of the united states in controvention of section 303-b of the arms control and disarmament act, 2573-b. two, to review the implementation study or modify

the secretary of defense guidance for employment force n.x.b. or the joint strategic ability, n.x.n. the chair: the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, is recognized for five minutes. mr. turner: i rise in support of the turner-fortenberry machine mckeon amendment. -- turner-thornberry-mckeon amendment. the nuclear decurrent has kept us safe and our allies safe from large scale war under remarkly consistent policy supported by both presidents -- excuse me -- by presidents of both parties. now, however, president barack obama appears to be unilaterally changing it for reasons not yet explained. white house armed services committee chairman buck mckeon and 31 other committee members and i recently wrote to the president expressing concern over reports that he is directing a review of u.s.

nuclear weapons strategy that could result in the u.s. reductions of up to 80%. we have to understand what the president is doing and why. we've received nothing back from the president. the obama administration reportedly is weighing at least three options for reducing u.s. nuclear forces. cutting to roughly 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800 or 300 to 400. our nars nell now includes about 5,000 warheads with approximately 2,000 deployed warheads permitted under the new stark streety. the remaining 3,000 are kept in storage as a hedge against advancements by other nations. russia has 4,000 to 6,500 warheads and china is reported to have more than 300, though no one outside the chinese communist party knows how much they have. these countries, as well as india, pakistan, building a stockpile soon to surplus that of britain. britain itself, france, north korea and perhaps soon iran

have active nuclear weapons modernization programs. only the united states does not. now the president may soon seek to have the u.s. make the deepest reductions in its nuclear forces in history. the new streagic review could be on the president's -- strategic review could be on the president's next within the next month. it's unclear whether he expects the cuts to be unilateral or within a framework of a treaty with russia or china or others. at least one of the president's senior advise yors have suggested that these -- advisors have suggested that these could be unilateral. this is outside the norm. it is unexplainable. traditionally, a president has directed his military advisors to determine chiefly what level of our nuclear forces is needed to deter a potential adversary from attacking us or our allies. the answer to that question is, what drives the strategy? not a president's political ideology. for example, this is how secretary powell stated that president bush looked at the issue. he stated, president bush

gathered his advisors around him and he instructed us as follows -- find the lowest number we need to make america safe, to make america safe today and to make america safe in the future. do not think of this in cold war terms. the house armed services committee has been asking questions, holding briefings with the administration, evening hearings about the detailed that -- even hearings about the details that we need to know the administration is doing. unfortunately, what we know is what we're learning from the media. why would the administration be unwilling to tell the basic frame of view? why would nt they share other basic instructions from the department? they are -- it could border on disarmament and diminish u.s. strength. it is not even clear that the unilateral reductions to the u.s. nuclear forces that are currently required by the new start agreement are in the best interest of our national security and the defense

department refuses to tell congress how it plans to implement that treaty. the senate was ultimately comfortable with those reductions once the president promised to provide his own plan for modernization of our u.s. nuclear deterrent. the president's most recent budget, however, abandons the nuclear modernization funding that he promised. case in point is the chemical and nuclear facility, the construction of which the president pledged a little more than a year ago to accelerate and which in this year's budget he deferred for tv years which basically means that this -- deferred for five years which basically means this will be canceled. no plutonium pit production capacity which other nuclear weapon states still possess and he wants to seek steep new reductions in the u.s. nuclear forces. this can only be described -- it is for how u.s. nuclear will be enhanced simply saying the u.s. should reduce the roles and numbers of the nuclear weapons is nothing more than putting hope with our strategy.

general chilton talking about the number of warheads we currently have, said, quote, the arsenal we have is exactly what is needed to provide the deterrent. clearly any further reductions will undermine the deterrent that has kept our country safe. our nuclear weapons provides for the safety of this nation and our allies around the globe. a number of countries with capabilities and resources to do so have not pursued this. we ask for support of this. in ronald reagan's peace through strength. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word and i'd be happy to yield to the gentleman from. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. dicks: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the strategic arms reduction treaty is a treaty between the united states and russia. on december 22, 2010, the senate increased our national security by providing its advice and consent to

ratification of the new start treaty with russia. the new start -- with the new start, the united states and russia will have another important element supporting our reset relationship and expanding our bilateral cooperation of wide range of issues. as the president said during the end of the last congress, the treaty is a national security imperative as well as a cornerstone of our relations with russia. under the terms of the treaty, the u.s. and russia will be limited to significant fewer strategic arms within seven years from the date of the treaty entered into force. each party has the flexibility to determine for itself the structure of the strategic forces within the aggregate limits of the treaty. we should carry out our commitment to the new start treaty and not restrict our country's obligation to implement it. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. i would say to the gentleman,

you know, if there is one thing -- and i stand here as a member of this subcommittee for 34 years -- that we can reduce is strategic weapons. we have never used one except in hiroshima and nagasaki, and we can have a credible deterrent with a much smaller force. in fact, i agree with general cartwright that we could use our strategic missile submarines and b-2's and hopefully a new bomber and reduce the number of land icbdm's. we can't afford to have this -- continue to produce all of these nuclear weapons that will more than likely never be used. they're a good deterrent and they have been an effective

deterrent. thank god for that. but the cold war is over. and we are in a position today where we must reduce the size of our nuclear weapons force. and i yield to the gentleman. i've been here a long time. i went through all the arms control debates, and i know something about this subject. mr. turner: well, sir, thank you for yielding me time. i know you certainly do know about this topic which is why i know you also know that we use our nuclear deterrent every day. why we stand on this floor and speak with the freedoms that we have, our nuclear deterrent keeps us safe. abandoning our nuclear deterrent would not make us safe. mr. dicks: withdrawing -- regaining my time just for a second. the most important thing, frankly, you know, i work to move to convert the b-2 bomber from a nuclear weapon carrier to a conventional carrier. you know why a conventional bomber is i think more of a

deterrent than a nuclear bomber? because a conventional bomber you can use the bombs. you can go in and with the j dams put on those bombers take in one sorting you can take out 16 targets. and that is real deterrence and that is having a conventional force that's useable. nuclear weapons are not going to be used, and that's why we can -- both sides can have a much smaller force. we can bring the number of nuclear numbers down. at some point it gets ridiculous having that many warheads when there aren't that many targets. and we're not going to use them. so i just -- i know the gentleman's all rot up about this in protecting our great deterrent which has been a very valuable thing to our national security, but i got to tell you, if there's one thing that we can reduce by agreement with

the russians, it is nuclear weapons. and i yield back the balance. i yield to the gentleman again if he wants to say anything again. mr. turner: thank you. to respond to the gentleman, again, our nuclear deterrent is used every day. every day it keeps us safe because it ensures -- mr. dicks: it isn't used every day. it's valuable. mr. turner: the time that -- the reality is this is that our nuclear deterrent is used every day and when you say that nuclear weapons won't be used, you can only say that with respect to our heart. the heart of this country. the heart of this country that wants to make certain that, you know, freedom is safe and our allies are safe. we can't say that for others. iran and north korea are pursuing nuclear weapons not because they wanted the increased power. they want that technology, they want that ability to have weapons of mass destruction. mr. dicks: i take my time back. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. mr. dicks: i ask unanimous consent for one additional minute. the chair: is there objection? without objection, one minute. mr. dicks: you know, you don't need thousands of these things. a couple hundred frankly could take out iran and almost any country you could imagine. so, you know, again, we can't afford to do everything. we are in an era where we're dealing with terrorists and we need to have forces that -- special forces that can be utilized. we need to have -- we need to have these very effective drones. we need to look at the threats that are out there today and equip our military accordingly. so i would just say, i think this amendment gets in the middle of this is not our responsibility. the senate handles advice and consent on treaties. we should stay out of this, and i think in my judgment this

amendment is unnecessary. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. we support the amendment and i yield to chairman turner. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: and appreciate his work on behalf of the appropriations committee. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. he yields to the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: thank you. and i thank the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen, for his work and on the appropriations side. this is an important issue and this really goes to the heart of our national security. my amendment does nothing, by the way, to prohibit the implementation of new start. but the thing that's important here, there are those who talk about nonproliferation, and i think we are all wanting nuclear weapons to be restricted and to stop their growth. but there's a difference between nonproliferation, the disarmament of the united states. only the united states is reducing our nuclear weapons. in new start, russia wasn't

required to reduce at all. only the united states were to reduce. you have india, you have pakistan, you have iran and north korea. north korea, already a nuclear weapons state, iran seeking nuclear weapons, and both of those nations seeking icbm technology for the purse of placing the united states at risk. secretary gates saying north korea is becoming an absolute threat to mainland united states with the nuclear weapons, the icbm technology. we can only be confident that others will not use nuclear weapons to the extent we can stand strong as a nuclear weapons state. that needs to be derived from what is the threat and the number of weapons to ensure that we have both survivelt and the availability for -- survivability and the availability to put their assets and nation at risk? a couple hundred. with all due respect to the ranking member, is based upon no science whatsoever. the science of this, you know, there is -- you know, our

commander of u.s. strategic command who has been through this science, who's charged with keeping the united states safe, said that the arsenal we have is exactly what is needed today to provide the deterrent. our concern is that the president on his road to -- has made it clear even though he will have no affect he would move to unilateral reduce ours. we are on the floor as the house to restrict funding to protect the president from unilaterally disarming us. show us any evidence that he's able to persuade anyone else to reduce their nuclear weapons because we don't have any evidence of reducing except the president trying to reduce ours. i yield back to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

mr. dicks: mr. chairman, we request a recorded vote on that amendment. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, beamentbeament -- further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> let me again by thanking chairman young and ranking member dicks for their continued work on this bill. mr. chairman, yesterday representative bachus and i directed money to management account and moves to the environmental security technology program certificate. these funds would provide research and development programs additional resources for competitive grants that allows our communities with clean water. mr. miller: it's important for them to develop innovative solutions that use the best technology available for problems like contamination in my district and other areas throughout california.

