every hour costs us nearly $10 million. in all this time we have helped support a corrupt karzai government a government that gets billions of dollars each year and billions more under the table. surely this war and the possible extended deployment of our brave troops for an indefinite period of time are worth a little bit more time than has been given for debate. but mr. speaker, members will have the opportunity to debate and vote later today on ensuring the president completes his timeline to transfer all combat military and security -- all combat, military, and security to afghan control by 2014 at which time u.s. operations is to end and to express that should the president determine to extend the deployment of u.s. troops in afghanistan after 2014, then the united states congress should specifically vote to authorize that mission. so i would urge all of my colleagues, democrats and

republicans, to join us in supporting this very, very important amendment and again i do want to express my appreciation to my colleagues in the rules committee for making -- making it in order. . while i'm pleased my amendment was made in order, several others were excluded from debate. i would just like to mention a couple of them. in a bipartisan fashion members of congress have expressed their shock and outrage over the epidemic of rape and sexual abuse and assault in all branches of our military. and in all ranks and military institutions. it is unacceptable and intolerable. while h.r. 1960 has many provision that is address aspects of this crisis, there are several amendments that were not allowed, in particular amendments dealing with military sexual assault by representatives spehr and gabbard. these amendments were serious efforts to advance this debate.

to let members of this house as a whole to decide whether more needs to be done to reduce the level of military assault to prosecute, to bring to justice the pemp traitors of sexual abuse, and hold accountable the military chain of command and institutions that have allowed, facilitated, or tolerated this abuse. they should have not been excluded from this rule and they deserve our most serious attention. so because these and some other important issues failed to be included in the rule, i reluctantly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. again i thank my colleague, mr. nugent, for his courtesies and kind words about my amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from south dakota, mrs. noem.t --

mrs. noem: thank you. during this debate you may hear that some of the reforms within h.r. 1960 do not go far enough. the commanders absolutely have to be taken out of the decision process in sex related offense. i disagree. let me tell you why. holding commanders responsible and accountable for their actions and decisions is the most effective way to change the military culture, especially with regard to sex related events. proposals to take the commander out of the military justice decision process, i believe, they believe it will improve those prosecutions. i disagree. they believe it will improve convictions and overall competence of victims in the military justice system. there is no evidence to support these decisions. there were 005, sim letter acertificateations to conform on rape and sexual assault on those offenses. congress made that

revolutionary change and found it did not make things better. the change made things worse. cases were thrown out. the court of military appeals declared parts of the changes were unconstitutional. justice for victims was delayed. and ignored completely in some instances. congress had to rewrite the ucmj to fix the harm done. the lesson from that is to slow down when you are making major changes to make sure you are doing the right thing. h.r. 1960 does exactly that. it asks both the secretary of decommon sense and independent panel established in fiscal year 2013 to closely examine the role of the commanders in the ucmj and make recommendations for change if appropriate. it's time we focus on what's best for our victims of sexual assault in the military and how to bring those perpetrators to justice. let me talk a little bit about some of the reforms that are included in the bill. because there are so many of them that on a bipartisan basis that were added to the bill

that are going to help reduce the i.n.s. pentz of sexual assault in our military. one of them is that it would strip the commanders of their authority to dismiss the finding by a court-martial. it would limit commanders' ability to reduce, suspend, or dismiss a sentence. it would also establish minimum sentencing guidelines, dismissal or dishonorable discharge for sex related offenses. certainly, such guidelines only exist in the military for the crimes of murder and espionage. now it would include those that have to do with sexual assault in the military. there are whistle blower protection that is were put in here advocated by members of both parties, republicans and democrats, that would add rape, sexual assault, or our misconduct to the protected communications of service members with a member of congress or an inspector general. i want to talk about some provision that is i championed that i included in this bill. one would review the practices by military criminal investigative organizations in sex related crimes. it would put forward standardized training

procedures at every branch of the military would have to adhere to. it would make our commanders much more accountable throughout that process. the last one i'll mention today, mr. speaker, is the development of a uniformed criteria for selection of sexual assault response coordinators. mr. nugent: i yield an additional 30 seconds. mrs. noem: in the past, yes, absolutely justice has been delayed and we have not seen the answers for our victims that they need that have been victims of sexual assault in our military. i wasn't here to work on the other ndaa bills. i wasn't here to have the debate during those conversations that were had in the past. a lot of the things that were done and discussed were empty words and broken prom missions. today i am here to say these reforms included in h.r. 1960 will help our victims and will stop sexual assault in the military today. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: it's my privilege now to yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, mr. hoyer.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in opposition to this rule. as it fails to make in order several important amendments, including one from representative speier and gabbard that would have continued a critical debate on the urgent problem of sexual assault in the military. the previous speaker has pointed out how important an issue this is. if it's such an important issue, it really deserved broader debate in this house fully. unfortunately the rules committee sought fit not to allow them in order. i want to thank hem for making in order the amount by ranking member, mr. smith, to close the detention facility in guantanamo bay, cuba. i have been to guantanamo i don't know how many of my colleagues have been there, but i have been to guantanamo. and guantanamo is a significant drain on the department of

defense's resources. there are other reasons which i will speak of, but the numbers speak for themselves. it cost us $1.6 million per detainee. that's versus $34,000 for federal prisoners. $1.6 million per detainee. 247 million authorized in this bill to replace temporary facilities at guantanamo. overall, $264 million a year to keep this facility operational for 1166 people. for every dollar spent on a detainee, we spend one less dollar on our troops in the field. a tame of great fiscal unsrnt, it is astounding that this facility stays open. guatemala -- guantanamo costs all not only in economic might

but law might. we are a nation of laws. it is our continued adherence of our founders vision of lawful society that allows us to lead the world in confronting threats to peace and stability. i urge all of my colleagues to think about the damage guantanamo's continued operation causes to our national security. as terrorists continue to use guantanamo as a recruitment tool and as our allies grow leery of cooperating with us, the fear that a transferred detainee could end up at guantanamo. i also urge all of us to remember that hundreds of terrorists, hundreds, have faced justice in civilian courts and are currently serving time in prison in the united states. among them are shazad, times square bomber richard reed, the shoe bomber who conspired to kill nearly 3,000 innocent americans on 9/11.

all of them in our prisons here. we don't have to wore about these individuals because our system works. not a single terrorist, not one, or anyone else, has ever escaped from one of our maximum security prisons. not one. may i have an additional minute. since 9/11 494 terrorists have been convicted in our civilian court system. in stark contrast, there have been only seven terrorists convicted by the military commissions at guantanamo. five of these, by the way, were pleas. to it quote general colin powell from 2010, quote, we have 300 terrorists, it's now less, who have been put in jail not by a military commission but by regular court system. we ought to remove this incentive that exists in the presence of guantanamo to encourage people and give radicals an opportunity to say, you see. this is what america is all about. that's colin powell.

