billion out of the budget and puts it right back in, which sounds like a strange thing to do but only way within the rules to draw attention to the fact that the $5.6 billion is in the war budget when it should be in the defense base budget. this is not a spending amendment. it is an accountability amendment. it is a bipartisan amendment. mr. jordan from ohio and mr. welch from vermont are joining me in sponsoring this amendment. this is a good government amendment and i would think it would have bipartisan support and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. anyone who wishes to speak to this amendment? 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 ayes have it. mr. mulvaney: 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 minnesota rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. ellison of minnesota, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, not later than 30 days after a contract is awarded using funds appropriated under this act, the relevant contractor and subcontractor at any year and any principal with 10% ownership interest, officer or director of the contractor or subcontractor or any affiliate or subsidiary within the control of the contractor or subcontractor shall disclose to the administrator of general services all communications, independent expenditures or contributions made in the most recent election cycle supporting or opposing a federal political candidate, local party or political committee and contributions made to a third

party with the intention or reasonable expectation that such entity would use the contribution to make independent expenditures or election communications in federal elections. . the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for five minutes. mr. ellison: mr. chairman, representative eshoo and i have submitted this very straightforward amendment for a very simple reason. we believe that it's simply fair and it's good for public disclosure to require defense contractors to publicly show and disclose their political contributions. money, secret money in particular, can breed corruption. sunlight will banish it away. when government contractors make political contributions there's no doubt that the office knows

who gave them money. the only ones in the dark are the american public. this can lead to corruption where contracts donate to candidates they believe will benefit them. and this would misserve our democracy. we need full disclosure so that the public can ensure that contracts are awarded based on merit rather than money. now, some have expressed a concern that in the past, that disclosure, a precontract disclosure requirement could be a problem because they fear that agencies would choose contractors for partisan reasons. while i think this is an overstated concern, and i don't agree with it, our bill doesn't do that. our amendment, our amendment requires disclosure post contract to avoid any fear of that. and so i just want to say that we're in an era where the public needs to trust congress and

government more than it does. in order to promote real trust, real confidence, we need to implement amendments that will promote transparency and that will let the public know that we are doing the right thing with the public dollar, particularly as it relates to the defense industry. so let me close by saying that i think this amendment is a first step. i'm a proud co-sponsor of the disclose act, by representative van hollen, which requires reporting of all corporate campaign activity. also we won't be able to tackle money and politics until we overturn citizens united, in my opinion. the public agrees with that proposition by 82%. and so at this time i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i make a point of order against

the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill. therefore it violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment imposes additional duties. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? if not, the chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting direction. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2, rule 21, point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does -- >> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. >> i thank the chairman.

mr. chairman, this is the, i believe, sixth time that i've come to the floor during this congress to call for disclosure and full transparency throughout the federal government. ms. eshoo: so this is not my first time on the floor on this issue. i've risen on many bills and i will continue to. because i think it's really critical to help restore the confidence of the american people in their government and how it operates. i maintain the view, and it's shared by the majority, -- majority of the american people, that transparency in the use of our tax dollars is absolutely critical. i want to pay tribute to my colleague, mr. ellison, for offering this amendment and together we support it and offer it to the full house. i believe that with public

dollars comes public responsibilities. there are thousands of companies who do business with the federal government. and they receive billions of dollars of public dollars for their services and products. and i think that all of our constituents deserve to know whether and how they spend these dollars and whether they're used to influence our elections. the amendment i'm offering with congressman ellison will provide this transparency by requiring that post-award contractors or subcontractors, which is very important, we don't want to interfere with the contracting process whatsoever, but once they've been awarded a contract, requiring disclosure of all political contributions should be the norm of the day. disclosure is extraordinarily powerful. because it puts the american

people in the driver's seat. constituents deserve to know who's involved in their elections and what their purpose might be. i think it's sad that just a few days ago the united states senate killed the disclose a act -- disclose act. a sad day for the congress. but i think the american people are taking note. anyone who supports the citizens united decision, which i don't, legalizing corporate expenditures, should know that eight out of nine supreme court justices endorsed prompt disclosure. justice anthony, kennedy -- anthony kennedy wrote, disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. now, republicans supported disclosure before they were against it. and i would hope that my

republican colleagues would come back into the fold. there's no reason to oppose transparency and disclosure nlts someone really wants to -- unless someone really wants to hide anything. and i don't think any of us want to hide behind the hiding. it just is not good government. and the american people, the people that we're here to represent, have the privilege of representing, deserve more information and not less. we can bring this about by adopting this policy and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from florida, for what purpose? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk but i do have a question for the chairman, if i could. the chair: state your question. >> this issue was talking about an amendment that was ruled out of order. is it germane for her to be

talking about an amendment that is ruled out of order? the chair: the gentlelady offered a pro forma amendment to the bill under the five-minute rule, striking the last word, yes, it was. is the gentleman prepared to go forward with his amendment? >> yes, i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. stearns of florida. 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 secretary of defense to implement an enrollment fee for the tricare for life program under chapter 55 of title 10, united states code, that does not exist as of the date of enactment of this act. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. stearns: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer an amendment that prohibits funds made available through this act to implement a new enrollment fee for tricare for life beneficiaries. the department of defense may

have the authority to raise fees and implement new enrollment fees unless specified by congress prohibiting such authority. last year through the f.y. 2012 d.o.d. authorization appropriation process the administration increased enrollment fees for tricare prime beneficiaries for the first time since 1995. my amendment will ensure the administration does not implement a first-time ever enrollment fee for tricare for life beneficiaries. for fiscal year 2013, the administration proposed additional fees and cost sharing increases in new enrollment fee for tricare for life, aggressive increases in pharmacy co-payments, and a cap of $3,000 per family. on april 17, 2012, i expressed my opposition to these proposals that were made by this administration on the house floor to raise such fees for our service members and veterans. i quoted the president in a speech he gave about veterans

being, quote, short changed, end quote. then senator barack obama said on may 18, 2006, and i quote, when a young man or woman goes off and serves the country in the military, they should be treated with the utmost dignity and respect when they come home. end quote. this is at least one thing i can fully agree with you on. passage of this bill will mark the third consecutive annual decrease in total d.o.d. funding including overseas contingency operation since f.y. 2010. i understand budget cuts need to be made and obviously we need to get our fiscal house in order. but my colleagues, we owe our veterans quality -- -- veterans quality health care for their service and sacrifice. we promised to take care of our troops when they came home. i can appreciate knowing that our country's support for our troops is not limited to strictly the battlefield. it is unconscionable that this

administration seeks to raise health care costs on more than 9.3 million veterans and their families who are currently eligible for tricare when there are other excesses that can surely be cut. for example, we should limit funds to pakistan before giving d.o.d. the option to raise costs on our veterans. we heard adequately yesterday on members' opposition to pakistan for closing supply routes since november, 2011, that are necessary for providing our troops in afghanistan necessary supplies and resources. so i ask members of this congress to consider alternative avenues to cut spending. before we require 3.3 million veterans that are eligible for tricare for life to sacrifice even further. i'd like to submit for the record letters of support from the veterans of foreign war, the v.f.w., and the american legion for my amendment, prohibiting funds for this act to be used to implement an enrollment fee for the tricompare for life program.