perchlorate can be harmful to women, children and the elderly. the aquifer, including surrounding districts, has high concentrations of perchlorate. the study found that perchlorate were found in 11% of wells, and 50% of the wells statewide. other contamination from former defense sites become increasingly problematic throughout the nation. based on those facts i would like to yield to the chairman for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with hopes we can work with this issue in the future. mr. young: if the gentleman will yield? mr. miller: yes. mr. young: i want to thank mr. miller. the committee does in fact recognize that these are indeed programs provide necessary resources that help invest in innovative new technologies which benefit local communities that are dealing with these contamination issues through

competitive grants. we look forward to working with mr. miller to see how we can properly address the needs of communities looking to provide clean water to all of their citizens. mr. miller: i thank the chairman for agreeing and committing to work with me on this issue. i'd like to thank representative baca for his leadership and support of this issue and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. tonko of new york. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following -- section. none of the funds made available by this act may be used to pay a contractor under a contract with the department of defense for costs of any amount paid by the contractor or any subcontractor of the contractor to an employee performing work under the contract or any subcontract under the contract for the

compensation if the compensation of the employee for a fiscal year from the federal government for work under a federal contract exceeds $230,700 except that the secretary of defense may establish one or more narrowly targeted exceptions for scientists and engineers upon a determination that such exceptions are needed to ensure that the department of defense's continued access to needed skills and capabilities. the section shall apply to contracts entered into during fiscal year 2013. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: mr. chairman, i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. chair. i rise to offer an amendment to the f.y. 2013 defense appropriations bill. my amendment is a modest straightforward reform to fix the current cap on federal

salaries paid to government contractor executives. this is part of a bipartisan reform that i and our colleague, the gentlewoman from california, have been working on for the past two years. and despite significant bipartisan progress in the senate, this issue has never once been allowed so much as a vote in the house. and i expect today will be no different. nevertheless, mr. chair, it was once my understanding that the highest individual salary funded by the american taxpayer was that of the president of the united states at a total of $400,000. but it turns out that the leader of the free world isn't actually the highest paid executive on the taxpayers' payroll. the highest federal government salaries are actually earned by private sector executives who can be paid nearly $770,000 in taxpayer dollars under current law. that's nearly twice the salary of the commander in chief and more than three times the salary of the secretary of

defense. in fact, gaping loopholes in the law mean that many can earn far more. let me emphasize that these are federally funded salaries for private sector executives. funded 100% by the american taxpayer. you won't find these exorbitant pay rates on government pay schedules, and they certainly aren't subject to the pay and hiring freeze. in fact, just weeks ago, top government contractors got a $70,000 raise on the taxpayers' dime for no reason other than current law demanded it. that raises alone $70,000 more than the salary of most federal employees. that raise brought the current cap on federal reimbursements for contractor compensation up to nearly $770,000. an incredible 10% raise for the top echelons of a contractor work force that is estimated to

outnumber federal, civilian and military personnel by more than 2-1. to put that delta into perspective, compare the 10% contractor increase to the 1.7% raise that this bill proposes for all our women and men in uniform. compare it to the total pay freeze under which our civilian personnel are operating. if you believe that reining in personnel costs is a smart way to reduce the deficit, then you cannot possibly argue that we should maintain a blank check for the estimated seven million contractors on the federal government payroll. this problem started in the late 1990's with a law that created the current deeply flawed formula to reimburse government contractors for the pay of their top executives. the so-called cap under this law has grown by leaps and bounds each year, increasing by more than 75% in just the last eight years. that is an unsustainable and unjustifiable trend that must be put to a stop, and in a year

where we can agree on so little, i find that many of us can agree on this. from 2001 to 2010, spending on service contractors rows by 137%, -- rose by 137%, making it the largest cost drivers. gimp the rarchant growth in contract spending, -- rampant growth in contract spending, limiting compensation to even the salary of the president, that's $400,000, would save the taxpayers $6 billion in fiscal year 2011 alone, or a savings of approximately 15% in contract services. $6 billion. that's only for the army, and that's only in one year. imagine what we could be saving governmentwide. our amendment is a modest, bipartisan proposal that reins in the most excessive government salaries by revising the cap to a set level of

$230,700, or the salary of the vice president of the united states. the cap would apply to all defense contractors and subcontractors. however, it also reaffirms the authority of the secretary of defense to create exceptions to the cap in certain circumstances. this authority was established in last year's defense authorization to preserve flexibility for our military in maintaining access to individuals, particularly scientists and engineers, who possess unique skills and capabilities critical to the united states' national security. to reiterate, this amendment does not grant new authority to the secretary of defense. it is not legislating in an appropriations bill. it merely reaffirms the current authority of the secretary codified in title 10. to be clear, this amendment does deals exclusively with taxpayer dollars spent to reimburse contractors. private firms are welcomed to pay their executives and their employees --

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. young: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from florida, for what purpose do you seek recognition? mr. young: i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states impertinent part an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment changes the application of existing law. and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any member wish to be heard on the point of order? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady will suspend. does anyone wish to speak on the point of order? the chair finds that this

amendment includes language of authority on the secretary of defense to establish certain exceptions. the amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i wish to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. speier: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to support an amendment by my good friend and colleague from new york, compensation. the learning contractor costs are wasting taxpayer dollars and weakening our national defense. while our government employees accept pay freezes, the office of federal procurement policy raised the cap on executive compensation for contractor executives by 10% to nearly $770,000. this, my friends, is a no-brainer. we can't afford to pay contractors twice the

president's salary. now, mind you, this does not mean that the c.e.o. can't make more than $770,000. they can, in fact. in fact, they can be paid much more by their shareholders. we want to reduce the amount of money they make to no more than that of the president. throughout this budget process, defense contractor c.e.o.'s have threatened to fire people if they do not get what they want through the suspension of sequestration saying they can't afford to continue their operations unless the department of defense is spared from the chopping block. if you look at the top compensated c.e.o.'s, you see it is the taxpayers who can't afford them. the federal government's top contractors make anywhere from $5 million to $56 million each year. while these costs are not all coming directly from the treasury, we contribute nonetheless, in cost overruns and single source contracts that make them all too big to

fail. last year we passed language that capped some of their compensation but excluded scientists and engineers from these caps because we were worried that we would not be able to get the talent we need. but when you think about it, this argument is ludicrous. the u.s. government isn't their only client, but we're expected to pay the whole cost for the talent they need to win contracts with us. the senate agrees. the armed services committee unanimously passed a bill that would include this cap on contractor compensation. unanimously means it was bipartisan. what we're asking contractors to accept is the same salary as the vice president. is it unfair or unprecedented? it's time we stop asking taxpayers to pay excessive contractor compensation. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back her time. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise?

>> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the -- the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 18, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. coffman of colorado. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. mr. coffman: thank you, mr. speaker. the cold war ended more than two decades ago and the iron curtain and the soviet union no longer exist. while the united states is spending 4.7% of our economy on defense, only four out of 28 of our nato allies are spending even 2% of their economy on defense. our allies in europe have drastically reduced their national defense spending because they take for granted that the united states will continue to be the guarantor of their security. now it is time for our nato

allies to provide more of their own security and not be so reliant on the united states. we face difficult budget channels here at home. -- budget challenges here at home. the resources we are spending on maintaining a military presence in europe are needed to meet much more significant security challenges elsewhere. the pentagon has recently stated that the american military presence in europe is a diminishing priority and has proposed removing two combat brigade teams in fiscal year 2013. this bipartisan amendment to the defense appropriations bill will force the department of defense to follow through with withdrawing two brigade combat teams from europe and will deny the ability for the pentagon to

reverse its decision later. mr. speaker, i yield the balance of my time to mr. blumenauer from oregon. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. plum naur: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as i appreciate him -- mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as i appreciate him bringing this to the floor. i think it's telling that our friends in nato countries since 2008 have reduced their defense spending 12%. they're having tough times, they're retrenching, they recognize the new posture in terms of security. we should do the same thing. we should do the same thing. absolutely. it's ironic that this chamber is going to be considering massive cuts in food stamps, to have more responsibility and accountability some of us think are draconian.

but for heaven's sake, why can't we, 60 years after world war ii, 25, almost 25 years after the collapse of the former soviet union, cant we help europe assume a little larger role for their own defense? for whom are these troops positioned in terms of some sort of military posture? i think most of us agree that it's highly unlikely they'll be used in combat. any cost that would be incurred by accelerating it are money that's going to be spent anyway, notwithstanding all the costs to keep them there. i think the gentleman is spot on. i'm happy to co-sponsor the amendment. i'm happy to speak in support of it. i hope this body approves it in a small way to help the europeans assume their own responsibility and for us to be able to focus on things that are more important for us.

mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? >> i yield to the gentleman. mr. dicks: you say you have these two brigades, except pursuant to article 5 of the north atlantic treaty, could you explain what the impact of this is? the treaty commitments here. mr. coffman: i think this does not allow taos maintain forces in europe. there's no part of the nato charter that requires us to maintain a presence in europe. mr. dicks: it sounds as if, no other funds shall be available to continue the deployment past

2013 from the 1772 p brigade, except pursuant to article 5 -- is there some commitment in the north atlantic treaty that requires us to have the troops there? mr. coffman: there's no requirement where we have to maintain a permanent military presence in europe. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from washington? mr. dicks: i strike the requisite number of words. recognized for five minutes. mr. kicks -- mr. dicks: i believe this amendment is unnecessary because the department of defense is in the process of reducing the number of troops in europe. the department has already announced the closure of army garrisons in several places by