we should be proud of our nation's long history of bringing to justice those who commit crimes that threaten the peace and freedom of innocent people around the world. guantanamo is a stain on that record. it should be closed. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. additionally, let me say there are a few other amendments that our members will support. one is an amendment from my friend, jim mcgovern. 30 additional seconds. , om my friend, jim mcgovern his amendment says that as a sense of congress that this body should have the right, indeed, the duty to engage in a debate about the continued path forward in afghanistan. i urge my colleagues to support that amendment. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the

gentlewoman from indiana, mrs. walorski. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. mrs. walorski: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to speak in support of this rule. being new to the house committee i was very encouraged to see the committee, to see the bipartisan fashion in which this bill was crafted. we worked together as a committee. we had vigorous debates on these issues in the committee. i even had the privilege to work with colleagues across the aisle to address the issue of sexual assault language. i want to thank chairman mckeon, ranking member smith for making efforts to combat sexual assault as a cornerstone of this bill. within this bill are provisions that would strip commanders of their authority to dismiss findings. my bipartisan provision adds rape, sexual assault, or our sexual misconduct to the protected communications of service members with a member of congress or inspector general. this bill also establishes minimum sentencing guidelines,

establishes an independent panel to examine the role of the commander of sex related offenses. it also reviews the practices of military criminal investigative organizations and sex related crimes. mr. speaker, we spent months debating and drafting all of the reforms in this bill i just mentioned. there are a lot of good things in the overall bill. the time for congress to eradicate sexual abuse in the military is now. and i urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we can move these much needed reforms one step closer to becoming law. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. it the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i would like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: i thank my good friend and i thank the manager of the legislation and

the underlying legislation and this rule. happy father's day to all of the men who serve in the united states military for this legislation points in some instances to the needs of these great servants. and to the women who serve in the united states military as well. i, too, would have wanted to see the spehr and gabbard -- speier and gabbard amendment be included. and be able to ensure that there are ways of getting resources to those victims of which we want to see diminished. i also am glad to note, mr. mcgovern's amendment has been put in, and another amendment by mr. conyers, that has to do with not using force in iran. but also we recognize that our soldiers suffer from ptsd and i'm glad an amendment has been made to extend the mental health services and counselors for our soldiers. one that i have been working on

for a long time has come to fruition and i want to thank the rules committee and of course the armed services committee, and that is to collaborate between the national institutes of health and the department of defense on finding the biomarkers on triple negative breast cancer. it will save lives of so many women. i had hoped we could have moved 1.8% salary increase to 2.2%. i know it costs money. yes, it does. but our soldiers are valuable. finally i wish we could have had a thoughtful discussion to restore the trust to americans. and the expanse that we have to simply screen in the number of private contractors. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. i ep intend to introduce legislation. i thank the speaker. i yield back. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nugent: thank you, mr.

speaker. we have a problem of sexual assault in the military and this bill addresses many of these issues that we know will help both change the culture and change the environment. in the military. recent surveys over 28,000 people have indicated they have been sexually assault the in the military. slightly less than 3,000 are willing to come forward and actually ask that their perpetrator be prosecuted. when you look forward survey indicates when they came forward they felt they were persecuted in the workplace for having done so. many victims report they have been revictimized, they fear e system and that there is a if one reports sexual assault it would impact their career and put them at risk for further violence. what we tried to do in this

bill on a bipartisan basis working with miss scong gas, my co-chair of the sexual assault prevention caucus, and working with chairman mckeon and those member smith making decisions are health accountable for those decisions. we have taken away from the commander the ability to setaside a conviction for sexual assault and we have added mandatory minimums so if you committed sexual assault you are out of the military. 8 if there is an inappropriate relationship between a trainee and trainer, you are out of the military. we have tried to make certain in this that we had bipartisan consensus. there are those who say we need a new distinguishable system to address sexual assault, but the judicial system hasn't been the failure, the chain of command has been the failure and we have addressed that by restricting the authority of

the chain of command by requiring decisions be pushed up the chain of command and by opposing a system -- a criteria of holding them accountable. i also warrant to thank them for supporting the turner amendment. thank you. search the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. mcgovern. i want to follow-up on the previous comments. a strong case was made for changing the way in which a rape is handled and sexual assault is handled. mr. garamendi: but it doesn't go far enough. unfortunately the rule doesn't allow for a full discussion and a full vote by the house on this important issue being brought to us by my colleague from california, ms. speier. we need to have that debate here. we need to really go outside the chain of command for the most important piece and that is the charging of the incident. beyond that the rules committee did pick up an issue that i put

forward. the afghanistan national army going to receive $7.7 billion in this legislation. unfortunately $2.6 billion has been added to last year's money and there is no indication how that $2.6 billion will be spent. so the rules committee did adopt my amendment. it will be en bloc. that deals with can't spend that money until we find out how it's going to be spent. basic policy we apply to every military ack whichation in our own military. east coast missile defense site remains not to be debated on the floor. that's unfortunate. two and quarter million this year and more in the future. language in this bill about syria ought to be debated on the floor. fortunately it will. we are going to also debate the authorization to use force. we need that debate. unfortunately in the committee spent pen moments were on the afghanistan war.

more than $80 billion will be spent there. at a time when we are reducing our forces by 40%, we are spending at least as much as we are spending in the current year. why? we need to ask that question. why are we spending that amount of money as we reduce our forces? was not discussed at all during the markup. we need that full debate on the floor. and therefore for these reasons i oppose the rule. we must debate the $700 billion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gare why mendy: thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from utah, my colleague on both the rules committee and the armed services committee, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman from florida yielding. i owe you one more. this is an impeccably good rule. it made in order 172 amendments. which makes someone wonder why we have committees in the first place. i wish to illustrate or bring to light three of those

particular amendments. so they are not overlooked in the rhetoric that we have going here today because each does have an impact on the readiness taking place. the first one is one by the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce, which would ask the agencies of this government to communicate with the military when something would impact the military. in this case beyond the decision which we have a great deal of impact on our military lands in new mexico, we saw this earlier when nasa decided to change its flight program. had a great deal of impact on the cost of our missile defense system. and when the f.a.a. decided to close towers, which impacted three military bases and made security more tenuous, and all these cases without discussing the impact of those decisions with the military. we have the administration, seems to have the problem, of interagency communication. when the actions of one impact the actions of other. this is the first step to move it that way. there is an amendment which creates the lines of the icbm.