-- tricare for life program. mr. chairman, the administration's proposal to increase health care costs on our military represents a very serious breach of faith as it is taxes on the oldest cohort of military retirees and their families. so i conclude by asking my colleagues to support my amendment and by doing so we honor the promises made to our brave men and women who have sacrificed so much for the freedom that we all enjoy. with that, mr. speaker, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. >> mr. chairman, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, the stearns amendment would prohibit funds from being used to implement a fee for the tricare for life program. mr. young: the department of defense does not currently have the authority to establish such a fee but did submit a legislative proposal to do so. the house passed national

defense authorization act chose not to adopt the legislative request that would give the department this authority. while this defense appropriations bill does not have the jurisdiction on tricare issues, we support strongly what mr. stearns intends to do so we would accept the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from florida controls the time. does anyone yield to the gentleman from florida? does the gentleman yield back? mr. young: if the gentleman would like me to yield to him i'd yield. i'll yield. mr. stearns: i say to the distinguished chairman emeritus and also chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee that i appreciate

his endorsement, notwithstanding with that i would say to him, his acceptance is good but i think the floor should have a vote on this. with that i yield back. i yield to the chair. mr. young: i yield back my time, mr. chairman. the chair: all floridians yield back their time. is there any discussion on this amendment? for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? to this amendment? any other discussion? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. stearns: mr. chairman, on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. for what purpose does now does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. fitzpatrick of pennsylvania. 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 using procedures that do not give to small businesses concerns owned and controlled by veterans as that term is defined in q-3-q that are included in the database under section 8127-f of title 38, united states code, any preference available with respect to such contract except for a preference give to small business owned by service disabled veterans in defined of section 3-q,. mr. young: mr. chairman, i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fitzpatrick: thank you, mr. chairman. for generations brave young men and women across the united states have answered the call of duty and service of our

nation. now as the conflicts on foreign fields continue to wind down, we must ensure that we do not lose sight of the need to care for and provide for our returning veterans. our nation has learned from generations of veterans that war does not end when the camps are packed in, the planes are grounded, the ships are docked and our soldiers set foot on american soil. general washington once reminded us that the willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they per receive the veterans of early -- perceive the veterans of early yar wars were treated and appreciated by their nation. however, during these difficult economic times our veterans are still faced with challenges as they return to civilian life. in march of this year, the bureau of labor statistics reported that among veterans who have served in the post-9/11 era, the unemployment rate is 12%.

higher than the national average. among young male veterans under the age of 24, the unemployment rate is 29%. nearly 1/3 are unemployed. one unemployed veteran is one too many, but these statistics demonstrate an economic reality which is quite unacceptable. it is important to understand that this hardship comes not from the lack of willingness to work by our veterans but rather from a lack of opportunity. consider that according to the most recent census over 2.4 million of our nation's veterans are now small business owners. veteran-owned companies now make up 9% of all u.s. firms. the small business administration now estimates that one in seven veterans are self-employed or are a small business owner. and finally, nearly a quarter of veterans say they're interested in starting or in buying their own business. so our veterans continue to do

their part. it is clear that our nation's veterans are ready and willing to invest in our economy if we provide them with the opportunities they seek and quite frankly with the opportunities that they deserve. with the president's announcement earlier this year that all of our young men and women will be home from afghanistan within the next two years, we as a community and as a country must begin working now to ensure that we are providing our returning service men and women with job opportunities as they seek to reintegrate into civilian life. to address this, i've authored legislation called the fairness to veterans act to provide the same preferences given to other preference groups in federal contracting. it provides a level playing field to get our veterans back to work. this amendment furts the goal of the fairness to veterans act. as our nation struggles to achieve an economic recovery, we should be looking to utilize the talent and leadership

skills of our nation's veterans. these men and women volunteered to selflessly serve our country, and in order to succeed must display self-discipline and leadership. it is character traits like these that should be nurtured and fostered to help our economy grow again. ultimately, all of our efforts in the house must be focused on putting our constituents back to work, and this legislation will do just that by creating new opportunities for our veterans. with the passage of this amendment, we will be one step closer to leveling the playing field for our veterans. the guidelines included in this amendment will provide veteran-owned businesses with the access they need to grow and to create jobs. the skill sets possessed by our highly trained veterans are unmatched across the globe. in fact, our fighting men and women are unquestionably the most highly trained, highly skilled work force in history. it is critical that we fully utilize their expertise to put

our economy back on the right track. the men and women of the military have risked their lives in service to us. this amendment is our opportunity to begin to repay that incredible debt. with that, mr. chairman, i seek unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment in furtherance of working with staff to institute this policy of fairness to veterans that will benefit our returning veterans and benefit our country. mr. young: mr. chairman, reserving the right to object. the chair: the gentleman is recognized on your reservation. mr. young: i will say to the gentleman from pennsylvania that what he wants to do i want to share with you and help him with that. i under the rules reserve the point of order but i hope the gentleman will let us be part of this effort to accomplish what it is he wants to do within the rules. so i withdraw my reservation on

his request to withdraw. the chair: the gentleman withdraws his reservation. is there any objection to the withdrawal of the amendment? mr. fitzpatrick: i thank the chairman. the chair: the amendment has been withdrawn. reservation on does his request to withdraw. the chair: the gentleman withdraws his reservation. is there any objection to the withdrawal of the amendment? mr. fitzpatrick: i thank the chairman. the chair: the amendment has been i have an amendment at

the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. kucinich of ohio. at the end of the bill after the short title insert the following section. none of the funds made available by this act may be used to enter into a contract with any person or other entity listed in the federal awarding performance and integrity information system, fapiis as having been convicted of, one, fraud against the federal government. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. mr. kucinich: thank you very much. my amendment is simple. it says if you seek to be a department of defense contractor and you have previously defrauded the federal government, you shouldn't be able to receive a contract from the d.o.d. according to the congressional research service in fiscal 2010, the department of defense obligated $366 billion to contracts, which is 54%, more than half of a total of department of defense obligations. there are rules and regulations in place that prevent federal contracts from going to entities that have broken the law. under the federal acquisitions regulation, federal agencies are required to award contracts only to responsible sources. and federal acquisition regulations states that a satisfactory record of integrity i have an amendment a the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. kucinich of ohio. at the end of the bill after the short title insert the following section. in business one of the general standards of responsibility. but the term responsible is not explicitly defined anywhere in the law and i know we cannot define new terms using the amendment process and that's not what we're trying to do here. the fact is that someone could commit fraud against the government and still get a