2015. fourthmore, they've begun toe the process of deact visiting infantry brigades, each with 3,850 soldiers. i think this is what the gentleman intends. in addition, the u.s. army in europe will see a reduction of approximately 2,500 soldiers from enabling units over the next five years. reducing end strength of any military various is an art form as protecting future needs for future conflicts is a difficult task. reducing end strength should be part of a deliberate and thoughtful plan that incorporates current and future needs of the nation. i believe adding an arbitrary cap to the number of service members asiped to europe could put our national security at risk. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back? mr. dicks: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ohio. >> i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in agreement with the ranking member on this amendment. the subject matter of this amendment is wholly inappropriate. it is the movement of brigades. mr. turner: from a policy perspective, we should not on this bill or any bill be dictating the movement of brigades. should we get out the map of the world and see where all of our brigades are and have a debate in congress as to how they be moved about? no. that is something that is supposed to occur in consultation with the experts in full participation with the department of defense, secretary of defense. no disrespect to the authors but they have no expertise or experience in how the positions of -- positioning of our brigades should go for our overall national security. the -- mr. coffman has previously offer authored an amendment that was on the national act that used language of permit the reassignment or

removal of brigades, but this is directive. it says theseberry grades shall be moved. it does so under the assumption that there'll be cost savings but we know when you move a brigade, there were a number of costs incurred that are greater than any savings in offset. it's been said the soviet union no longer exists. you're right. but we have commitments in the mideast, in -- our assistance in africa. in our, you know, relationship with israel. these troops are not there standing guard against the soviet union that's not there anymore. they're in active deployment under the secretary of defense with the current threats we have for our national security. and, you know, certainly as the ranking member indicated, there's ongoing assessments as to where these brigades should be assigned and where their responsibles should be and those should be left to the oversight of the department of defense and secretary of defense, not to our directive of the moving of brigades. there's some concerns that even

the language of this and the directing of movement of brigades that it might be logistically implausible that one of the reasons why we don't direct these things is because we don't have realy the ability to understand all of the cascades of effects that occur. i certainly understand the issue of calling for increased spending from our nato partners. that's something that this body, i think, should do. but in calling for our nato partners to increase their participation in the expenditures of nato and their own defense, we should not be directing the secretary of defense to move brigades and expertise we don't have in a debate that should be happening on this floor. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ohio yields back. the gentleman from oregon. >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: it's rare that i disagree with my good friend from ohio but i do. i think it's appropriate to move forward in this direction. as my good friend from the state of washington indicated,

we are probably going to do this by 2015, i think he mention the point is, this reassessment has been proceeding at a glacial speed. it's important for us to be on record to move this forward. this is relatively small potatoes concerning what we are going to have to do if we're going to meet our challenges both in terms of a different security arrangement for the -- in term os they have threats that the united states faces and our fiscal problems. we've had this sitting on the back burner for years. we are, if anything, late to the party. and of course as long as they are there, that is a disincentive for our nato allies to step up and do what they need to do for their own defense. we have plenty of assets around

the world, we have opportunities with naval and air strikes, the notion that we're going to be throwing ground forces from their station in europe into the fray in israel or in some battle in africa, i think, is near fetched at the least. when we look at what we've done and how we've gone about it. in a world where we have the capacity, as we have shown, to be able to stage and move troops where needed, this is a small step in the right direction. i think my -- i think my friend from ohio is overstating the case. and the notion that somehow it costs money to do the redeployment so we should squst keep them there, they're going to be redeploying them anyway, so the costs of redeploying will be incurred sometime this decade or sometime this century. but it costs money to keep them

there. i have a nephew that makes a very good living teaching americans in europe in military schools. i think it's time for my nephew to come home and teach in the united states. i think there are more cost-effective ways for us to meet our security obligations and i do think it's time for our european friends and allies to step up. we can no longer be paying almost half the defense costs of the world when many of the others in that mix are people who are friends and allies. i think this is a small step in the right direction. i urge its adoption. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with

the gentleman from florida. mr. dicks: could we finish this amendment. mr. rohrabacher: excuse me. mr. dicks: are you speaking on this subject. the chair: the gentleman -- does the gentleman from california withdraw his request? mr. rohrabacher: i withdraw my qusm the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word to engage in a colloquy.

the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. richardson: i'd like to thank ranking member dicks and chairperson young in making sure this will not include a reduction in the number of c-17's in the fiscal year 2013 defense appropriations bill. the c-17 is the air force's premiere strategic transport aircraft and remains the military's most reliable and capable aircraft. it flies more than 80% of all the u.s. airlift missions while comprising only 60% of the airlift fleet. the c-17 has oven capable of delivering more than cargo, troops, and nonwar humanitarian missions than any other care craft we have. this aircraft was instrumental in saving lives during the devastating earthquake and tsunami that struck in japan last year and in addition to that, human tain efforts that i witnessed personally in samoa.

the delivery of 10,000 tons of delaster -- disaster relief supplies and carried thousands of passengers in response to the earthquake that struck haiti in 2010. in 2009 i worked with congressman faleomavaega to help get disaster relief supplies to american samoa after an earthquake and tsunami that ravepled that island. it was conducted with a c-17 aircraft. it provides relief missions anywhere in the world including and not limited to serving those who serve us. mr. chairman, i also want to mention, though, that in addition to these humanitarian efforts, the c-17 leads in positive economic benefits to our country. the c-17 is built in long beach, california, where i happen to have the privilege to represent with my colleague, mr. rohrabacher. the production of the c-17 is responsible for over 13,000 jobs in california and provides

$2 billion in economic benefits. nationally, the production of the c-17 has suppliers in 44 states, all of which we represent here, supports more than 30,000 jobs and has an $8.4 billion economic impact. while we're looking for ways to rein in spending, the c-17 remains critcrl to our humanitarian relief missions and our economy. my effort today is to make sure that we have adequate number of c-17's that are available, serviced and maintained four our armed forces. will the chairman and ranking member continue to work with me to ensure there's a sufficiently and well maintained fleet of our c-17's in our armed services? i yield to the gentleman. mr. young: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i thank her for her strong support of the c-17, and she's right on. the vital role that plays in our nation's defense, this committee has been a strong advocate for the c-17.

our bill fully funds the c-17 and ensures that no action can be taken by the air force to reduce the c-17 fleet. i again thank the gentlewoman for her very timely comments on this important issue, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california. mr. dicks: would you yield to me? ms. richardson: yes. mr. dicks: i have been a strong those opposed, noent of the c-17 even when douglas aircraft in long beach was building this airplane. i had a chance to go there when they were doing the wooden mockups and when they brought in the people who -- the load masters who could -- who made it such that the plane was built in a way that it can load cargo faster than any other airplane in history. and we have 54 of these at joint base lewis mccord in the great state of washington. we are very proud of the c-17's. now built by the boeing

company. i just want you to know that we are a very strong proponent. we had some great work done in the 1990's in upgrading the software. had major software issues. we had also a dramatic work force out there that really used all the tools of production. so c-17 is a very high priority and we will certainly do everything we can. i wish we were going to build more of them, frankly, while we have the line open, but we ran -- we did everything we could but we're at a point now where the line is closing down except for foreign sales. i hope we have a number of foreign sales. if at some point we need to come back to it, i certainly would be open to that. ms. richardson: i thank chairman young and also ranking member dicks foyer that are response and their commitment to this program. yes, in fact, we have been utilizing foreign sales. and given the current

occupation in this country, we stand ready to build them to protect this country. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from california yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. rohrabacher: mr. chairman, it is fortuitous now that i would strike the last word for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from florida on an issue that deals directly with the c-17, i might add. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. rohrabacher: mr. chairman, i rise today to voice my concern over recent and devastating wildfires that have enveloped massive amounts of land throughout our country. the ruin caused by these wildfires have consumed 2 1/2 million acres and destroyed over 1,600 homes and killed seven people and threatened many more. this recurring problem is caused by, yes, dry conditions,

hot weather and ample fuel and it tests the limits of our current federal, state and local firefighting resources. when homes and lives are on the line, i believe we should take all possible action to protect the lives and property of our people, including the deployment of air national guard and air reserve resources when appropriate. we oftentimes think the department of defense is entirely -- should be aimed at defending our nation against foreign foes. but the fact is there are enormous resources held by the department of defense, such as cargo planes, that are capable of assisting in many other efforts, including firefighting efforts which threatens the lives and property of our people. for example, one specific concept, named precision container aerial delivery systems, or p-cads, needs only an additional $2.6 million in

funding to complete an already many years evaluation of this technology. unfortunately, however, the d.o.d. has not committed this meager sum to finish evaluating pcads despite the authority to do so. what are pcads? they essentially add any cargo plane which has a ramp in the back, mainly our c-17's and our c-130's to assist in wildfire efforts without having to modify the airplane at all. this means the c-17's and the c-130's which we have right now, many stationed all over the country, could be deployed to help extinguish wildfires at relatively low cost, creating new and enormous firefighting capabilities, as i say, at a minimal cost. this makes -- what we're talking about is a huge -- a

container system in the back that is made out of cardboard and a water balloon which will permit putting on the c-17's and c-130's to have 1,000 pounds of water per container. and these c-130 pilots and c-17 pilots already trained to drop these things and they would without modifying the airplane could be an enormous resource of fighting fires throughout our country without adding extra cost. i therefore have one request. to the extent that the department of defense is capable in exploring new and innovative cost-effective and promising firefighting and other technologies that could be used for our civilian population but especially for the firefighting capabilities that could aid in support of firemen's requests throughout

the country and from the state and federal level, i urge the department of defense to do so to the degree that it be. and i now would like to yield to the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from florida. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for yielding and bringing this to our attention and for supporting innovative and cost-effective ways for our government to protect our people and their possessions from wildfires. i, too, believe the department of defense should seriously consider promising a cost-effective firefighting technologies where appropriate. mr. dicks: if the gentleman will yield to me? mr. young: yes, sir. mr. dicks: this is a subject i have been interested in, as former chairman of the interior appropriations subcommittee where we have to fund the efforts for firefighting which are very massive. and i have tried to work with the defense department. the biggest problem we face is

at o.m.b., when we want to lease these airplanes -- and we're looking mainly at the c-130-j here, to lease them for firefighting purposes and then have them deployed with the national guard in california or somewhere in the west coast, you get in the fact if you try to lease them they want to take -- the budget control people want to put the whole burden on the first year. and this is why leasing has become difficult. so we got to work out a way to make it -- to get these airplanes. mr. young: reclaiming my time. this is the way -- mr. dicks: i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman from california's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: i yield to the gentleman from california. mr. rohrabacher: in the past in order to achieve the goal you have outlined, we needed to reconfigure the inside of these c-130es and have special