not only would this increase our security but ensures we have an adequate industrial base. we cannot turn on and off our base like a spigot when we need them. when we need them they are there and don't need them they can go off. this would require us to have a strong industrial base and would move us forward in the area of security. finally, i wish to address an amendment by mr. riggle of virginia -- with a-76. with especially when it's -- riggle of virginia. unfortunately this amendment is comparing arty chokes to avocados other than the fact they have the letter a in common and i hate both of them equally. five years ago the office of management and budget asked the general accounting office to review a-76, as well as the inspector general of the department of defense. they concluded that this program should be suspended because they were structural

flaws within the system. it was dealt with on its implementation. none of those suggested structural flaws have been fixed in the meantime. the system has been studied and found wanting. at the same time, the administration or the department of defense has come up with a dtm process which is required to be reviewed by the underlying base bill. now is not the time to change. that process of a-76 until that review has also been completed. let me be honest here. the idea before i-76 is really about lowest price. but not necessarily best value. lowest price are you doing a product on the open market that can either sell or not sell. who cares what happens to it. but when you are dealing with the military, you are dealing with military equipment that must be repaired on a timely basis and be available on a timely basis or lives are lost. that becomes the significance of this issue. what we should be doing instead of trying to go backwards to a-76 is do a public-private

partnership which many of our depots are doing. in that case i am appreciative that mr. rigell did put one sentence that would not interfere with any public -private partnerships we are doing at the present time. allowing the creativity of prnt sector to meet with the stability of the work force from the public sector would be the ideal solution. rather than trying to do some other program which would create a food fight which would be costly, counterproductive, harm our readiness, and destroy the morale of our work force which is already harmed because of the furloughs they are facing. in this particular amendment, the office of management and budget is opposed to it. the department of defense is opposed to this amendment and so should we on the floor of the house. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, it's my privilege to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. castro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized.

mr. castro: i thank you, my friend, mr. mcgovern, for yielding. i rise to speak today on sexual assault in the military and need for justice and reform. this issue carries great significance for me as i represent the area around lackland air force base in san antonio, texas. the community in san antonio like communities across the country was appalled to learn of the events that took place. the sexual mi misconduct by military training instructors at lackland has been one of the largest scandals and investigations within the military. similar stories have also surfaced from the academies to forward operating bases and now in the pentagon. when events like this occur, we must do two things. first, we must provide justice swiftly. second, we must implement reforms to prevent future transgressions. i'll continue to work with the committee to make sure that the recommendations for reform are implemented and serve as a model for the other branches of

service. this legislation does make progress in combating military sexual assault, but let us not forget that there is still much work to be done. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i yield 1.5 minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. duncan: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of this very fair rule. which is allowed 172 amendments. and i rise in strong support of the amendment by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, which would accelerate the withdrawal from afghanistan. mr. speaker, the american people do not want forever wars that now have lasted longer than three or four times longer than world war ii. afghanistan is simply become little more than a gine ganttic money pit with president karzai and his cronies ripping off american taxpayers for billions of dollars. president karzai has made it

very clear that and he -- even he wants out but still wants us to send him our billions. it is long past the time, mr. speaker, there never should have been a time in the first place for needless wars that keep resulting in the killing and maiming of young american soldiers. the wars in iraq and afghanistan have always been more about money and power than about any real threat to the american people. william f. buckley changed his views before he died and came out strongly against the war in iraq. what he said in 2005 regarding the war in iraq can be said about afghanistan today. mr. buckley said, quote, a respect for the power of the united states is engender by our success in engagements which we take part. a point is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfast of purpose but misapplication of pride. mr. speaker, as other speakers have pointed out before me, this bill calls for the spending ofed of $85 billion

for the war in afplgt that is too many -- that is too much. it is time to bring our troops home. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. mcgovern. i am here today i stand in support of the smith amendment to close the deengs facility at guantanamo bay. guantanamo bay has become a symbol around the world for an america that's lost sight of its own cherrished principles. due process, habeas corpus, the rule of law. i recently visited guantanamo bay detention camp. seeing this camp made it clear to me that we cannot keep these detainees forever without charging them with crimes and giving them their day in court. it is not humane, it is not just, it is not american. some prisoners must go home. some must face trial. some prisoners will spend the rest of their lives in jail.

in the end, though, we must close this chapter and ensure that justice is done, guantanamo must close. keeping guantanamo camp open only is a complete waste of taxpayers' money. the solution is to support congressman smith's amendment to close guantanamo detention center. thank you. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from illinois, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to the gentleman formerly from the great state of illinois. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the rule and i appreciate the time to talk about a very critical issue that the underlying bill addresses. as the father of a 16-year-old daughter, i don't know how comfortable i would be if she came to me and said she would like to join the military, especially given the current culture regarding sexual assault.

this year alone 26,000 men and women in the military have been impacted by sexual assault. the national defense authorization act is a step in the right direction in ending this culture and ending this intolerance as it includes mandatory sentencing requirements and strips commanders of their authority to dismiss a conviction by court-martial. the department of defense estimates there were 19,000 victims in f.y. 2011 alone but only ,700 victims actually filed a report. in early may i was pleased to co-sponsor h.r. 1864, a military whistleblower bill which extends whistleblower protections on those who tell about sexual assault misconduct. i'm pleased to see congress respond to the issues of sexual assault in the military and i look forward to the day when all fathers will be comfortable

sending daughters like mine into the military to fight for our freedoms and without second thoughts about their safety. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd reich to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from oregon, bonamici.che -- ms. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. s. bonamici: we passed the ruth moore act to help protect those in the military. but more must be done to stop these crimes before they occur. i thank the armed services committee members for their work on this issue to date but unfortunately the sexual assault training, oversight and prevention amendment, offered by congresswoman jack eeling speier, was not made -- jackie speier, was not made in order. we should have a chance to vote up or down on the provision. we're missing a crucial opportunity to stop the

unwanted sexual contact that is now experienced by one in five service women. i've heard from oregonians who live with the painful memory of sexual assault they experienced while serving and veterans associations concerned for the safety of those who answer the call of duty. we all agree that these crimes have no place in our society and no place in our military. it's too bad that we were deprived of an opportunity to do something meaningful about it. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: i reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. speier: i thank the gentleman from massachusetts for allowing me to speak. my colleagues have all spoken eloquently on the floor today about the importance of addressing this issue of sexual assault and rape in the military. and what we hasten to do around