contract with the department of defense and that's wrong. we have to make clear that companies who defrauded taxpayers should not be able to get more d.o.d. contracts. so this is -- i'd like to point out that the underlying bill being debated here contains specific prohibition against the use of department of defense funds with anyone who has an unpaid tax liability. again, a party bidding on contracts must confirm they have no unpaid tax liability. it is to make sure that contract fraud against the american taxpayer will not be tolerated. according to groups like the project on government oversight, which is only able to track the number of disclosed settlements, there have been a dozen of instances of contractors committing government contract fraud since 1995. and of those dozens that are known to have committed this fraud, a total of $544 million

in fines paid. that's a tiny amount, really, when you're talking about in terms of fines compared to billions appropriated for the department of defense contracts in the last decade. bottom line, if you defraud the taxpayer, you should lose your privilege to receive more taxpayers' money. so i would urge the adoption of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back? mr. kucinich: i yield back. mr. young: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. young: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, i will not oppose this amendment because i want to make sure that the defense department does not hire contractors that commit fraud. we've just seen this amendment just a few minutes ago and not really had time to analyze. if we can make any further explanation. but i'm not going to oppose the amendment.

i suspect it's going to pass. it should because none of us want the defense department to hire bad contractors. good job, mr. kucinich. mr. kucinich: if i may will the gentleman yield? the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. is there any further discussion on this amendment? for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? i'm sorry. the question now is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from north carolina. the gentleman has an amendment at the desk. the clerk will report the it. -- will report it. the clerk: amendment number 17 prted in the congressional record offered by mr. jones of north carolina.

the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. young: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. even though the chairman has a point of order, i want to explain why i think this amendment is important. i've worked with rosa delauro on this amendment. this amendment simply says any long-term security agreement with afghanistan must be conducted as a treaty or authorized by congress. in 2008 this congress was outraged that a long-term security agreement would be concluded without input from congress. i wonder where the outrage is today. we are in the worst financial shape than we were in 2008, and i would hope that congress would see that we have a need and a responsibility. this agreement was submitted to

the afghan parliament but not to the united states congress. where is the outrage? my colleague, ms. delauro, led the effort in the house in 2008 to return congress to its constitutional responsibility. we must decide when and where our men and women go to fight. i would like to commend ms. delauro for having the courage to help lead this effort again today. no matter who is the president, it is the responsibility of congress to commit u.s. troops and fund this agreement. mr. speaker, there are estimates that say we will be up to 30,000 u.s. troops in afghanistan until 2024. this will cost over $500 billion, and yet if we don't support legislation like we're talking about today, we will have no say, no say at all. i don't know why the taxpayers

aren't outraged by what is happening with this national security agreement with afghanistan. the fact remains we simply don't have what the numbers are going to be and the cost is going to be with this national security agreement with afghanistan. we in congress have a responsibility. our responsibility is to make sure we have checks and balances with any administration. when our country's in such a bad financial situation, to know that we, hopefully we will not allow a 10-year agreement to just slide by congress, with $500 billion at stake and maybe even more of our young men and women being killed. mr. speaker, just a couple more minutes. i have a very dear friend that is a former commandant of the marine corps. i have an arrangement with him that i will not use his name in a public forum, but any of my

friends here today, the chairman and ranking member, asked me his name, i'll come up and tell you. i sent him an email after we signed this security agreement with afghanistan. i said to the former commandant, what do you think about this agreement? i got three paragraphs back but i will read just a couple sentences. he wrote, and i quote the commandant, the former commandant, simply put, i am not in favor of the agreement signed . it basically keeps the united states in afghanistan to prop up a corrupt regime. it continues to place our troops at risk. i know that my friend from connecticut will speak in just a moment and i look forward to hear words, but i hope that the congress in 2013, no matter who the president is, will bring this issue back and let's have a

debate in the house of representatives and let's say to the american people, we will meet our responsibility, we will not send troops, we will not send money to afghanistan unless the congress itself approves it. and again, mr. chairman, i have great respect for you and the ranking member, i'm sorry he's leaving. he's been a great member of the congress. but i hope, mr. chairman, if we all get back in 2013, we will have an opportunity to bring this issue to the floor of the congress and debate the role of congress when any president, democrat or republican, reaches a security agreement that obligates our troops and the taxpayers, we must meet our constitutional responsibility. and with that, mr. speaker, i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: mr. chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and

constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill. and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. this amendment requires a new determination and i ask for the ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to speak to the point of order? the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: mr. chairman, i rise against the point of order. the bipartisan amendment that congressman jones and i offer ensures that any security agreement between the united states and afghanistan will not be legal unless it comes in the form of a treaty or is specifically authorized by a law. the gentleman's point of order argues that this amendment requires the secretary of defense to know the definition of, quote, any agreement with the government of the islamic republic of afghanistan that includes security assurances from mutual defense.

while this definition is not writ noon statute, it is -- written into statute, it is common sense. i also believe our responsibility under the constitution takes precedence over this point of order. as it is this point would cut into the heart of our constitutional duties as a congress under article 1, section 8. the power to declare war has been entrusted to the congress and to the congress alone. at the recent nato summit in chicago, president obama and nato leaders announced an end to combat operations in afghanistan in 2013. and the transition of lead responsibility for security to the afghan government by the end of 2014. but even though bin laden is dead and al qaeda has been decimated, the administration also announced an agreement with the government of afghanistan that would keep an untold number of american troops there until 2024. 12 years from now.

the chair: the gentlelady will suspend. will she confine her remarks simply to the point of order? ms. delauro: with regard to whether you agree or disagree with the policy, it's imperative for our form of government that congress be consulted on any such agreement that maintains our troops abroad or for that matter any defense or status of forces agreements that's made by the united states. it is our task as representatives of the people to debate the critical issues and to make the ultimate decision whether to put or keep our troops in harm's way. this amendment simply will ensure this relationship with afghanistan that no defense agreement will be enacted without the ultimate consult of the congress -- the chair: the gentlelady will suspend again. ms. delauro: and mandated -- the chair: the gentlelady will suspend again. not to the policy issue, but addressing the point of order. ms. delauro: i understand. i will conclude by saying that i urge the chair to overrule the point of order, allow this amendment to receive an up or down vote. the chair: thank you.