c-130's deployed. this new pcads system which we could have amounts of water in these systems, 1,000 pounds of water per container, without reconfiguring the inside of these c-130's. mr. dicks: i'd like to work with you on it. mr. rohrabacher: one last word. there has been a series of tests that have shown it is effective. it will cost $1.6 million to deploy these and i believe it will increase the value of our asset of our c-130's and c-17's to the point we can actually maybe charge a little bit more money when we sell the c-17's which will be far more than the $2.6 million for this final test. so it will pay for itself, not to mention the property damage

that we can protect against. mr. dicks: well, i look forward to working with the gentleman on this issue and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back his time. who seeks recognition? ms. richardson: i move to strike the last word in a colloquy. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. richardson: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank chairman young and ranking member dicks for including language in the conference report that recognizes the importance of increasing the fair opportunity for numbers of women and minorities in officer positions and -- within the special operations forces. minorities and women who have an opportunity to fairly compete, and i stress compete, are often underrepresented in the leadership ranks within our armed services. african-americans account for 12% of the u.s. population but just 8% of active duty officers. likewise, when it comes to hispanic americans, it's even worse. hispanics make up 15% of the

u.s. population but number only 5% of officers in our corps. while the number of women in officer positions have seen increases, there's still a lack of women in top officer positions. in 2009, there were 40 individuals who held the highest rank in our armed services, and, mr. chairman, we ask how many of those were women, i'm sad to say just one out of 40. this shows that there's considerable room for improvement, and having served on the transportation committee with mr. cummings, much work was done on the coast guard side but should be equal throughout the armed forces. i was planning on offering an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would make it explicit, that it is the sense of congress that efforts should be made to increase the number of women and minorities in officer positions, but it would be subject to a point of order. however, i've worked with chairman young and his staff that going forward we'd continue to look at ways to increase women and minorities

within the leadership ranks and to give them an opportunity, again, to compete for fair positions. chairman young, will you continue to work with me on this very important issue, and i yield to the chairman? mr. young: i thank the gentlelady for yielding, and i thank her for calling attention to the fact that the subcommittee in our report said that it is an issue worthy of attention. and our language in the report said, urges the services, specifically our special operations forces, to conduct effective outreach and recruitment programs to minority populations, to improve diversity in the military. so absolutely, we agree with you totally. that is the intent of our committee. it becomes the intent of the congress, and we will continue to work with you to make sure that we do better at every opportunity. and i thank you for raising this issue today. ms. richardson: i thank the

gentleman for his response, his commitment and his leadership on this issue. mr. dicks: will the gentlelady yield? ms. richardson: yes, sir. mr. dicks: we worked with mr. young on a number of insertions of report language in the report because of our concern about this issue as well. this is something where we always have to be vigilant because people kind of forget what the legal responsibilities are, and there are -- these are statutory responsibilities, and so i appreciate the gentlelady from california bringing this to our attention. we'll work with her on this issue. ms. richardson: thank you. i yield back my time. the chair: who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition?

mr. berg: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the amendment will be read. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. berg of north dakota, at the end of the bill, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to reduce the number of the following nuclear weapons delivery vehicles of the united states, one, heavy bomber aircraft, two, air launched cruise missiles, three, nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines, four, submarine launched missiles, five, intercontinental ballistic missiles. the chair: the gentleman from north dakota, mr. berg, is recognized for five minutes. mr. berg: i have the distinct honor to represent several military installations in my state of north dakota, including the my knot air force base, and -- the minot air force base, and the fifth bomber wing, which relates to the amendment i have to offer today. the amendment i offer today along with my colleague mrs.

lummis and representative rehberg of montana, it's very straightforward. it prohibits the fiscal year 2013 funds from being used to implement plans under the new star treaty. -- under the new start treaty. to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, which reduces america's ability to develop and use our nuclear defense capabilities. we all know that during the 2010 lame duck session, the senate ratified the treaty and president obama made a promise to congress that as long as he was president, we will continue to invest in nuclear modernization. mr. chairman, since then, he has backed away from his promise. we all heard the president's unsettling off-mike comments that he would have more flexibility after the november elections.

the treaty provides for seven years for the united states and russia to reduce the number of deployed icbm's. deployed submarine launch ballistic missiles and deployed heavy bombers equipped to carry nuclear armaments to no more than 700 weapons. i know that many of us may not agree on the appropriate level of deployed nuclear weapons or our view on the new start treaty, however we need to make one thing clear. nowhere in the new start treaty does it require reductions from the united states to make these cuts prior to fiscal year -- or during fiscal year 2013. furthermore, we're still waiting on the administration to tell us exactly how sharp the cuts in our deployed nuclear weapons could be under

the new start treaty. the associated press has reported the obama administration is going beyond the level laid out in the treaty and is considering as much as an 80% reduction in our current nuclear arsenal. it appears that the administration is planning drastic cuts. to our -- drastic cuts to our nuclear arsenal and could be planning to move away from our nuclear triad strategy altogether. all three legs of our nation's nuclear triad are complementry to the defense of our nation. drastic cuts in our overall level of our nation's nuclear arsenal put ours national security at risk. and sharp reductions in any one leg of the nuclear triad would destabilize a sound defense strategy. therefore, since the president

made an agreement to modernize our arsenal and congress is still waiting to hear what those specifics are, congress should not provide funding to facilitate these reductions. i urge adoption of these amendments and i yield my time. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for bringing up this issue. i believe the berg amendment recognizes the world as it really is the threats that we potentially face and i think he's done the congress a real service today by emphasizing this issue with his amendment and i support his amendment. mr. bigger: thank you. the chair: the gentleman from north dakota yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. dicks: the treaty limits the total number of nuclear weapon delivery vehicles by 2017. according to the air force they are funded for new start implementation but are awaiting final decisions to determine numbers of weapons delivery vehicles to be reduced in fy 2013. we should carry out our obligation under the treaty and not restrict the department's obligation to implement it. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. i want to make it clear to my colleagues just what we're talking about. today, we have 520 icbm's, with 420 war heads. we have 60 bombers. 42 b-52's, and 18 b-2's that are nuclear capable. and they have many war heads. they have -- we have 240

sub-law firm missiles and the numb of subs are not restricted. but we are -- we have 14 try dent submarines and with -- tri depmbings ent submarines. with all due respect, i would say this, this is one area, if we can come down in mutual agreement with the russians to a lower level, we can save ourselves the money of not having to replace all of these weapons systems. and a lot of very thoughtful people have looked at this issue and they believe that the two most survivable legs of the triad are the ballistic missile submarines and the bombers. the land-based missiles are vulnerable. we had great debates over the m.x. missile, we got into how many r.v.'s coming in to take out an existing missile, and usually it's two, so the enemy would be using up weapons. the point of it all is, the

last thing that we're going to be using is nuclear weapons. it just is not going to happen. it would destroy the world. and so we can come down to a lower level and still have a credible deterrent. we can't afford to do everything. and the most important thing today, i think, is to have, to build up our special forces, build up our intelligence capability, and to look at the threats that we're facing out there with al qaeda and the terrorists and frankly nuclear weapons are a relic of the cold war. we should bring down the size of this, general cartwright, one of the most thoughtful former members of the joint chiefs, has suggested that we go to having ballistic missile submarines and bombers. the markey amendment would have

started nuss a way of reducing the numb of land-based missiles. but i just -- i just think it's not right for us to get in the middle of this, the senate had long hearings, they went through a process of ratification, this treaty was ratified by the united states senate, and again, i just think if there's one area where we can make some reductions, it's in the area of nuclear weapons. we're just not going to need as many as we've had in the past and we can have great deterrents at a lower level. i hope we can reach that i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from wyoming seek recognition? mrs. lummis: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to work with representative berg on this amendment which will protect

our nuclear triad from the reductions scheduled under this treaty for the term of this 2013 budget year. each leg of our nuclear triad, bombers, submarines and land-based missiles, complement each other and strengthen each other. as a lifelong resident of southeast wyoming, i've come to understand and appreciate the role of our intercontinental ballistic missiles. the 90th missile laying in cheyenne keeps 150 of our icbm's at nearly 100% alert. the bombers and subs have their own unique strength but no other leg of the triad comes close to this alert level. the constant alert, wide geographic dispersion and immediate global response capability of our icbm's make them an indispensable part of our triad. they are the most cost

effective leg of the triad as well. at less than $3 million per icbm, they are less than a third the cost of a sub-launched missile or a nuclear bomber. it's because of the icbm's we can say with confidence that we are fielding a nearly unbeatable nuclear force. those that want to slash our nuclear force forget that it was american strength that ended the cold war. it was american strength, including the peacekeeper and minuteman 3 missiles, that allowed us to negotiate landmark reductions in american and russian nuclear arsenals. remember, we were able to retire the peacekeeper missile silos in wyoming. it was a victory for global stability. but we did it through american strength. not through unilateral disarmament. that's what makes the new treaty so -- the new start

treaty so troubling. it is bilateral in name only. the united states bound itself to unilateral reductions in strategic nukes but russia can still expand its strategic arsenal. russia can stack their bombers to the hilt with war heads and call it a single delivery vehicle russia can can deploy an unlimited number of tactical nuclear weapons under which they hold an advantage. russia can develop new -- new -- long range nuclear tipped cruise missiles with new start, we negotiated a way -- we negotiated away american strength and received lit until run of -- lit until return. it is dangerous to assume our nuclear competitors have the same motives and ideals that we do. if we roll over and capitulate to the demands of our

competitors, we cannot assume that russia, china, and iran will follow. but if we maintain our strengths and our unbeatable nuclear posture, we will be far more effective at securing the peace that we all want. again, i want to thank representative berg and mr. rehberg. i encourage you to vote against unilateral disarmament, vote for our amendment. mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from wyoming yields back her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i seek recognition in opposition to the berg amendment. 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. mr. markey: i thank the chair. you know, this debate has taken on the characteristics of ancestor worship. and i understand it. i know it's hard for

individuals to let go of the cold war. to let go of an era where foreign policy was characterized by this bitter rivalry between the united states and the soviet union. the reality, we won. it's over. and we didn't just win, it was basically a world where there's yube power. it's us. the chinese only have 40 to 50 nuclear missiles. the russians have already dramatically reduced their weapons. the likelihood of a nuclear war between the united states and russia is negative zero. and yet there are members that don't want to see any reductions in our nuclear weapons force, not withstanding the fact that those extra expenditures then would have to

come out of other budgets, including the budgets for the national institutes of health to find a cure for canser or alzheimer's or parkinson's. and so we have this curious disconnect between the rl re-ality of the world that we live in today and the understandable but erroneous commitment that many members on the other side have to a relic of the cold war era riflery that no longer can withstand fiscal scrutiny. so let's just take this debate about whether or not the united states is vubble initial. each one of our submarine based nuclear weapons systems have 96 independently targetable war heads on board. that is each one of our sub commanders can destroy the 96 biggest cities in china.