here is pat ourselves on the back for all the things we have done. let me tell you what the elephant in the room here is today. the elephant in the room here today is we have not had a robust debate on chain of command. and why is my good friends on the republican side of the aisle unwilling to have that debate? let's just air it. the senate has taken up this issue -- in their committee. they've had a fullout hearing on it, and yet we have not done that in the house and the armed services committee. i had an amendment that was taken up last night by the rules committee. it had 134 co-sponsors. it was bipartisan in nature. what's wrong with taking up an amendment with over a quarter of the membership of this house on the floor in what is supposed to be an open debate on this issue? we will not fix this issue, members, if we don't fix it on the front end, and the problem is on the front end where

people feel that they cannot file their complaint for fear of retaliation. and when complaints are filed and there were 3,300 of them filed in the last -- in 2011, only 500 of them were investigated and sent to court martial, and less than 200 actually had convictions. so why would anyone who was raped or sexually assaulted in the military feel with confidence that they will get justice? we deserve an opportunity to have a robust debate on the chain of command and whether or not we should take these cases out of the chain of command. canada, britain, australia, new zealand, israel, have taken out the chain of command. at least we should be able to debate it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the

gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. turner: thank you, mr. speaker. there are two things that i think are important to note about the speier amendment. the first is that the author of the amendment is actually a full member of the armed services committee and chose not to offer this amendment in the armed services committee where there could have been unlimited debate on the substances of the amendment. instead, choosing to offer it in this more limited format where there were hundreds of amendments and also it's cast in the light of the fact you have a bipartisan full support for the provisions that are in our bill that do address sexual assault. and the second thing that's important about the speier amendment is that as the author noted, there had been debate on this in the senate and in that debate in fact it was rejected the structure that was being proposed in the speier amendment. so we also have the senate view and the bipartisan view in this house what needs to be done. we share with the author the

absolute commitment that this needs to be addressed. the manner in which we've done it, again, in a bipartisan basis, is moving it up the chain of command and restricting the chain of command. no more can a commander set aside a conviction for sexual assault. no more can someone who's convicted of a sexual assault stay in the military. we will never have another victim who has to report that after a conviction of a perpetrator for sexual assault that they were forced to salute their attacker. that attacker will be out. now, there is more that we can do. in fact, i want to thank the rules committee for having ruled in order my amendment, the turner amendment, that would include two years of incarceration along with the mandatory of being thrown out. i would encourage everyone to support the turner amendment who would actually like to increase the penalties beyond what we've done. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. o'rourke.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. o'rourke: i thank the gentleman for yielding time. rise today in support of the mcgovern-smith-lee-jones-garame ndi amendment to end the war in afghanistan. i am happy to represent fort bliss in el paso, texas. since the start of this war in afghanistan, 41 yoldiers from fort -- soldiers from fort bliss lost their lives in congress. all five had already been awarded both a bronze star and a purple heart that died this year. just this last month, three fort bliss soldiers were killed in a single attack. more than 100 have been injured in combat and awarded the purple heart. countless soldiers are coming back to our community with unseen mental injuries, including posttraumatic stress disorder and already this year three soldiers at fort bliss have committed suicide. this terrible loss of life should focus us on our solemn

responsibility to know when to bring our soldiers home to their families. we are grateful for their service and for their achievements. because of them osama bin laden has been killed. the taliban has been weakened, and the afghan people have been given the opportunity to develop a stable and democratic state if they so choose. i believe now is the right time to responsibly end the longest war in our nation's history. this amendment would help ensure that the president sticks to his timetable to end combat operations by the end of this year and bring our soldiers home from afghanistan by the end of the next year. this amendment will save lives, and it honors the sacrifice of our soldiers who have lost their lives by guaranteeing that congress fulfills our constitutional responsibility to decide when to send our soldiers into harm's way and how long to keep them there. i urge all of my colleagues to support it and bring our soldiers back home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from

massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. veasey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i'm proud today to stand with my colleagues, congresswoman gabbard and mr. benishek to include the military justice improvement act of 2013 in the national defense authorization act and i reject that this rule for this bill did not allow it. the military justice improvement act will reform the military legal procedure for handling sexual assault cases by giving a military attorney outside the victim's chain of command the ability to initiate legal proceedings. this is a fundamental change from currently requiring a sexual assault victim to first turn their -- to their commanding officer to investigate and decide how to advance the case. as a member of the house armed services committee, i'm proud to support this bill that will decrease the occurrence of sexual assault within our military ranks. the current state of 26,000 reported sexual assault incidents in 2012 is completely

unacceptable. this amendment will strengthen initiatives already in the defense bill that aim to reduce this way too high number. our military men and women deserve better, and this bill is a strong step in the right direction and also, mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition of the amendment by mr. coffman that would direct the defense department to contract any function not considered to be inherently governmental with no regard to policy risk or cost. at a time when service and contract costs in our military have risen 200% in the last 10 years and civilian personnel costs have remained relatively flat, i believe it's irresponsible to require our military to outsource important governmental work, like developing budgets, overseeing contracts and interpreting regulations to private contractors. we cannot allow our federal employees and civilian personnel to continue to serve as the first line of cuts and furloughs in an effort to cut costs. federal employees and civilian

personnel are a critical component to our national security and consistently deliver their services at significantly lower costs than private contractors. in fiscal year 2010, the pentagon reported saving nearly $900 million by using civilian workers instead of private contractors. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and let the defense work -- i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i'm happy to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maryland is recognized. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, yesterday i joined with many of my colleagues here on the floor to urge the congress and the rules committee to take seriously the disturbing high incidence of sexual assault in the military and to act quickly and responsibly to address the

issue. yesterday on the floor we were promised full consideration and open debate on an issue that affects at minimum 26,000 individuals in the united states armed services, and yet here we are today with a closed rule, consideration of only some amendments, and frankly the amendments that would actually do the most to strengthen the hand of survivors and prosecutors aren't being considered on this floor. and that's really unfortunate. i feel that we have let 26,000 victims of sexual assault down. we've just let them down. and for all the good intentions -- and i think there were good intentions -- congress has considered for the last 20 years testimony and information from the department of defense on its efforts to eliminate sexual assault from its ranks. and these well-intentioned efforts are falling well short and we know that, but we can't wake up on another day or in another 20 years to say, you

know what, we still have to solve the problem. and so i would urge us, we have to do that today for those victims. and with the estimated 26,000 that's up even 19,000 from 2011, we know that something is not working. and while some of the provisions that are being considered today are good-faith efforts, dozens, including the speier amendment, supported by experts, advocates and legal experts and proposed before the rules committee to take additional steps to show that we really do mean business are not being considered. it's really unfortunate that only half of those amendments were made in order. and with an issue as pervasive and damaging as this, where republicans and democrats, men and women agree that we have to do something, why for those 26,000 victims aren't we doing everything that we can? we can't stand on the side of the perpetrators. we must stand on the side of victims and survivors.