the gentlelady yields back. is there any other discussion to the point of order? the chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds that this amendment addresses funds in other acts and includes language requiring a new determination. 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 gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i move to strike the last word, tone gauge in a colloquy with chairman -- to engage in a colloquy with chairman young. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: i rise to seek the chairman's support in addressing an issue which he is deeply and painfully aware. the rapidly increasing number of cases of amputations, post traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic brain injuries suffered by our brave young men and women returning from combat theaters. of course these conditions can have a devastating impact on military dependence. they are also having an increasingly devastating impact on the military health care system that serves our soldiers,

sailors, marines, airmen and other families. there's no one who has worked harder than the chairman of our subcommittee to ensure that the very best medical care is available to the nine million americans who have earned the benefits of our military health care system. yet i remain concerned that newer, innovative practices are not being sufficiently integrated into the military medical system. one such innovative practice is systems medicine. by more rapidly and accurately quantifying wellness and deciphering illness and disease, systems medicine would promote translational research by linking the department's research and development programs initiatives and laboratories with its clinical care program, initiatives and facilities and i yield to the chairman. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the former chairman of this subcommittee is absolutely

correct. current strains on our military and fiscal resources are causing unprecedented challenges in maintaining a viable, cost-effective military health care system. and he has probably heard me discuss this more than he wants to over the years. but it is a serious, important issue. it is essential that new innovative approaches be more quickly included in military medical practice. mr. dicks: i ask the chairman to join me in urging the department to implement systems medicine into the medical practice of all service branches, to facilitate the training of d.o.d. medical personnel in systems medicine, the defense department should consider systems medicine pilot probablies that address post traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, amputee help, along with other high-priority concerns that impact all aspects of total

readiness, including mental resilience. and i yield to the chairman. mr. young: again, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i just want to thank him for highlighting this issue today. and obviously i plan to continue the work with him, to do the best we can to make this happen. mr. dicks: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, as we begin to wind down the debate on this defense bill, i wanted to take just a moment to pay tribute to these two -- this dynamic duo that we have. bill young and norm dicks. the collective experience, wisdom and knowledge of this defense bill and the actions of our military is almost unprecedented in this house.

mr. rogers: they have put forward a great bill, in the highest bipartisan pradigses of the house -- traditions of the house. and all of us in this body say thank you for the great service of these two stalwarts in this body. they have conducted themselves during this debate in the highest tradition it's of this house -- traditions of this house. they have collaborated together in a bipartisan way to help defend this country. and i think i speak for all members of the house of representatives in saying thank you to these two great stalwarts of this body. this will be the last defense bill that norm dicks will take part in. is he departing this body in retirement -- he is departing this body in retirement and we

will miss his wisdom and his camaraderie and his knowledge of the needs of our country in its defense. i think i speak for all of the house when i say thank you to norm dicks for great service to his country, to this body, and to the defense of our country especially. we will miss his presence, we will miss his expertise, we will miss the fact that he is a jolly good fellow, among other things. >> will my colleague yield? mr. rogers: i'd be happy to yield. >> i very much appreciate my chairman yielding. i'd like to associate myself with your remarks regarding these two fabulous leaders and the jobs they have done over the years on our behalf and for our national security. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. rogers: i thank the gentleman and i can't help but mention the great service the former chairman of this committee has rendered to the body as well. mr. young: will the chairman yield? mr. rogers: i'm happy to yield. mr. young: thank you for yielding.

i want to say the same thing. mr. lewis chaired this subcommittee as well as the full committee. he did an outstanding job, many innovations that came about during his six years as chairman of this subcommittee are with us today and will continue to be with us. the house is losing another great talent, another great, dedicated public official, and i thank you for calling attention to his service. mr. dicks: will the chairman yield? the three of you have greater hair than i do but -- and that means you have wisdom and experience along with it. but i just want to say i've enjoyed working with all three of you, bill young and i have worked together for many years. jerry lewis and i have worked many years, taken many trips to afghanistan, to iraq, you know, to try to be with the troops and to -- and to find out what was going on. and we've had a good group. and it bothers me greatly when

there's this sense out there that we can't work together. this committee works together. i'm proud of that. and i'm proud to be associated with my colleagues. thank you. mr. rogers: mr. chairman, chairman young has mentioned briefly the service of our friend from california, mr. lewis, who as you all know served as chairman of the full committee for a period of time and of course chairman of this great subcommittee. we're going to miss his presence because he is seeking greener pastures out there as well. in retirement. and jerry lewis has been a stalwart member of this body for many, many years and has rendered great service to his country and certainly to this house. and most importantly, i think, on this subcommittee. because this subcommittee is in

charge of defending our country and there's no higher calling for any of us than to say we've been a part of that. so, mr. chairman, i wind my remarks up. we've had some 60 or 70 amendments on this bill and i think the debate that took place is in the highest traditions of this body. i wish mr. lewis and mr. dicks happy retirements and other pursuits in life and we wish you god speed. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: mr. chair, just for a brief moment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: thank you. i strike the requisite number of words. one issue that didn't come up today was this question of what are we going to do at the end of this year with sequestration? and there was some discussion of an amendment, it didn't happen, for points of order and other

possible reasons. but i really believe that somehow we have got to avoid sequestration and that collectively we've got to work together in the next several months because i honestly believe that the economy of this country will be severely and adversely affected if we allow sequestration, both -- not just for defense which we're talking about here today, but for the other part of the government, the discretionary domestic part of the government. we have got to avoid this and i honestly believe -- i would love to see anagreement reached between the parties -- an agreement reached between the parties, between the leadership, so we could get an agreement that is fair and balanced and equitable. i think if the four of us and a couple of others i can think of, i think we could put something like that together. but somehow it's got to happen because the consequences to

defense -- and not only defense but to the economy of the country's at stake here. c.b.o. says that the difference in growth if we don't -- if we do sequestration, if we don't deal with the tax issue, will go from 4.4% to .5%. so it's a 4.5% difference in economic growth. that means unemployment will be greater, that means the deficit will be greater. the whole idea of the budget control act was to get the deficit under control. so again i hope that we will all continue to think about how we can come up with a solution that's bipartisan, bicameral, will work with the administration, but from a national security and a defense perspective, there's nothing more treacherous out there than sequestration and we've got to avoid it. thank you. i yield back. the chair: all time being yielded back, pursuant to

clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendmentings on which further proceedings were postponed. the second amendment of mr. king of iowa. fourth amendment of ms. lee of california. the fifth amendment of ms. lee of amendment. an amendment by mr. moran of virginia. an amendment by mr. turner of ohio. amendment number 18 of mr. coffman of colorado. an amendment by mr. berg of north dakota. an amendment by mr. garamendi of california. amendment number 1 by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. amendment number 9 by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. amendment number 5 -- an amendment by mr. stearns of florida. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic votes after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, on which the ayes prevailed by vose vote. -- voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: second amendment offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested.

those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. and this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 247, the nays are 166. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the fourth amendment by ms. lee on which further proceedings were postponed and the nays prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: fourth amendment offered by ms. lee of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly

prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 87 and the nays are 326 and the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the fifth amendment by ms. lee on which further proceedings were postponed and the nays prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: fifth amendment offered by ms. lee of california. the chair: those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 171, the nays are 243. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is on the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. moran of virginia.