each of them can destroy the 96 biggest cities in russia. each subcommander with their first nuclear weapon could destroy tehran. each subcommander could destroy pyongyang and still have 95 independently targetable nuclear weapons onboard that one submarine much less every other submarine we have out there. and so to have an amendment that says after new start was agreed to between russia and the united states, after the air force and the navy signed off on new start, there are members of the house proposing that notwithstanding that agreement that was reached that does enhance american national security by reducing the likelihood that there would be

a conflict between the united states and russia, as low as that likelihood is, that we have this micromanagement that comes in of our military. but you know what, it's more than that. let admit it. it's all about jobs. you're thinking about the defense bill as a jobs bill. and i understand that. but whenever we're talking about the defense bill, those jobs that are created should relate in some way to american national security. and what the air force and navy are saying, they do not believe they need more nuclear weapons. in fact, they can agree to and have already accepted the reduction in nuclear weapons in the new start treaty. i understand from a jobs perspective why you would want to lock in jobs that may have been created a generation ago in the height of the cold war, but we have to redeploy for the 21st century. not only militarily but also

into what strengthens us domestically in terms of medical research and educational programs. so i can't really understand why we're even debating this issue. there is a treaty between our two countries. our military has signed off. our military says it actually enhances our security, and i agree with the gentleman from washington state. this is an area where we should actually give some respect to the united states senate that ratified the treaty, to each one of our joint chiefs that signed off on it and not allow a jobs bill to trump our national security, that if you can find programs that actually enhance our security and you want to spend the money on it, let's debate that. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. markey: i urge a no vote on the berg amendment.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north dakota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment -- mr. berg: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north dakota will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word and engage in a colloquy with the ranking member of the committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. holt: i thank you, mr. chairman. let me begin by thanking the gentleman from washington and chairman young for accommodating my request for the second year in a row for an additional $20 million to be included in the appropriations bill for suicide prevention and outreach programs.

the committee last year honored this request, and i think it's a clear demonstration of the committee's intent that the department do more and more to end this epidemic of so you side among our active duty guard and reserve force. i do have a clarifying question i'd like to pose to the gentleman from washington. is it the committee's intent that the $20 million in this legislation in additional suicide prevention funds be made available for successful suicide prevention programs such as new jersey's vets for warriors, peer-to-peer outreach and counseling program? mr. dicks: if the gentleman will yield? mr. holt: i yield. mr. dicks: i ensure that the committee intends to fund those programs that most effectively minimize sue sides and i point out in most of these situations, this money is going

to be competitively awarded, but i'm sure that the gentleman's new jersey program will compete very well. mr. holt: i thank the gentleman. and i'd also like to ask unanimous consent -- or under general leave for the chair to insert in the record a letter from the american legion, the veterans of foreign wars, the disabled american vets and the american corps league a letter to secretary panetta concerning this vets for warriors program. the chair: the gentleman's request is indeed covered by general leave. mr. holt: i thank the chairman. in this letter, the five veteran service organizations note that alternatives exemployed by the department, quote, perhaps none have been more successful than the vets for warriors program, end quote. and i raise this letter, mr. chairman, because just this past week the national

academies of science released a report on the d.o.d. and the v.a.'s response to this explosion of ptsd cases and suicide-related mental health problems for veterans from iraq and afghanistan. and we want to make sure that the successful programs are recognized. and to date no service member or veteran who has used these vets for warriors or vet-to-vet program has taken his or her own life. they have been successful. one of the shortcomings in our government's approach to dealing with the suicide epidemic among service members and veterans is the assumption that only programs within the d.o.d. and within the v.a. are capable of dealing with this crisis, and our experience in new jersey strongly suggests otherwise. and i ask the gentleman from washington and the chair of the

committee for their help in prodding the national academies and the government at large in evaluating the potential positive role of the community based programs like the vets for warriors, the role they can play in helping defeat the suicide epidemic among our troops and veterans. diction -- mr. dicks: if the gentleman will yield? mr. holt: i yield. mr. dicks: i say our chairman has been a great leader on this issue. no one has done more than bill young on this, and i just -- i look forward to working with him in trying to make sure this program is completely and thoroughly evaluated by the army, by the national guard and by the v.a. mr. young: if the gentleman will yield? mr. holt: i yield to the

gentleman from florida. mr. young: i appreciate the comments by mr. dicks, the former chairman, and i strongly agree with him, as i do most of the time. we have a great history of working together for many, many years, and we will be very happy to work together with you on this issue because it is a very, very important concern to all of us and to all the members of our committee, and i -- to all the members of this house of representatives. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. holt: reclaiming my time. i would reiterate my thanks to the chairman and to the ranking member for the strong attention and sensitive attention that they have given to this matter. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. flores of texas. at the end of the short title

add the following new section. section, none of the funds available in this section may be enforced the energy and independence security act of 2007, public law 110-140, 42 u.s.c. 17142. e chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. flores, is recognized for five minutes. mr. flores: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise to offer an amendment which addresses another misguided and restricted federal regulation. section 526 of the energy independence and security act prevents federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of fuels unless their life cycle greenhouse gas emissions are less than or equal to emissions from an equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources. the initial purpose of section 526 was to stop the defense department's plans to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-liquids jet fuel. this restriction was based on the opinion of some environmentalists that coal-based jet fuel might

produce more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional petroleum-derived fuels. my amendment is a simple fix, and that fix is to not restrict our fuel choices based on extreme environmental views, bad policies and misguided regulations like those in section 526. placing limits on federal agencies' fuel choices is an unacceptable precedent to set with regard to america's policy -- petroleum independence and our national security. mr. chair, section 526 restrictions makes our nation more dependent on middle eastern oil. stopping the impact of section 526 will help us promote american energy, improve the american economy and create american jobs. in addition and probably most importantly, we must ensure that our military has adequate fuel resources and that it can rely on domestic and more stable sources of fuel. with increasing competition for

energy and fuel resources and with the continued volatility and instability in the middle east, it is now more important than ever for our country to become more energy independent and to further develop and produce all of our domestic energy resources. in some circles, there's a misconception that my amendment somehow prevents the federal government and our military from being able to produce and use alternative fuels. mr. chair, this viewpoint is categorically false. all my amendment does is allow federal purchasers, particularly our military, to be able to acquire the fuels that best and most efficiently meet their needs. i offered a similar amendment to the cjs appropriations bill for 2013 and it passed with strong bipartisan support. my identical amendments to f.y. 2013 appropriations bills, each passed by voice vote. my friend, mr. conaway, also had language added to the defense authorization bill to

exempt the defense department from this burdensome regulation. let's remember the following problems with section 526. one, it increases our reliance on unstable middle eastern oil. two, it hurts our military readiness, our national security and our energy security. three, it prevents the increased use of some sources of safe, clean and efficient american oil and gas. four, it hurts american jobs and the american economy. five, last and certainly not least, it costs our taxpayers more of their hard-earned dollars. my amendment fixes those problems, and i urge my colleagues to support the passage of this commonsense amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, is recognized for five minutes. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. chairman. -- mr. conaway: thank you, mr.

chairman. our airplanes use diesel and diesel they must have if they continue to protect this nation. i rise today in strong support of this amendment to lift the restrictions on the military's procurement of alternative fuels enshrined in section 526 of the energy independence and security act. i'd also like to thank my colleagues, mr. flores and mr. hensarling, for their work with me on this issue. section 526 prohibits the military from purchasing alternative fuels products that have life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, a mouthful, that are less than or equal to such emissions from conventional fuel. mr. speaker, this prohibition makes no sense to me. several months ago secretary of the navy said our dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels are ripe with danger for our nation and it would be irresponsible to continue it. paying for spikes in oil prices means we may have less money to spend on readiness which includes procurement. we could be using that money for more hardware and more

platforms. if protecting fuel lines and avoiding price volatility is truly the goal of the military, and i truly believe these are worthy objectives, then lifting objectives in section 526 should be a no-brainer. section 526 puts technology like-to-liquids, oil shale, oil sands out of reach in the united states military. these technologies are capable of meeting the department's objectives for safeguarding production and reducing price volatility and are far more advanced than the exotic biofuels projects that the military has. this would have a stark choice. the military can meet its strategic fuel concerns or operational planning could take a backseat to environmental posturing. many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will spend their time talking about how dirty fuel oil sand technology is. they'll offer up and knock down things dealing with global warming and carbon footprint but will not talk about the

critical need for the department of defense to precure the cheapest, more readily available fuels that require these requirements. the department's work to increase its energy efficiency, to reduce the need for fuel convoys and to limit vulnerabilities in the fuel supply chain, however, those aren't the issues we're dealing with with this amendment. the question this amendment asks is, is it appropriate for congress to continue to prohibit the military from purchasing synthetic fuels. the department of defense's single objective is to protect this nation. leaders have made it clear that foreign sources of oil and price volatility make that difficult. lifting this section will free the military to utilize any technology it believes will help confront that danger. i ask my colleagues to lift this prohibition to manage the long-term strategic risks