and with that i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from maine, ms. pingree. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you to my good friend for yielding. mr. speaker, as we confront the issue of sexual assault in the military, we can't forget the survivors who continue to serve. one area that has needed reform is the questionnaire that must be filled out to obtain or renew a security clearance. one of the questions, question 21, asks if you have ever sought mental health counseling. knowing the question is there and believing that answering yes might jeopardize their chances of a security clearance, survivors of sexual assault often decided not to get the mental health counseling that they needed. the director of national intelligence has listened to us on this and has issued guidance saying survivors of sexual trauma do not have to report counseling related to that assault, but that change won't

do the survivors any good unless they know it has taken place which is why i've introduced an amendment that is part of a package we're considering later today that would require the department of defense to inform service members of this change. mr. speaker, i regularly hear from survivors of sexual assault who want to know when the change will be made. it's time they get their answer. it's unfortunate that this rule does not allow more time for debate on these critical topics, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lee: thank you very much. let me thank the gentleman for yielding, for your support and for your tremendous leadership on so many issues. let me rise, first of all, in strong opposition to this rule. imextremely disappointed that congress was -- i am extremely

disappointed that congress was denied to have a full debate by our constitutional roles in declaring war and our obligation to conduct vigorous oversight, accountability and to demand transparency. while i appreciate the committee making my bipartisan amendment with congresswoman ileana ros-lehtinen with regard to h.i.v. discrimination in order, i offered a number of other amendments to audit the pentagon and to end the overly broad 2001 authorizations to use military force which is a blank check. i have long called for repeal of this authorization dating back to the horrific days of 9/11, right when we debated that resolution for no more than an hour on september 14. we did not have a meaningful debate 12 years ago, and by blocking my amendment, this congress will not be able to exercise its constitutional war-making duties today. let me also say that i am

pleased to join representatives mcgovern, jones, garamendi and our armed services ranking member, adam smith, on an amendment which was made in order which will at least give us an opportunity to open that door and begin to talk about the fact that it is time to bring our troops home and that once 2014 is here, then we need to determine what congress will authorize, if anything. also, let me just say it's important -- may i have an additional 10 seconds, please? mr. mcgovern: i yield additional 10 seconds. ms. lee: thank you very much. the amendment that was made in order, congressman hank johnson and myself, with regard to prohibiting permanent military bases, so important. so finally let me just say congress must debate and authorize any future troop presence in afghanistan beyond 2014. thank you for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.

the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 2 1/4 minutes. mr. mcgovern: then i'm happy to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from arizona, ms. sinema. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. thank you, mr. speaker. i'm very disappointed that the rules committee chose to disallow my amendment from being heard today. the amendment that i offered in conjunction with representative benishek and representative victims mply allowed of sexual violence in the military to seek justice in court in the light of day without fear of retribution or recrim nation from their superiors. this amendment, mr. speaker and members, would have taken the policy outside of the chain of command so that victims of sexual assault would have the opportunity to seek justice and

that those perpetrators who've committed sexual assault against their fellow service members would be held accountable, accountable for the acts for which they have committed. in this instance, mr. speaker and members, this amendment would ensure that the victims could report the crimes, seek justice without fear of retribution or even worse, having a superior who ignores or downplays the severity of the incident which has occurred. mr. speaker, i yield back my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, can i inquire of my friend how many more speakers he has? mr. nugent: i have none. mr. mcgovern: then i'll yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'm going to urge that we defeat the previous question and if we defeat the previous question i'll submit an amendment to make this an open rule so that members can have amendments on

the floor of the house. i ask unanimous consent to put this in the record immediately prior on the vote on the previous question. i think the rules committee had a difficult task. given the fact that the leadership in this house has allocated two days for debate on the defense authorization bill. they took three -- they had a deal with 300 amendments. they made 172 in order. and i know that everybody worked hard to try to be fair. i appreciate, again, the courtesy extended to me on my amendment with regard to afghanistan, and i appreciate my colleagues on the republican side for their support. i think the controversy still is around sexual assault in the military and a number of amendments, particularly those offered by ms. speier and gabbard were not made in order. that makes it difficult for many on our side to support this rule. i want to thank again the staff

of the rules committee and the members for their work on this. i urge a no vote on the previous question and a no vote on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, this may -- this is my third national defense authorization act as a member of congress and it's my first ndaa as a member of the armed services committee. let me tell you it's been an experience, it's been educational, time consuming and sometimes exhausting experience but it's always been a gratifying one. as a father of three sons that are currently serving in the united states army, i never forget the overreaching purpose for all of our work in the defense authorization act. i know that my colleagues never forget it either. i've had sons that have served in iraq and afghanistan sometimes simultaneously. i know what it's like to send a son or daughter off to war.

it's something you anguish over all the time. it's not something that should be done lightly, so i appreciate the mcgovern amendment because it's going to have the opportunity to actually discuss and put on the floor an ability for this house to actually authorize or continue authorization of any force. and i think this house has been unfortunately somewhat dire elect in its duties because of what we've done in the past and what we called the president to do when we went into libya even though limited by air support only, we should never put our men and women at risk unless this house has a say in that -- that is so precious to us and that's our sons and daughters. you heard mr. turner speak as it relates to sexual assault. i've heard a lot on the floor about ms. speier. she had the ability in the armed services committee, the

committee i serve on, she had the ability to bring that up in committee and have unlimited debate, unlimited debate within that body in regards to her amendment. she chose not to do that. instead, she chose to bring it in front of the rules committee that has a limited time slot. of the 299 amendments that were brought forward, 172 were made in order that are going to be heard on this floor today. that's what this rule is about. about giving everybody access and to be heard on all of the important aspects of the ndaa. so to say that she was locked out just isn't so. the ability was there as a member of the house committee, she had the ability to have unlimited debate. remember the ndaa passed out of that committee 59-12. that's about as bipartisan as you can get -- 59-2, that's

about as bipartisan as you can get. it talks about issues important to america and in particular protecting our sons and daughters who are called upon to protect this nation, called upon to sacrifice for this nation. we owe them that much. we want to make sure that they're successful in any mission that they're sent forward to participate in to protect the interests of this nation and our allies. you know, the american people hear about in the news media about how partisan congress is today. although we have our disagreements, and i know those reports and folks back home can't be looking at the work we're doing on the armed services committee if they see this partisanship because it's not there. if they were looking at the armed services committee, the national defense authorization act, they'd see the kind of collaboration that legislative is supposed to be about. it's the chairman and ranking member who work together on a common goal. it's the staff that works to

benefit our war fighters and not a political party. they'd see an ndaa that was passed out of the largest committee in the house of representatives with only two people opposing it. and tomorrow i hope they'll see a house of representatives that can put politics aside and support our troops, support our troops by an overwhelmingly passing the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2014. it's a good bill. h.res. 260 makes it even better by allowing the house to consider amendments covering ll the major issues covered by ndaa and the department of defense at large. a ish i could say nobody has monopoly by good ideas and that is a truism by the 299 amendments offered. the rule provides time for debate on a majority of those ideas. that's why i support the rule, the underlying legislation and i hope the house as a whole can do the same.