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 407, the nays are 5. the amendment is adopted.

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

the chair: on this vote, the

yeas are 235 and the nays are 178. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is request for on amendment 18 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. coffman on which the further proceedings were postponed and the nays prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 18 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. coffman of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. number, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. . this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 123, the nays are 292, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment, number 18, printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from north dakota, mr. berg, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will rekess nate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. berg of north dakota. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested.

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 232, the nays are 183. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 133, the --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 137, the nays are 278, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, on which the further proceedings were post he -- postponed and the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mulvaney

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 247, the nays are 167, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 9 prohibited in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, on which the further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 238 and the nays are 178. the amendment is adopted.

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

the chair: the yeas are 399, the nays are 17. the amendment is adopted. the clerk will report the last two lines. the clerk: the act may be cited as the defense appropriations act 2013. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. young: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise and report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments and with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill as amended do pass. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee do

now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 5856 and reports the bill back to the house. under house resolution 717, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on adoption of

the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. pursuant to clause 10 of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 326 and the nays were 90. the bill is passed. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent the committee on house administration be discharged from further consideration of house concurrent resolution 133 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 133, concurrent resolution authorizing the use of the rotunda of the united

states capitol for an event to present the congressional gold medal to arnold palmer in recognition of his service to the nation in promoting excellence and good sportsmanship in golf. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the concurrent resolution? without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 2527 with the senate amendment thereto and to concur in the senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2527, an act to require the secretary of the treasury to mint coins in recognition and celebration of a national baseball hall of fame. senate amendments. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the reading is dispensed with. is there objection to the

original request of the gentleman from michigan? without objection, the senate amendment is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove myself as a co-sponsor of h.r. 6085. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of inquiring of the chief deputy whip the schedule for the coming week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> i thank the gentleman from

maryland for yielding to me. mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday and wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business and the last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of bills under suspension on mondaynd tuesday and of particular note will be h.r. 459, the federal reserve transparency act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by congressman ron paul, a complete list of the suspensions will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. beginning on tuesday the house will consider h.r. 6082, the congressional replacement of president obama's energy restricting and job limiting offshore drilling plan. and finally the balance of the week will be spent on h.r. 4078,

the red tape reduction and small business job creation act. this is a exillation of bills that are sponsored by representatives ross, fox, garrett and mike conaway. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. i know the majority leader could not be here this afternoon, but he said last week that we should expect legislation related to extension of the policy on the floor the week of july 3 dealing with tax questions, in particular the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. the gentleman may remember my discussions at that point in time and i don't think decisions have been made. we are hopeful on this side of the aisle that there will be hearings obviously because it's going to be the week of the 30th it'll be on the floor next

week and also there will be a markup of that bill before it comes to the floor. is the gentleman, can you tell us whether or not in fact there will be a hearing on that legislation and also whether pursuant to those hearings there will be a markup on that bill? i yield to my friend. >> i thank my friend for yielding. mr. roskam: as the gentleman know the 2001 and 2003 tax breaks have been well vetted and well discussed, they are not news or breaking ground so my understanding is that the current thinking is to bring those directly to the floor and that there's not a plan for a markup. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. as the gentleman understands, although they may be well known, the situation that exists today is radically different than existed in 2001

and 2003 when president bush, who recommended both of those tax cuts, projected a $5.6 trillion surplus as the gentleman may recall. unfortunately, that prediction was wrong. radically wrong. when i say radically wrong, in fact, we increased the debt by over $4 trillion rather than have a surplus, a $10 trillion turn around in projections. as a result, i would suggest to the gentleman and his party that the situation confronting us is, as i said, very, very different than it was in 2001 and 2003 when the bush administration projected those surpluses which it inherited, of course, from the clinton administration. in addition to that, the republican majority has said that they'll govern based on their pledge to america and openness in the house is a key part of that pledge that you made.

i want to read you a quote, quote, we have nothing to fear from letting the house work its will, nothing to fear from the battle of ideas. he went on to say, the speaker of the house, mr. boehner, that starts with the committees. the result will be more scrutiny and better legislation. he said that on october 2010. of course it wases in throws of a chain -- it was in the throes of a campaign. i would tell my friend they hope sincerely that premise prevails today. that in light of the change of circumstance, but much more than that, in light of the significant differences between the two parties, in the ways and means committee, that it -- that the transparency and openness to which speaker boehner referred referencing that that would apply in committees as well would almost dick kate that you would have a markup in the committee and give members of the committee the opportunity to vote on that legislation, offer amendments,

offer alternatives, and offer the opinions for the consideration of other members on the committee as to ramifications of the actions proposed in the committee by the majority party. i would ask my friend if he has a view on whether or not, notwithstanding the fact that the position of the majority is that the subject matter is well known, it is also well known we have a difference of opinion on this. what the speaker said in his quote was, let that difference be spread across the record, let members have the opportunity to express their differences through their vote and that that premise applied to the committees. i would hope that the gentleman could assure us that in fact, there would be a markup in the committee. i talked to mr. camp, who is a good friend of mine, for whom i have a great deal of respect and asked him to have a markup, i would hope the leadership

would support that effort and urge that markup to occur, consistent with what speaker boehner said in october of 2010. i yield to my friend. the chair: i -- mr. roskam: i thank the gentleman for yielding. one of the points that's important to focus in on, the last time the congress dealt with the 2001 and 2003 tax breaks was not in 2001, not in 2003, but in december of 2010, when president obama signed these into law. so this is an arena, i think, where we do reflect back but ultimately we need to look forward. so the question is, how do you create a sense of predictability by which businesses can deal with these situations? so the gentleman's right to point out past forecasts that were incorrect but it's also correct to point out that the white house made one error after another, this white house, one error after another as it relates to the predictions of the stimulus, for example. where unemployment was promised to peak at 8% and it didn't

turn out to be so. so as we move forward, this is not new ground. this is not new concepts, and it's consistent with what then-minority leader boehner said in the pledge to america, this process has been open. this process has been dynamic this process has been participatory and this bill will be considered under the same rules and the same commitments that were made in the pledge to america. so moving forward, what i'd like to announce to the gentleman and to the membership is that there will be an opportunity, i'm told, an opportunity for the minority party to offer the president's alternative as an amendment on the floor to have the debate because as the gentleman and i both know, that's really the crux of the matter. so to have an up or down vote, as i would characterize it as a bad idea, i know the gentleman has a different view of that. i think particularly in light of this week's study from ernst