facing the nation. i thank my good friend for offering this amendment and look forward to its passage. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida yield back. 24e gentleman -- the gentleman yields back his time the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. young: i rise to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: mr. flores offered the same amendment to each 2012 appropriations bill, and all were accepted. also each fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill that have passed the house include this amendment. all passed by voice vote with the exception of c.j.s. which had a roll call, a positive vote of over 250 votes yes. 15 democrats supported the amendment. mr. conaway offered an amendment to the f.y. 2013 armed services committee bill which has the same effect. the amendment was accepted into the house bill. this obviously is a very

popular amendment and i'm happy to be supportive of it. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from california. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> for the purpose of supporting the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: a question for the author of the amendment and those supporting it on the other side. in listening to your discussion you seem to be in a posture of the military, navy in this case , i suppose other bramplings, having access to alternate fuels you spoke specifically of coal-based fuels, are you speaking of all kinds of alternate fuels and that the military should pursue those fuels so they might be available and to purr theme in the development phase as well as when they're fully developed. mr. flores: all my amendment

does is allow them to use other fuel. i have issues with paying $56 a gallon for fuel but i'm willing to battle that at a future date. i'm not endorsing the use of those expensive fuels. i think they're irresponsible use of the taxpayer funds when the purpose is to defend our country, not to be trying to promote alternative fuels. the chair: in listening to your -- reclaiming my time, sir new york listening to your discussion about the coal-based fuels, clearly those are in the development stage. they're not yet in place and i would assume that in the development stage, the u.s. military would be purchasing those for the purposes of testing as well as providing an early market, a development market, for those fuels. therefore i would assume that that same lonlic would apply to other kinds of biofuels. would it not?

mr. flores: the logic applies but again, i think it's an order of magnitude. for instance, the cost to develop coal to liquids fuels has been -- the technology to do coal-to-liquids fuels was used by the germans in world war ii. it's been tried in the past, it's still not cost effective. i think there's an order of magnitude. if the military can do it for let's say 50% more than the cost for conventional fuel, that's one thing. but if it has to pay 10 times more for biobased fuels that's another issue. mr. garamendi: reclaiming my time and huang for the information. the point here is that in the early development of all these fuels, whether coal based or other kinds of biofuels there's a higher cost in the early stages that presumably and hopefully and in fact must be reduce ned navy is to procure those fuels for -- for the

normal utilization of their fleet or whatever the fuel might be used for. and therefore in listening to your discussion, which i do support, i think it's important to understand that in the early development, there is going to be a higher cost, which could not and should not carry forward for the normal use of those fuels and with that, i do yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back his time. the gentleman from indiana. the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. it's been argued that section 526 harms our military readiness. this is simply not the case. particularly according to the department of defense. the department of defense's data this month shows clearly it has not hindered the department from purchasing the

fuel we need today worldwide to support the military missions. but it also sets an important baseline in developing the fuels that we need for our future. d.o.d., the department of defense, supports this section and recognizes that tomorrow's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, are going to need a greater range of energy sources. in fact, the department says that repealing this section could, and i'm quoting the department, complicate the department's efforts to provide better energy solutions to our war fighters. and to take advantage of the promising developments in homegrown biofuels. we're also -- i would also emphasize the impact it would have on our economy and the creation of new jobs in our economy. i believe the amendment would damage the development of biofuels given the fact that the department of defense is such a huge procurer of energy

at the worst possible time for our economy. it could send a negative signal to america's advanced biofuel industry and have an adverse impact on development efforts and the export of world-leading technology. i would also emphasize the section does not prevent the sale of fuels that emit more carbon. nor does it prevent the federal agencies from buying these fuels if they need to. government policy should help drive the development of alternative fuels that cut carbon emission, not increase it. i think that's a common sense approach. an again, i'm opposed to the gentleman's amendment and would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yield back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rides for the purpose of a colloquy between my friend the chairman from florida and the ranking member, my friend from indiana. i was planning to introduce an amendment on this issue, an amendment that would require the department of defense to buy american flags that are made in america by american workers using american-grown and manufactured materials. mr. thompson: wherever an american flag is flown, it's a symbol of the freedoms men and women throughout our history have marched, fought, and died to secure. there's no greater symbol of our country, our unity, our freedom, and our liberty than our flag. the veterans' administration is already required by law to

purchase 100% american-made flags of american-made materials to drape the caskets of each deceased war hero. i understand that there are already requirements prohibiting the department of defense from purchasing certain items not produced in the united states. but there are no requirements for the department of defense to purchase american made american flags. i believe it's important that every american flag the department of defense buys should be made in america by more than workers with american materials. it's a -- it's as simple as that. a -- at a time when our domestic manufacturing sector is struggling and millions in our country are out of work, it's a slap in the face to all meshes to have their tax dollars spent on flags that are made overseas. i ask the gentleman here today with me, do you share my concerns about this issue? will you and the ranking member, mr. chairman, work with me to address this omission an

help ensure that the brave men and women in uniform receive american made american flags? >> will the gentleman yield? mr. thompson: i do. mr. young: thank the credit for discussing this with us earlier on. we had a good conversation and i would say i am strongly supportive of what the gentleman has just said. i believe that the american flag should be made in america. with american materials, whatever they might be. i do say that, i guarantee him that we will continue to work with him to find a workable solution to see that this does happen. i thank the gentleman for raising the issue and i thank him again for discussing this early on with me and i am supportive. mr. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to working with you and yield to my friend the ranking member from indiana.

>> i appreciate the gentleman yielding and agree with my colleague's remarks. i want to work with mr. thompson and the chone this very important issue and pledge myself to do that. mr. thompson: reclaiming my time, mr. chairman, i thank the gentleman from florida and the gentleman from indiana and look forward to working with both of them and others in the house to ensure that we can bring this to resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. runyan of new jersey. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the fol logue, section, none of the operation and maintenance funds

made available in this act may be used in contravention of section 41106 of section 49 of united states code. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. runyan: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank the chairman of the committee for allowing me to bring this forward. congress has a responsibility to see that funds are spent appropriately by the department of defense to support missions for our national security. the department has been using foreign-owned aircraft to carry equipment in and out of afghanistan. pulling over $140 million year to date. these missions could have been completed by american carriers. american carriers are regulated by the f.a.a. and have much better safety record than foreign airlines. u.s. government dollars go to develop u.s. jobs. the u.s. government specifically designated the

civil reserve air fleet or craft to supplement national security air transport needs through partnership with u.s. private based airlines. the program allows civilian aircraft capability to integrate with military command structures on short notice. using foreign owned aircraft is not only disadvantageous for our carriers but also for u.s. commercial airline that have dedicated aircraft to craft. it removes the incentive for american car kir -- carriers to hire merp workers and use american mechanics and suppliers and ultimately harms a vital national security program. this amendment requires that the department of defense use american owned and operated aircraft whenever possible to move cargo and passengers. it ensures that troops in the field get what they need by allowing the department to use foreign carriers when necessary. it strengthens the vital

national security program and ensures that american dollars are spent on american services. current law, the flag craft act, is not being complied with to the extent of $140 million. it has gone to foreign carriers this juror that unapproved carriers are being assigned craft missions. this leakage from craft programs is a threat to the viability of our craft airiers, the program, and ultimately our war fighters. . i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. mr. young: i move to strike the last word. i rise in support of this excellent amendment. and i thank mr. runyan for offering it today. i do accept the amendment. the chair: the question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, a, except as provided in subsection b, appropriations made in title 9 of this act are hereby reduced in the amount of $12,670, 355,000. and not apply to the following accounts in title i, afghanistan security forces fund, two, defense health programs, three, drugs, interdiction and counterdrug activities defense, four joint improvised explosive

device. five, office of the inspector general. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: this amendment is offered by mr. jones and myself. the budget is based on the assumption that we will have 68,000 troops in afghanistan throughout the entire fiscal year 2013. however, this is not the plan that our commander in chief has put forth nor the plan that we would like to see the war come to a quick end would support. as president obama has repeatedly stated, we are winding down this war. after withdrawing the surge troops by the end of this summer, that will bring us to 68,000 troops at the beginning of the 2013 fiscal year. we will continue to bring our

troops home from afghanistan, and i quote the president, at a steady pace. this amendment captures the billions of dollars that we will save by pursuing this steady drawdown of troops as opposed to maintaining troop levels at 68,000 throughout the entire fiscal year 2013 and then presumably on october 1, bring 28,000 troops home. this amendment would cut $12,670 ,000,000 from the overseas contingency fund. this amendment does not cut funding for troops on the ground in afghanistan. i believe, as do all of my colleagues who have advocated for an end to this war that our troops in harm's way should have all the resources they need to safely execute their mission and i'm committed to ensuring that our troops on the ground have the best equipment and the

compensation that they deserve. this amendment does cut the funds that a not needed and would not be used if we pursue the president's steady drawdown plans. we should not be paying for things that we aren't going to buy and that we don't need -- and we certainly don't need to further pad the budget. the committee has approved $3,350,000,000 cushion on the fund that wasn't even part of the president's request. we have spent half a trillion dollars on the war in afghanistan and the department of defense can't even account for many of those funds. lost to contractor fraud or afghanistan corruption. when we take into account the long-term costs of this war, the costs are even more staggering.