and with that i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on ordered the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 233 and the nays are 195. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring 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 five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 238, the nays are 189. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of h r. 1960, pursuant to house republican -- to house resolution 260, amendments 18, 19, and 20 printed in part b of house report 113-108 may be considered out of sequence. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek

recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. appreciate the courtesy. i ask unanimous consent that my statement appear immediately after roll call vote 217 and 218. my intended vote should be noted as a yes on roll call 217 and a nay on roll call 218 and i would ask that it appear at the appropriate place in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's statement will appear in the record. mr. grijalva: thank you very much, mr. speaker. -- mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. will members please clear the ell. pursuant to house resolution 260 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r.

1960. will the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry, kindly ake the chair? the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of the bill h.r. 1960 of which the clerk will report the title. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction to describe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on wednesday, june 12, 2013, all time for general debate pursuant to house resolution 256 had expired. pusuant to house resolution 260, no further general debate shall be in order. in lieu of the amendment in the

nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on armed services printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the ext of rules committee print 113-13 modified by the amendment printed in part a of house report 113-108. the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except for those printed in part b of use report 113-108 and amendments en bloc described in section three of house resolution 260. except as provided by the order of the house of today. each amendment printed in part b of house report 113-108 shall

be considered only by the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated by the report or in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall in the be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it shall be in order at any time for the chair of the committee on armed services or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part b of housery port 113-108, not earlier disposed -- house report 113-108 not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debated for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on armed services or their designees, shall not be

subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. the original proponent of an amendment included in such amendment en bloc may inseart statement in the congressional record immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in art b of house report 113-108. for what purpose does the california rise? mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i rise in support of the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman offer the amendment? mr. mckeon: i do. this is the manager's amendment and it's been worked and agreed to by the minority, it contains technical and conforming changes, it's noncontroversial and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment the clerk: amendment number one printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mr.

mckeon of california. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: the purpose i just stated. the chair: does the gentleman continue to reserve? mr. mckeon: i reserve. thank you. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> though i'm not in opposition to claim the time in opposition. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> i yield myself my time to say i agree with the chairman and i urge support and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i ask our colleagues to support this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: both gentlemen having yielded their time back eric -- time back, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. ayes ayes -- those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. o -- is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number two printed in art b of house report 113-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. blumenauer: i have an amendment at the kesk. -- at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number two prinned in house report 113-108 offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260rk the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman is recognized for five mins. mr. blumenauer: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the quelt is recognized. mr. blumenauer: we have before you a bipartisan -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: we have before you a bipartisan amendment. the purpose is simple, it will

help make the naval fleet stronger by allowing the navy to decide the level of aircraft carriers in the future. stay at the current level of 10, at some point in the future stead of going back to a congressionally mandated level. it does not eliminate aircraft carriers, it simply establishes -- the entire department of defense is in the midst of a major reality check as budgets shrink and priorities change. i don't pretend to be a navy expert but our sneavel being pushed into shallow waters as a result of sequestration and now more than ever we should allow them to make the decisions. i've been a little concerned that some people in opposition say this amendment would make a 10-carrier fleet permanent. nothing could be further from the truth. t simply will allow the navy

to decide if it wants 10 aircraft carriers at some point in the next three decades. now if they're afraid this will happen, then it means they think the navy five years, 10 years, 20 years from now will decide they have higher strategic needs. the history of the 11 carrier requirement was imposed for the first time in two centuries by congress in 2006. that number being unsustainable was reduced to 11 in 2007. that cap still being too high, the navy had to seek a waiver from the congress to temporaryly drop it to 10. now if the amendment passes, the navy will still go back to 11 carriers in 2016 when the ford is commissioned but at that point, we should allow the navy to decide, not people in congress. and i reserve. the chair: for what purpose

does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: to claim the five minutes in opposition. the chair: the gentleman has five minutes. mr. mckeon: i yield one minute to the gentleman, mr. mcintyre. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcintyre: the navy is already down to 11 aircraft carriers from a high of 15. we clearly need these 11 aircraft carriers to maintain a presence in the mideast, the western pacific and wherever else we may be called upon to go. protecting our national security interest with our allies and keeping trade lanes open require the fleet of carriers we have today. also these carriers allow the u.s. to maintain influence without having a base in a foreign country. talk about saving money. carriers are in reality mobile bases. s that critical military capability for the united states and it must be maintained. keeping aircraft carrier production on track is also a

major jobs issue. we know tens of thousands of skilled workers support building and maintaining aircraft carriers and without them we'd lose the ability to build large ships of any kind. the chair: the gentleman tees has expired. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield one minute to my friend and colleague the gentleman from virginia, subcommittee chairman on the armed services committee, mr. wittman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. simply put, this amendment seriously jeopardizes national security and our ability to project power and maintain a forward presence against an ever-growing, dangerous world. the back bone of our navy is our carrier strike force. in order to have seven carrier, we need to have 11. there are carriers that are in part to be refueled.

sailors have to rest. 11 equals seven. today in the central command they request two aircraft carriers and they're provided one. in the most dangerous area of the world in the mideast. if we can't meet the requirements that are -- that our commanders are asking for, why would we want to be reducing the number of care yes, sir? that just doesn't make sense. there's a misconception, too, that because we're moving out of afghanistan that somehow there won't be a need for a presence of an aircraft carrier there in the arabian gulf, that is absolutely wrong. we need that presence there the way we maintain that presence is to make sure that we have a minimum of 11 aircraft carriers. our presence is needed today and we bant to make sure this is done especially with the re-posturing to the asia pacific. i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: i recognize my friend from south carolina for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is ecognized for two minutes.