& young, i think we should be chastened, actually, with the notion of moving forward and raising taxes on anybody. i accept the world view of the gentleman who has been articulate in the past and communicate -- in communicating that. but i think that is the crystallization of these two competing views of how to create economic growth and i think the gentleman will be fully satisfied. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for those comments. that is new information for us. i am, i will tell you, pleased. i would still like to have a mark whereupon in the committee, which i think is consistent no matter how much this has been discussed, there's been no markup of this bill. so that while it may have been discuss forward long period of time, while there have been hearings on tax reform, there's been no markup of this bill in the committee as the gentleman well knows. but i am pleased to hear that

the minority will be allowed an amendment to be made in order of our choosing to offer on this floor. i think that's a positive sign and i appreciate the gentleman's notice of that and i will certainly notice our members of that ability. we're pleased at that. i will say, however, to the gentleman, i did note the ernst & young's story, i noticed it was paid for by people who may, absent its conclusions, receive tax increase to help us bring down the deficit. but notwithstanding that, i was sure we were going to hear about that on the floor. i'm not sur prused and you're not going to be surprised, that there'll be other studies referenced on the floor as well. so i thank the gentleman for his information and i'm pleased with that and as i said, i will note that in fact there will be an amendment hopefully that amendment will be allowed some

significant period of time for debate. that is much superior to the only other alternative we would have had, the m.t.r., five minute on each side. i thank the gentleman an thank the leadership for that information. let me ask the gentleman, does the gentleman expect the farm bill to come to the floor before the august break? i yield to my friend. mr. roskam: i thank my friend for yielding. you know, the gentleman knows the farm bill has created a lot of concern on our side of the aisle. it's my understanding that there's concern on the gentleman's side of the aisle. your ranking member supports the bill, my understanding that leader pelosi does not support the bill system of we're in conversation with our members as i'm sure you are with yours, and we're not prepared to make an announcement today in light of continuing to get member feedback. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. for the gentleman's information, which i may help

you in determining whether or not you have the voters in farm bill, i think -- the votes for the farm bill, i think it's fair to say we would have the majority of our party for the senate-passed bill which passed with 62 votes, 12 members of the republican party voting for that bill, 50 members of the democrat party. obviously a significant bipartisan bill. so that if the gentleman perhaps is talking to mr. mccarthy, he can -- you can convey to him information that if that bill were to come to the floor, we would try to work with you to pass that piece of legislation. obviously there are a lot of farmers in our country who are struggling right now, very -- we have an extraordinary drought in america. they are suffering. they're at risk. and the gentleman talked about certainty. i agree with him on certainty. by the way, because i didn't ask him when he brought it up, does that certainty mean you

would be suggesting that the tax cuts that were done in 2001 and 2003 be made permanent? i yield to my friend. mr. roskam: as the gentleman knows making things permanent in this arena with its conundrums and limitation, particularly in the other body, make that difficult. i, speaking on behalf of myself, think that that rate, at that level, permanent, is a wise course. as the gentleman knows, based on the difficulty of the rule, what i have to say on that is, fairly limited based on the reality of the rules. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that answer. going back to the crisis that the agriculture community is confronted with by the drought, if the farm bill, and we would urge that the bipartisan farm bill be brought to the floor for consideration to give certainty to farmers, to give

some sense to farmers as to what they may rely on in the coming year or coming years. but absent that, the gentleman did not mention, do we have any expectation that we will deal with drought emergency legislation vis-a-vis the farm community prior to our august break? i yield to my friend. mr. roskam: i don't have information to announce at this point in term os they have timing. i have a high level of confidence that no one will be going home for very long. absent a remedy. -- no one will be going home for very long absent a remedy and work on all our parts. mr. hoyer: both mr. cantor and i made representations we are going to work together, as we do from time to time, cooperatively and effectively, i might say, we're very concerned that the iran sanctions legislation, which is in conference, the past -- be

passed by this congress prior to us leaving on august 2 or 3, i'm not sure which day we're going to be leaving, but one of those days. does the gentleman have any information on the status of the iran sanctions legislation? which we passed overwhelmingly in this house, the senate passedened, it's in conference, i know mr. cantor and i both support getting this done before we leave. i yield to my friend. mr. roskam: yes, there is every intention to move forward on that which the gentleman and majority leader have been working cooperatively on and there's an expectation that will be done before the august recess. mr. roy interk -- mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. roskam: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on oversight and government reform

have until midnight on july 20, 2012, to file its report to accompany h.r. 4078. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. roskam: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. mr. roskam: i further ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at noon on monday next for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from illinois. mr. roskam: i ask unanimous consent that the ep grossment of h.r. 5 -- that in the engross. of h.r. 5856 the clerk be permitted to make changes, including numerical changes, in the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walz. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to pay respect to an admirable individual from america's first district who passed away earlier this week. he was truly admirable. earl lloyd lived an honorable life full of service to his fellow man and faith in a higher power. lloyd served his community in many different ways including his little league baseball and football coach, a member of the volunteer fire department and a member of the stafford county board of supervisors. he was also a proud member of the fairview at river club church and served as a deacon at the baptist church. i knew lloyd for many years through his roles in local government and politics and i am honored that i was able to call him a friend. lloyd leaves behind a large loving family including his wife of 55 years, gloria. my prayers are with his family during this time of mourning and i ask my colleagues to join me

in honoring the life of earl lloyd. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i rise to address the house for one minute, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise to add my voice to those who have come forward to denounce the unwarranted attacks on the secretary of state, hillary clinton, and a woman who has given years of service to this nation and to the state department. as it happens, my wife has given her entire career to the state department and i know how angry i would be if she were attacked based on some twisted

exaggeration of something that her relatives may have done detects -- decades ago, notwithstanding her absolutely spotless record. no one in this house is more dedicated to combating radical islamist ideologies and the governments and organizations that espouse them. but the unwarranted attacks on this man undermine our effort to do just that. now we face in egypt and elsewhere the outrageous attack that our decision to engage with the muslim brotherhood in egypt is not a decision made in our own national interests but somehow is a result of undue influence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. sherman: let me simply say that i join senator john mccain in calling for these dangerous

accusations, unwarranted accusations, to be withdrawn. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> to address the house for one minute, ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to warn of the danger to our armed forces and their families. mr. carnahan: not on the battlefield but here on american soil. the military spending act passed in 2006 stopped much of the predatory lending that once suck its -- sunk its claws into our military families. but loopholes remain. the rent to own industry construct stores outside our military bases while car title lenders and internet payday lenders find ways around the law by creating open-ended laws with interest topping 500%. a counselor at a missouri reports that most service members seeking financial counseling are burdened with expensive rent to own contracts.

one soldier earning less than $1,000 a month paid nearly $500 a month in furniture rent. the senate recently held hearings on this and the senate version of the national defense authorization act for 2013 would mandate regulating open-ended credit loans and close the loopholes. this must change. i will continue to work with my colleagues in the house and the senate to address this problem. we must add rent to own an open-end loans to cover credit and stop the use of allotments for military pay for credit. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. bishop of new york for today, ms. jackson lee of texas for july 16 through july 20, and mrs. sewell of

alabama for july 17 and july 18. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request are granted. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until noon on monday, next, for important hour debate. than the present's request. live coverage of the u.s. house members return next week, here on c-span.