we support a quicker timeline to withdraw troops than the president has proposed. we recognize that our core national security objectives have been met in afghanistan. and that there is no u.s. military solution to the remaining challenges in the afghanistan nation. we began our military operations in afghanistan to eliminate those international terrorist organizations that threaten the united states and thanks to the remarkable bravery and competency of our men and women in uniform, al qaeda has been virtually eliminated from afghanistan. terrorist camps have been demolished and osama bin laden is dead. thousands have given their life to accomplish this and tens of thousands have suffered life-al tering wounds and now time for our troops to come home and time for this house not to waste further money. this amendment is not about ending the war but reducing the deficit by $12,670,000,000 and

we can do that by capturing the bsh difficult the president's troop draw down and reduce the deficit and bolstering our fiscal security at home. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who claims time in opposition. the gentleman from florida? mr. young: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: mr. chairman, first i would like to understand i understand the since certificate of the gentleman's presentation. it is much like a number of other amendments that we have had that are very similar to this. in afghanistan, we are in a very critical position. i think it is important that we allow the military commanders, those who are commanding our troops and leading our troops into combat, i think it's

important that we understand we need their advice, we need them to tell us how do we achieve our goal and then depart from afghanistan. and i will tell you i have been to afghanistan. but i have seen more war at the hospital at walter reed in bethesda and i have seen too many men and women triple amputees, more serious mental issues, traumatic brain injury. in my weekly visits there, i can tell you this is a mean, mean nasty war, with a mean, mean nasty enemy. but we have got to let -- not politics, but the wisdom, the vision, the knowledge of our military commanders in the field

responsible for this operation, we need their advice to make our decisions. and their advice does not -- is not compatible with this amendment. so i do strongly oppose this amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield my time to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: i yield to the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: i thank the gentleman. my apologies to mr. jones who was about to stand up and speak on this issue. mr. chairman, i appreciate your sincerity and your extraordinary work on the issue, a very, very difficult issue and i share with you the obvious compassion for

our troops, those that are there and those who have been wounded, however, if i might pose a question, the commander in chief who presumably had the advice of the generals on the ground and in the pentagon has stated clearly that in the beginning of the next fiscal year, that would be september 30 or october 1 of this year, that there would be 68,000 troops on the ground in afghanistan and that there would be a steady drawdown or a steady pace so at the end of the fiscal year there would be some 40,000 troops in. and that would be september 30, 2013. now a steady drawdown would assume that you take 28,000 troops, and remove them on a steady basis so that over the course of that year, you would have half the troops in the country and the other half would have been gone. that being the case, you don't

need to budget for all 68,000 being there the entire year. in fact, you budget for something between 40,000 and 68,000. however, the appropriation that we have before us actually assumes that all 68,000 are going to be there until october 1, 2013. that's not what the president has said and that's apparently not what the generals are planning and what the planning and execution is. so what this amendment simply does is recognize what the generals intend to do as commanded by the commander in chief. we may disagree with that, but the advice just given to me by the chairman is that we ought to pay attention to the generals. we are seeing a steady drawdown. $12 billion at stake here and what we are doing is to capture

there. if something would go awry and the drawdown wouldn't occur, the appropriation places a $3 billion cushion for unexpected contingencies. so what are we doing here? do we care about the deficit or not? let's be wise with the taxpayers' money and let's not spend or appropriate money that is not apparently going to be necessary. and if there is a contingency, there's $3 billion cushion built into this budget and into this appropriation already. i yield back my time to the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: how much time is remaining? the chair: two minutes remaining. mr. frank: i strongly support the effort by my colleague from california and i would say to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee that once the society for which democratic processes has determined what it

wants to do in the military area, then we need the technical advice from the military experts. but there is a prior question with regard to afghanistan. should we be staying there. they never claimed they went in on their own but from a vote from the house and the senate. and it is the duty of the members of this house to decide whether taking all of the factors into account the time has come to wind it down or not. once a decision is made, we listen to the military. clearly what is at stake here is not in this amendment, simply a technical question the way in which the logistics are handled, but whether or not the house wants to reaffirm that the time has come to begin insteady withdrawal. and maybe would like to go more quickly than this amendment would allow and probably don't

have the votes for that. i disagree with the notion that this is a matter in which the american people must defer to military experts. yes, once we have made the democratic decision about what to do. but all of the factors being taken into account, the time has come, just as this house authorizing the military to go in, to reaffirm the decision that the time has come to begin to withdraw. and i support the gentleman's amendment in that particular context. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, i join my friend from california, mr. garamendi. all we're saying is that the president has said, with the advice from the military, that it is time to bring the war in afghanistan home. to an end and bring our troops

home. i have the greatest respect for the gentleman, who is the chairman, that was just here, mr. young. i have signed over 10,474 letters to those who have given their life to this country, to their families, many families are divorced, and i take the pain every weekend. no, it's not right being in afghanistan, but i don't forget the war. i don't think many of my colleagues forget the war. i want to make that clear. but when ig to walter reed in bethesda and now they have been consolidated and see four kids that have no body parts below the waist. one is from florida, the first one that i ever met that had no body parts below his waist, from florida, 23 years of age, a private in the united states

army, i look at all the waist in afghanistan. it is a country that will never change, no matter what you do. history has proven that. what mr. garamendi's amendment says is let's stick to the plan that's been laid out by the president, with the advice of the military. . . i worry about the wounded. the $12 million that mr. garamendi is talking about saving could be spent to take care of the wounded. mr. chairman, there's a book called the $-- called "the $3 trillion" war, written by dr. joe stiglitz. he is saying, no, it's not the

$3 trillion war, when you factor in the pain and the wounded from afghanistan, i would rewrite the title of the book to be the $5 trillion war. are we prepared for that tsunami that's coming? no. we're a country that's financially breck. but we owe those who have given so much. that's all this amendment is doing. it's saying let's follow the plan by the president, advice by the generals, let's save $12 billion and spend it on the wounded. take care of their pain for the next 25 or 30 years. i hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will look seriously at this amendment. let's do what's right first for the wounded and their families, secondly, let's do what's right for the taxpayers, and their families, and bring this war to an end because if we don't do it here in congress, there will be no end.

it will be 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018. let's pass this amendment and say to the president, sir, we trust you, you listened to the generals, this is a plan to bring an end to afghanistan pause it is a corrupt country and nothing will change, no matter what we do, or how many lives we expend or how much money we expend, it will never change. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. 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 ayes have it. the gentleman -- >> i request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment of the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will

report the amendment. would the gentleman specify which amendment? >> number one. the clerk: amendment number one printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mulvaney: thank you, mr. chairman. the amendment is fairly simple. it's an amendment to seek to freeze defense spending for one year, a single year. it is not a cut. only in washington, d.c., could we spend more money from one year to the next and call it a cut. this is not a cut amendment. this is an amendment to freeze spending for one year. it is an amendment to set the base defense spending levels at $518 billion. the fact same amount as last year's appropriation that was approved just a few months ago. it is $2 billion above what the pentagon asked for. it is also $2 billion above

what the president asked for. and while the amendment gives control to the generals over the spending, it protects military pay, the defense health program, and the war budget. we heard arguments in favor of a one-year freeze before. this amendment is entirely consistent with the simpson-bowles plan. it's entirely consistent with the domenici rivlin plan. what willy hear against it? we may hear it's been cut $39 billion over the last two years. this is the base defense budget for the last two years and the base defense budget this year. the base defense spending has gone up from 2011 to 2012. if the bill passed up amended, it will go up again this year. only in washington, d.c., is

that considered a $39 billion cut. we may hear that the c.b.o. says that the pentagon is still $9 billion short, based on a report from earlier this month. i have the report. the prosecutor bush report reads, to execute its base budget plans for 2013, the department would require appropriations 1.4% less than last year's appropriation. we may also hear the argument that this amendment would compromise our defense in some fashion. that would only be true, that could only be true if the same exact appropriation that we passed just six months ago put our defense at risk because this is the exact same spending level as we established six months ago. the one thing we do know, is that even with this amendment, if this amendment would pass, we will be spend manager on defense spending than the pentagon asked for and that the president asked for and will be spending exactly the same as we did last year.

we've heard a lot in the last day or two about austerity. i think that means something different in washington than it does back home. austerity to me means spending less. total discretionary spending will be up this year. total mandatory spending will be up this year. total government spending will be up this year. we are still facing a $1 trillion deficit by the time this year is over. we need to do better. we need to do bet for the getting our spending under control. it is easy to cut things that we do not like on both sides of the aisle. it is hard to cut things that we like. and the defense of this nation means a tremendous amount to me, as i know it means to every member of this chamber. if i thought for a second that this amendment would put a single soldier at risk if i thought it would put a single citizen at risk, i would take it down immediately. but all it does is freeze

spending for last year and if we cannot do that simplest of tasks, do we think we have an honest chance to solve our debt and deficit problems? with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does anyone claim time in opposition? if not, the gentleman from new jersey. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman vebling -- is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. i think this this is -- i think this is an appropriate time to remind our colleagues that urn the constitution, national defense is the top priority of the house and senate. article one, section 8 gives congress specific authority to declare war, raise and support armies, provide for a navy, establish the rulers in operation of american military forces. it was in this context that under chairman young our subcommittee carefully reviewed over many months the

president's budget and secretary panetta's new strategic guidance for the defense department. frankly, found the administration's approach lacking in many respects. in several key areas the subcommittee was concerned that the level of risk of -- about the level of risk tolerated by the armed forces was unacceptable. we've talked a lot about that on the floor over the last couple of days. so it's -- if the constitution require -- as the constitution require, we made adjustments which is our duty, yet even within the allocation that's $3.1 billion higher than the president's request, we could have done more for our national security and our troops with more resources. i want my colleagues to know that our subcommittee clearly recognizes the size and nature of the nation's deficit and debt. that's why we found areas and programs where reductions were possible without adversely impacting the war fighter or any efforts toward

modernization and readiness. exercising our mandate to adhere to sound budgeting, we reclaim funding for programs that were terminated or restructured since the budget was released by the president. we have achieved savings from favorable contract price, adjustments and schedule delays. we cut unjustified cost increases or funding requested ahead of need. we took rescissions of surplus from prior years. even with these steps to stretch our defense dollars, there remains capability gaps. in the feave e-- in the navy, we heard a lot about that over the last couple of days, our fleet needs more ships. they've got more responsibilities in the asia-pacific. the air force tactical fighters are aging rapidly. they've had a lot of activity in iraq and afghanistan. the army is struggling to odd earn -- modernize their ground combat inventory. we need the f-35 strike