>> congress has been dictating the number of carriers in the navy. see, for 230 years we were satisfied to let the navy make that decision and i was stunned to find out this is actually happening. i wish i could put forward an amendment to make that from happening but i thank my friend for offering this small improvement. i would respectfully disagree with my friend from virginia. this has no impact on national security or national defense. again, no impact on national security or national defense. if the amendment passes, the navy could have 20 carriers next year if the navy decided it's what they wanted to do. all we're doing is taking the congressional mandate from 11 to 10. i go back to former secretary gates. i thought it was interesting. he said our current plan is to have 11 carrier strike groups through 2040 to project power across the seas will never go away but consider the growing

anti-ship capabilities. do we need 11 carrier strike groups where no other country has more than one? and he said any future plans must address these realities. mr. mulvaney: that's all we're doing, mr. chairman, giving the navy more control over how many carriers the navy has. i am perfectly -- i'm perfectly willing to trust the navy with the operations of our naval warfare. more so i am congress. with that i ask my friends to support this amendment which has no impact at all on national defense but gives more control of the navy to the experts in the field. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. as long as we're on the subject of the navy, the navy did report to congress february, 2013, with their force

structure assessment which called for 11 carriers to the in the force which followed on the strategic review which president obama and secretary gates conducted in 2011, reported in early 2012, which talked about the repositioning to asia pacific which my friends, mr. wittman, talked about. and in fact articulated the fact that we are going to need more naval projection with that shift in strategy and focus for our country's future national security needs. strategy should drive decisions here in congress, both in terms of the defense bill and our budgets and the navy has spoken in fact with a report i'd be happy to share with any of my colleagues as early as february of this year -- as recent as february of this year, which articulated an 11 carrier force is what we need today and fits within the strategic review which we exhaustively conducted under secretary gates and president obama and with that i'd yield back and urge a no

vote on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon has a minute and a half left. the gentleman from california has two minutes. mr. blumenauer: mr. chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds just to say -- the chair: you're recognized. mr. blumenauer: the navy is going to have 11 carriers when the one under construction goes into operation. nothing in this amendment denies them that. what it says is that subsequently going out 20 or 30 years the decision about the minute mum level will be left to the navy, not congress. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, who has the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from california, you do. two minutes left. mr. mckeon: i'll reserve our time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: i will conclude

at this point. i yield myself the remainder of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: the notion here that somehow unless we impose a permanent mandate on the navy they are not going to do what my friend from connecticut and virginia say they're going to do i think is ludicrous. this is a symbol of congress micromanaging, substituting its judgment for that of the command structure. it is i think important for us to in a small way express confidence in them. they will have their 11 aircraft carriers, as the gerald ford is commissioned, they'll be back at 11. the question is, are we going to have a mandate in perpetuity to substitute our judgment for the realities of the navy in five years, 10 years, 30 years

regardless of force structure, threats or technology? this is a small symbol of what's wrong with the process here and why we can't get a control over many of the budget issues. i'd respectfully suggest support for this bipartisan amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is now recognized. mr. mckeon: mr. chairmen, i yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, subcommittee chairman on the around services committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. forbes: i thank the chairman and, mr. chairman, one of the things that unites republicans and democrats in opposition to this amendment, that's why you heard them take this floor, the constitution of the united states mandates congress to build a strong navy. it doesn't mandate the white house. it mandates us and we will not walk away from that mandate. and if you look at every independent analysis, every

q.d.r. since 2001 says we need 11 carriers. if you really believe the navy will come in here and say they don't need them that's not true. they say the budget needs to drive the strategy and you need to cut them down and we are not going to put them in that position. you talk about cost. it could cost more to have fewer carriers because they don't talk about the deployment times we are going to put on the backs of our sailors or the maintenance costs. the second thing they don't look at in 2007 we were able to meet our needs in the navy. this year we will only meet 51% because of the cuts we placed on their backs. the people will come in here and they'll say this is acceptable risk. you know what acceptable risks means to them? how many ships we can lose, how many men and women we can lose,

and still have the potential of winning if every other assumption we made holds true? mr. chairman, you're changing the definition of acceptable risk and say this, when one of our men and women go into battle we do what we can to have the highest probably returning the country they're fighting for and the family they love and you can't do it with fewer than 11 carriers. i hope we reject soundly this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is now on passage of this second amendment. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. blumenauer: respectfully request the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. blumenauer: recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6

of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in . rt b of house report 113-108 for what purpose does the -- the n from wyoming gentlewoman from wyoming rise? mrs. lummis: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mrs. lummis of wyoming. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentlewoman from wyoming, mrs. lummis, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wyoming. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment is co-sponsored by mr. daines of montana and mr. cramer of north dakota. it would require d.o.d. to maintain all current 450 intercontinental ballistic silos in warm status.

this amendment would maintain icbm's ar triad where and submarine bombers deterred any attempts at a successful first strike on our country and our allies. china's nuclear arsenal is expanding. russia and other nuclear states like pakistan are modernizing. with inexperienced leaders like kim jong-un in north korea, now is not the time to leave our most successful deterrents. president obama suggests reductions in u.s. nuclear forces beyond the new start treaty levels and is bypassing congress to negotiate with president putin on unilateral reductions. it's important for congress to legislatively require that any final force structure decisions occur in f.y. 015 as currently

planned and not be prema turrill executed -- prematurely executed. he icbm is in the final stages in a decade long effort. this makes it cost-effective to maintain the minuteman fleet over the next two decades. this amount is bugte neutral. it simply keeps silos in warm status so it's not to take steps backward that would be costly to reverse at a later are especially if we seeing geopolitical changes. congress needs to weigh on the importance of maintaining our land-based forces so the decision is not made without us. thank you, mr. speaker. and now i wish to yield a minute to the gentleman from north dakota, mr. cramer. mr. cramer: thank you, mr. chairman. george washington said to be prepared for war is one of the most effective means that preserving -- means at

preserving peace. besides the united states and the united kingdom, the rest of the world has never seriously considered eliminating their nuclear weapons. china, france, india, iran, pakistan, russia, are all engaged in main tanning, expanding or modernizing their weapons programs. we should not continue on the path of reduction and degradation of our nuclear programs, including this icbm force. the cost of maintaining this force is minor compared to the price tag associated with rebuilding it should we -- should we judge incorrectly. now, some will argue that the u.s. taxpayer is funding the maintenance of weapons never used. i submit, mr. chairman, that the u.s. taxpayer is funding the maint tans of -- maintenance of weapons every day, successfully deterring our enemies from launching their own nuclear weapons. mr. chairman, this amendment will save money and may save our country. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming reserves.

for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman controls five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i will yuled such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cooper: i have the highest regard of the gentlelady from wyoming. she is doing a superb job of representing her constituents in wyoming. i haven't had the pleasure of really getting to know the other gentleman, but it is no secret that these three, the sponsors of the amendment, each represent an icbm, missile silo field, and these are wonderful bases in our fine country. but these are also bases we should not give a blank check to and allow to flourish in perpetuity. the cold war is over. our men and women in uniform, led by our generals and admirals, are making some very important decisions about the best way to structure our tried a -- triad, not to give up on the riad but work with

start treaty which was ratified by the other body just a few years ago. there are lots of technical factors having to due with these silo fields and with the capability of the missiles. there are lots of technical factors having to do with the other elements of our triad. i ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. despite the fine qualities of the sponsors of this amendment. because what's good for a missile base in wyoming is not necessarily good for american defense policy. and while i have the highest admiration for the gentlelady from wisconsin, we really need to put this in perspective. this should be seriously considered by our colleagues, and i would urge them at this point to reject the amendment overwhelmingly. i would like to yield two minutes to the ranking member -- reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. he gentlelady from wyoming.