>> it was about those men and women who are almost mortally injured in war who, because of the huge advances that have been made in medical trauma treatment in the last 10 years, they are being saved, an incredible number of them. almost everybody who falls on the battlefield is being saved. i wanted to write about what life was like for these people. i really started out with the question, having seen some people who were pretty gruesomely maimed, would it be better off if they were dead? do they wish they were dead? >> in "beyond the battlefield," his 10-part pulitzer-winning series, he spoke of veterans and their families, combat medics,

therapists, and nurses, on the daily struggles of the severely wounded in the military operations. "qrn more on that c-span's &a," sunday at 8:00. >> something is happening that is changing the nature of large corporations. that is that cycle time, the time they have to stay at top -- at the top of the pack, has been compressed by globalization, technology ships, and regulatory shift. large corporations now not only need to deal with existing markets and known products -- they need to deal with destruction. destruction is when they have -- disruption is when they have a great core business and somebody crazy comes along and says, we're going to take this out. the best examples of this are two of the smartest companies -- anybody ever have a blackberry?

or in nokia phone? i was in finland, talking to somebody who was at the nokia board meeting the month that the iphone came out. they passed the iphone around at the board meeting. the fatal " was "why should we care about this?" from the closing t ford -- from the national governors' address, prof. steve blank. find it online at the c-span video library. >> house speaker john boehner today accused president obama of a lack of leadership over the automatic spending cuts in defense and other areas as part of the 2011 debt ceiling agreement. speaker boehner said president obama only agreed to sequestration so he would have to deal with it only once before the election. wednesday, the house passed legislation that would give the obama administration 30 days to provide for how they would deal with the 100--- $109 billion

cut agreed at last summer hostel. deal.t summer's the >> good morning, everyone. people are looking at the president's economic policies and asking the question, where are the jobs? this week, in an independent report from ernst and young, they indicated that the call for increased taxes will cost the economy more than 700,000 jobs. why are democrats willing to support a tax hike that would hurt thousands of small businesses when our economy is struggling? the president explained himself when he told american job creators -- you did not build that. he believes they owe their success to the government. he is telling small-business entrepreneurs -- you owe us, and it is time to pay up. that philosophy explains a lot

about the present's economic policies and what they have failed. they are completely wrong. our nation was built on the sacrifices and hard work of small business entrepreneurs. frankly, we ought to be thanking them. we owe them a government that stays out of their way and gives them the freedom to grow, create jobs, and pursue the american dream. we need to stop all incoming tax hikes and lay the groundwork for tax reform the closes loopholes and lower rates for all, including american companies. this will keep jobs here in america and bring some of the jobs that have gone overseas back home. the house will lay the groundwork for this type of reform in the coming weeks. small business tax hike will hit nearly the same time as our military is being hit with arbitrary cuts that will endanger our security. these are the same cuts that the president's own secretary of defense says will hollow out our

armed forces. the sequester is happening because the president did not lead. he wanted an increase in the debt ceiling without spending cuts and reforms that are truly needed to reduce our deficit and debt. he wanted an increase in the debt ceiling so that he would not have to deal with it twice before his election. rather than agree to tax and an entitlement reforms that everybody knows are needed, the president and senate democrats gave us the sequester, promising that the cuts would never actually happened. now, some of the same democrats are threatening to drive us off the fiscal cliff and tank our economy, all in the request for higher taxes. the house has already passed legislation to replace illumined defense cuts with some -- with common-sense reforms. but the president has not lifted a finger to work with the

congress on jobs or to resolve these big issues. he does not even have time to meet with his own jobs council. he is out there campaigning every day, looking for somebody else to blame. republicans on the control 1/2 of 1/3 of our government. we're the only ones in town who offered a plan to address the threat to our security that is poised by the defense sequester, and the threat to our economy posed by the coming tax hike. republicans are meeting on jobs and obama's white house has check that. i frankly think that the american people deserve better. >> in regards to the tremendous drought that is affecting the midwest -- there was a video on washington state -- i digress.

[laughter] a terrible drought is affecting the midwest. >> if you have a tie on, you should be wearing socks. [laughter] >> drought affecting the midwest -- there is some speculation that senate democrats would like to add disaster relief to the farm bill. what would prepare you to help out those farmers whose crops are effected? >> there is no question -- the real threat to drop the midwest because of dry conditions. most farmers in my district avail themselves of crop insurance. that is in the farm bill. that is why our government subsidizes the cost of crop

insurance to encourage farmers to buy them. in most cases, it should be sufficient to deal with this problem. >> mr. speaker, i would like to ask you, with the indulgence of my colleagues -- is there a memorable or favorite moment that you have of the convention, as a kid or teenager watching it that you could share with us? >> when i had a chance to check the 2008 convention and address the convention, that is probably the highlight of my convention moments. >> following up, what do you plan to do with the farm bill? >> the decision has been made on the -- no decision has been made just yet. >> last week, you said all your people ran around and said they would not do the farm bill.