fighter. we need to be prepared to respond to every future crisis, who knows where that may be. sir y is engulfed in a civil war, north korea is unpredictable. russia wants to reclaim its former glory. china son the fast track to a stronger military. iran is working night and day to acquire nuclear weapons. al qaeda, hezbollah and other terrorist groups continue to plot and plan. obviously the future is challenging. to say the least. and we do -- an we do our troops and citizens a disservice if we do not prepare for the next crisis. mr. chairman, the legislation before us includes funding for critical national security needs, provides the necessary resources to continue the nation's vital military ferts abroad. the department of defense has already sustained significant budget reductions, cuts to the military have accounted for

over half the deficit reduction efforts achieve sod far. nearly $500 billion even though national defense accounts for only 20% of the entire federal budget, which is sharply reduced from the 40% or more before and during vietnam. and these are real cuts, not simply reductions to planned future spending. but given the military's urgent needs, their vital role in maintaining global stability, and this house's responsibility to protect america and americans, i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and yield back the lance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frank: i am pleased to join my colleague from south carolina in an effort to make a

small reduction in the appropriations committee's reck mendation. our colleague from new jersey is right. the constitution gives its power to the congress, not to the appropriations committee. to the entire congress. the cuts that are being talked about condition consist in the number i've seen in the light of the chairman of the armed services committee, entirely in the fact that we have had a drawdown of troops in iraq. now, i shouldn't scoff at the fact that we did reduce the money we're spending in iraq because that's the problem with this budget. yes, we have threats. the problem with this budget is, it is dealing with the current threats and it's dealing with past threats. this budget fully funds a capacity to win a thermonuclear war with the soviet union. i do not think that's a significant threat today. this continues the commitment

made courageously by harry truman in a bipartisan way to defend western and central europe against stalin and his hordes. because we went into europe 65 years ago when the communists were menacing and the european nations were weak and we said, we will protect you. we're still doing that. they're not weak and they're not threatened. but we're still protecting them. look at the budget as a percentage of gross domestic product from all those wealthy nations in europe. they are less than half of ours. on the other hand, the french are now contemplate regular deucing the retirement age for certain people who work to a certain amount of years. the official retirement age from 62 to 60. we're being told we may have to raise ours. how come the french can do that? very simple. we've picked up their tab. yeah there are problems with

china, problems with iran, problems with north korea. tens of thousands of troops in western europe have nothing to do with that. yes, we should have a nuclear capacity, the submarines and airplanes are important. but we've got three ways to destroy the soviet union. which no longer exists. and it's replaced by a much weaker russia. couldn't we say to the pentagon, and i know there's a great reluctant here to appear to be anything but totally demprble to them, couldn't we say to them, you've got three ways to win a thermonuclear war with the soviet union. could you pick two? give up one? and save much less than this $1 billion. there's also the question of the culture. the genre spons of this body when an agency is inefficient is to crack down. when the pentagon is inefficient, the money keeps going. i'm told there are cuts, it was my understanding that this budget, the pace budget, leaving aside the war in iraq

which has wound down, is larger than it's ever been. these are cuts from what the pentagon was proposed to have. let's understand also this has now become a zero sum game. unless you're prepared to ignore the deficit problem, every dollar you put into the pentagon over and above what i believe is needed is coming from somewhere. i don't know how members can go to people who are on medicare and explain to them that there are going to be these cutbacks and tell people on social security who have been doing physical labor all their lives not to work another year or two. and then put money into the defense budget that's not necessary. we're told that while we have to be able to protect ourselves, i agree. against whom do we need it all? one of the things we're told, we need more ships because we've got to protect the shipping lanes between here and china. these are, of course, shipping lanes over which the chinese make an enormous amount of

money. the motion that -- the notion that the chinese plan to shut down the shipping lanes the basis for their enormous surplus or trade with america, seems skeptical but we still have a greater defense than the chinese. i noted that the chinese recently launched an aircraft carrier, their first one. they bought it, i believe, from ukraine. and outfitted it with model airplanes so they can learn how to do it. i don't deny there are some threats there. the question is not whether or not we should be the strongest nation in the world. of course we should be. and we are. . the question is how many mum himself do we need to be stronger. i'm embarrassed by the fact that it's only a billion. members will have choices. if there is any serious notion of deficit reduction, this amendment will pass. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from california. >> strike the last word. the chair: recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: i would like to yield my time to mr. mulvaney. mr. mulvaney: thank the gentleman from california. i rise very briefly to respond to a few points made by my colleague and friend from new jersey. yes, north korea is a threat. yes, iran. china's role in the world is growing and we need to deal with that. syria wasn't a problem last year, but egypt was. all of these were challenges to us last year and just six months ago when we set the base defense appropriation at $518 billion. it was good enough six months ago, it should be good enough today. i received a letter regarding this particular amendment and used a lot of the same language

that the gentleman from new jersey did. it mentioned these are real cuts. the cuts were put in place regarding the defense budget were real cuts not cuts in future years. can someone please show me in this dark line where the cutsr because in my world, when we cut spending, those lines go down. the only reductions we have seen in defense spending are in the overseas contingency operation in the global war on terror which we believe was a good thing because it wound up operations in iraq. but what we do in this town, when we increase spending on the global war on terror, we don't count it as an increase, but when we cut spending, we do count it as a cut.

it's not fair. we should tell people how we spend their money. and to sit here and say that the cuts that the defense department have incurred are real cuts is not accurate. the sequester is. this is not a debate about the sequester. i voted to reduce it. that's not what this discussion is about, but whether or not the $518 billion is good enough today. mr. garamendi: reclaiming my time. i yield to the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i want to insert into a record, june 28 article from the -- from "the hill." u.s. dominance in every dimension in the military is clear. this is without regard to its cost. a responsible rollback of our

military budget is achievable with no sacrifice to our security. and this is from chief of staff to colin powell when he was secretary of state and special assistant to colin powell when general powell was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. there are times when i think let's take advice from the military experts. and i will put this into the record under general leave. mr. garamendi: reclaiming my time and yielding back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kucinich: i rise in support of the amendment. there is a news report out today that suggests that very soon, the united states will have over 1,000 bases of various kinds around the world.

1,000 bases around the world. and it raises the question as to whether or not we are overextending. as the budget keeps growing, the tendency is to keep overextending. we already know that our basic force is being taxed. so if you introduce the notion of fiscal discipline here that will not in any way undermine the air force, the army, the navy, but fiscal discipline that will send a message to this administration, don't go overextending. we know what our core mission is. we know that we have the ability to defend this country, be careful you don't overextend, this amendment which has bipartisan support is something

that is an important moment for this house because on one hand, the budget that is being prepared to deal with the d.o.d. appropriations is sufficient enough for a strong defense and orned, we are saying -- on the other hand, we are saying part of a strong defense is part of fiscal discipline. so 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 south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. mulvaney: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: i rise to engage

in a colloquy with my colleague, good friend, the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, mr. young and ranking member dicks. i would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their hard work on this very important legislation. those in favor say aye. efforts to strengthen our national defense and support our men and women in uniform have been tireless and they should be commended. i'm very pleased that they make key investments in areas of great interest and concern to me, first of which is the virginia class submarine and cybersecurity. i believe that our technological edge is critical to ensuring our war fighters not only can do what we ask them to do in the future, but can do so as safely and efficiently as possible.

in addition to the virginia class submarine and cybersecurity, no family of technology shows as much promise to this end of directed-energy weapons and with that, i yield to the chairman. >> i welcome the opportunity to engage with him. mr. frelinghuysen: the committee is aware -- i yield to you. mr. langevin: i would like to talk about the decades of investment that this congress and the department of defense had made into directed-energy weapons research. i would like to direct them to a recent report by the center of strategic and budgetary assessment and clearly showed many directed-energy weapons are

the most operational barriers. i offered an amendment to this year's national defense authorization act detailing how we could have the most promising directed-energy initiatives. and i recognize the commitment that this bill continues in terms of investing indirected-energy weapons technology and i encourage the committee to continue top appropriate in the future. mr. frelinghuysen: the committee is aware of the energy capabilities and share the gentleman from rhode island's interest ensuring that our war fighters have the capability to operate in the complex environments of the future. i would assure the gentleman that the committee will continue

to make every effort to ensure that the department of defense is adequately and effectively resourced to meet the challenges of the future, including the transformational technologies such as directed energy. mr. dicks: i do echo the chairman's interest. with the threats in environment that the war fighter and intelligence community are facing, the addition of new technologies have provided tactical and strategic edges should be examined more rigorously and i appreciate the gentleman yielding. mr. langevin: i thank the chairman for his and the ranking member member's commitment and i look forward to working to realize the potential of directed-energy weapons and with that, i yield to the chairman. mr. frelinghuysen: we appreciate the gentleman's comments and

look forward to working with him and the ranking member, mr. dicks, to ensure that the war fighters can realize the benefits of our nation's in research and development, including directed energy. and i yield back. mr. dicks: i thank the gentleman for his hard work on this issue and look forward to working with him. mr. langevin: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. engel, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of defense or any other federal agency to lease or purchase new light-duty vehicles for any fleet or any agency's fleet inventory except in accordance with the presidential memorandum. the chair: the gentleman from

new york is recognized. mr. engel: let me just say very, very briefly. on may 24, 2011, president obama issued a memorandum on federal fleet performance that requires all new light-duty vehicles in the fleet to be alternate fleet vehicles, such as hybrid, natural gas or biofume. my amendment echoes the presidential memorandum by prohibiting funds in the defense appropriations act to lease or purchase new light-duty vehicles except in accord with the president's memorandum. mr. frelinghuysen: pleased to accept your amendment. mr. engel: i thank the chairman and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is goode. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina

rise? mr. mulvaney: i have number nine amendment in the congressional record. the chair: clerk will report the amendment. number 9 -- the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. mr. mulvaney: this is a follow-up to an amendment i offered and once again i thank the chairman for the opportunity yesterday to discuss the issue before the amendment was ruled out of order. as you recall and very briefly $5.6 billion this year that has been moved out of the base defense budget and into the war budget. this violates a policy that we have tried to follow in this house since 9/11 and actually violates a policy that the bill says we should not violate going forward in 2014 and i tried to draw attention to that in yesterday's amendment, which was ruled out of order. this amendment deals with the this amendment deals with the same thing