>> and no decision has been made. >> will we have any lot -- decision? >> before the election. >> congressman michele bachmann sent a letter with four other republicans to inspectors general about the influence of the muslim brotherhood in the government. it mentioned the check -- deputy chief of staff to hillary clinton and basically said that she had ties to the muslim brotherhood through her family and said that state of our policies have become more friendly to the muslim parliament -- brother heard. keith and it is appropriate that she and these members would ask for this in the letter? >> i have not seen the letter. i do not know this woman. from everything i do know of her, she has a sterling

character. i think that accusations like this being thrown around are pretty dangerous. >> would you consider taking her off the intelligence committee? >> i do not know the that is related at all. >> do you think it will come to a four before the recess? >> long-term, it is likely to be repealed. i think that we are waiting for senate action before we make any decisions on how we move forward. in addition to that, if the administration is serious about expanding trade with the russians, i think it would be very helpful if they were more forthcoming and would promote what they say they want. >> governor romney has released

his 2010 tax returns. you have not released your returns. should you release your returns -- should members of congress released returns? >> my tax returns on my private business just like they are your own private business. >> is a different for presidential campaigns? >> it should not be. it is a sideshow. the american people are asking questions, where are the jobs, and i ask, where are the tax returns? it is a sideshow agree to because the president cannot talk about his record. he cannot run on his record, so we have to create these sideshows to distract the american people from real issues they are concerned with. >> nancy pelosi has said in an interview with political that she is not encouraging democratic members to go to the convention. she thinks that time is better spent campaigning back in their home district. do you share that idea?

do you prefer your members to stay home and campaign? >> they got themselves elected to congress on that. they can make their own decision about whether they want to go to one convention or the other. >> day think that is not fair, that she is telling them to stay home and campaign in care of you would have to ask her. members who want to compete -- to be -- come to the convention are welcome to, but really i could care less. >> when nancy pelosi was speaker, she submitted a list of candidates to president -- to barack obama for vice president. has the obama can reach that -- obama campaign reached out to you for advice on the vice- presidential pick? >> snow. -- no. governor romney is more than

capable of picking his own vice pridential candidate without the interference of a bunch of other politicians. >> mr. speaker, the senate keeps talking about the tax issues perhaps the sequester -- would you be willing to look at that to buy more time, knowing the senate will not go in the same direction as the house? >> we have passed a bill in may that has been sitting in the senate since may. the house will vote here in the next couple of weeks to extend all of the current tax breaks and outline our principles for reforming our tax code next year. i would hope that the senate would act. there is no reason to wait until after the election to deal with what is a very serious issue. >> would you support a measure? >> the house has acted.

i do not want to speak for the senate. a they need to act. the sooner they act, the better. >> this is something that the white house wants, that you want, that the senate once -- what you think this will not happen? >> i have long supported a line- item veto. i do not think this is a silver bullet that will solve our financial crisis. we do not have earmarks anymore. the need for something like a line-item veto is lessened. but i would still support giving the president a line-item veto. but what we really need is a president who will lead and lead our country. we have a $1.30 trillion budget deficit this year, a $16 trillion national debt. we have a sequester that is about to hollow out our military.

and yet the president has been campaigning since last labor day. he has checked out. what the american people want from their elected representatives here in washington is to deal with the issues confronting our country. we are here, ready, willing, and abel. >> speaker, defense contracts have warned they may issue a warning letters before the election giving notice of layoffs. how concerned are you and republicans about something like that? who does that pressure more -- the president or republicans? >> i have heard rumors to the fact that these letters are likely to go out. i think it is important for the office of management and budget in the administration to come forward and outline to the american people just have they intend to implement the sequestered. right now, there are more unanswered questions than there are answer questions with regard

to how the sequester will work and where the cuts will come from. remember one thing -- we have the sequestered because of the president of the united states, for his own convenience, only wanted to deal with the debt limit once before the election. it was the president and the majority leader in the senate who promised to work with us to make sure that we got an outcome out of the super committee. they did nothing to help. as a matter of fact, i would argue that they worked to undermine the work of the super committee. thus, we have the sequestered. it is time for them to leave. -- time for them to lead. >> it was about those men and women who are almost mortally injured in war who, because of the huge advances in at have been made in medical trauma

treatment in the last 10 years, now are being saved. an incredible number of them are being saved. almost everybody who falls on the battlefield is being saved. i wanted to write about what life was like for these people. i started off with the question, having seen some people who were pretty gruesomely named, would they be better off if they were dead? do they wish they were dead? in "beyond the battlefield, " his 10-part series for the huffington post, and the subsequent book, david would spoke with veterans and their families, as well as surgeons, combat medics, and nurses on the daily struggles for those severely wounded in military operations. &a," more on c-span's "q sunday at 8:00. >> something has happened in the

last two decades that is changing the nature of large corporations. that is the fact that the cycle time, the amount of time that they have to stay on top, has been incredibly compressed. by globalization, technology ships, regulatory ships -- in fact, large corporations not only need to deal with existing markets, known customers, known products, the need to deal with disruption. disruption is when they have a great core business and something crazy comes along and says, we are going to take out this company. the best example of this are two of the smartest companies -- anybody ever have a blackberry or in nokia phone? i was in finland and talking to somebody who was at the nokia board meeting the month that the iphone came out. they then passed a copy of the iphone around at the nokia board meeting. the fatal quote was, "why should

we care about this? " stanford professor steven blank on innovation and economic growth. fine it online at the c-span video library. >> coming up tonight, homeland security secretary janet napolitano testifies before congress. after that, a campaign stop in west palm beach, florida. more from the campaign trail -- former florida governor jeb bush campaign's format romney in ohio. later, allen west and michele bachmann speak to the eagle forum. chicago mayor rahm emmanuel and transportation secretary ray lahood speak tomorrow at the center for american progress. you concede that live at 10:15 eastern.

then, at 12:10 eastern, mitt romney campaigned in new hampshire with center kelly ayotte. more coverage live on c-span at 6:00 p.m. with first lady michelle obama delivering a campaign speech in fredericksburg, virginia. >> this week on both tv, the harlem book fair. live coverage starts saturday at 12:30 eastern with a panel discussion on the future of african american publishing. that is followed by a look at public education. cornell west sits on a panel examining the next presidential a western. -- presidential election. then, celebrating the hon -- 150th anniversary of the emancipation proclamation. then, the eagle forum collegian's leadership summit. the harlem book fair and the eagle forum collegian's leadership summit read this

weekend on c-span 2. >> homeland security secretary janet polycom no testified at the house judiciary committee today. -- janet napolitano testified today. she answered questions about the administration's's policy to halt the deportation of some illegal immigrants who came to the u.s. as the children. lamar smith chairs the judiciary committee. >> the judiciary committee will come to order. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. we welcome everyone to this hearing and the specially secretary napolitano. we appreciate her giving us time today. i recognize myself in an opening statement, and then the ranking member. welcome again, secretary nepal

the tunnel, to the oversight hearing of the department of homeland security. dhs is -- responsible for the enforcement of immigration laws, but the department seems instead to work to undermine those laws under the current administration. it has actively worked to make sure that many others do not enforce our immigration laws either. obama administration officials recently decided to grant amnesty under the guise of deferred action, and work authorization to potentially millions of illegal immigrants. this decision ignores the rule of law that is the foundation of our democracy. exercising its responsibility to see that the laws are faithfully executed, the executive branch does not have the -- does have the power of prosecuting discretion on a case by case basis, but this authority cannot be used to systematically dismantle our imat