mrs. lummis: i yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from mt., mr. daines. mr. daines: i want to thank mrs. lummis for her work on this amendment which i join her and our colleague from north dakota in introducing today. missiles have a vital deterrent to keep american people safe from mankind's most dangerous threat. for several decades this peace through strength policy has worked. the air force base in montana is home to 150 of our nation's icbm's. avisit -- i visited the base and met with members to discuss our mportance of icbm to future. the commander gave me this commander's coin. the motto on it summarizes why our defense strategy is effective. let me read it. scaring the hell out of america's enemies since 1962.

i am grateful for their role in keeping america secure. i believe it would be deeply unwise to rewrite our effective policy for peace. our potential adversaries may differ than those in the cold war but a comprehensive nuclear deterrent capability will remain crucial to national security. e require the i -- to keep icbm silos in warm status. it will keep potentially -- potential adversaries at bay. i urge my colleagues to vote for it and yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from wyoming reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cooper: i would like to yield to the gentleman, mr. smith of washington. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: there's two compelling reasons to oppose this amendment. this is again not recognizing the reality of sequestration

and the defense budget. the way congress seems to have reacted to the reality of the fact that the defense budget has already been cut substantially, that sequestration which nobody seems to want to put forward a plan to get rid of and won't pass the house and senate is the defense budget is going to be cut. so the way congress reacts is, ok, fine, but i have to protect mine. don't close my base. don't, you know, shut down a ship. don't shut down a plane. don't move anything out of the national guard. all this is is an effort to preserve in these three states their military presence. which means money. and i get that. but the pentagon is going to have to reduce their budget. and every time we pass one of these things, that says you can't do this, can't save money here, can't save money there, we are creating a hollow force. the pentagon will not have the funds necessary to train our troops to be ready to perform the missions we need to if they can't save money anywhere because congress has stepped in and said you can't because it's

mine and i don't want to give it up. second reason is, we have well over 5,000 nuclear weapons. we will be amply able to scare the living crap out of everybody in the world for a very long time even if we reduce that somewhat and sensibly. this amendment just cramps the ability of the pentagon to make those types of sensible decisions. it will not eliminate our nuclear deterrence. our nuclear deterrence is overwhelming. there's money to be saved in nuclear programs. the pentagon can sensibly do that but here comes congress again to say, i have to protect my own. i don't care what it does to the budget. fiscal conservatives should not support this amendment. we've got to get our budget in order, got to do it logically and logically is not, protect mine and i don't care about the big picture. that's not the way to approach this budget if we're going to have an adequate national security. the chair: the gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman from tennessee

reserves. the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. mrs. lummis: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from alabama, mr. ronellers. the chair: the gentleman is recognize for 30 seconds. i rise in support of this amendment, an i don't have any silos in alabama. one thing i want people to be cognizant of is we need to maintain our resolve. we don't have to demolish these silos. we just learned with ground based interceptors which esident obama reduced, but now he reversed course, we never know when the world's landscape will change. it is much more expensive to try -- and cumbersome -- to put new silos in than keep these warm. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this. the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming reserves.

the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cooper: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has a minute and a half. the gentlewoman's time has expired. mr. cooper: let me close, again i have the highest regard for the gentlelady from wyoming but this is an issue of national importance. we should not allow parochial concerns to dominate here. she is doing an extraordinary job of representing her constituents, particularly those at that base but i would urge, particularly my colleague from north dakota, to be aware that to the extent he preserves these icbm missile fields he may be hurting, unintentionally, his nuclear capable bomber force. watch out if you're going to be parochial let's go all the way, be thoroughly parochial, don't leave part out. this is an important thing. we realize as members we should put the national interest first. let's listen to the air force, let's listen to strat come, let's not make pork barrel

decisions back home that may benefit us politically but aren't in the national interest. we're all for strong national defense and i think there's opposition to this amendment so i would urge my colleagues to strongly and forcefully oppose it thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wyoming. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. to for what purpose does the gentleman -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wyoming will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number four printed in part b of house report 113-10 . for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? mr. pearce: i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four printed in house report 113--- >> i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be read. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico. mr. pearce: mr. speaker, i yield myself a minute and a half and right now, emerging technologies critical to our readiness and safety of our soldiers is developed at 23 major range and test facilities within d.o.d. recently a problem has come to our attention and that problem plays out in the white sands missile range in my district. basically, the centerpiece of the range is controlled by d.o.d., the land and the air above it. these pieces here, the north and south, are controlled, the air is controlled by the department of defense, the secretary of the army, but the land is controlled by the

b.l.m. and the b.l.m. recently has approved something that -- an encroachment across this land which threatens 33% of the missions in white sands. last launch facility that is up in this very northern corner and we use the entire 140-mile length, it's the largest overland teths base and we use that to test these new emerging technologies with the encroachment, it endangers fully one third of the missions of the base. so our amendment simply says that no secretary of any agency should be able to come in here and put at risk these tests of the 23 different sites located with d.o.d. and with a split jurisdiction like we have here. it's a very simple amendment, simply says you have to go through the process in the house. with that, ereserve the plans

of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> to claim time in on sis. choil the -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized if opposition for five minutes. mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i may consume. while i understand the department of defense's role in all this there are other agencies that also have an important role and the natural resources committee norlte has expressed concerns about this because the bureau of land management has their interests as well as a bunch of other federal agencies this gives the department of defense a veto power over land use. that's, you know, i want to make sure the department of defense's interests are looked after but they're not the only interests that exist in our country. so a proper balance of those interests i think would be a better approach. and this amendment just says department of defense basically gets the ultimate vee to and i think that gives it too much power so i prefer to see a more balanced approach and oppose the amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from new mexico is recognized. mr. pearce: i yield the

gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. black a minute and a half. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mrs. black: thank you, i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, as a co-chair of the congressional range and testing center caucus, i rise in support of congressman pearce's amendment to the national defense authorization act. the major range and test facility base is made up of 23 installations across the country including the arnold air force "basic instinct"ed in tennessee. the critical testing and -- the air force base, based in tennessee. these are truly a national asset vital to our security. the testing and valuation performed at these facilities, though often done mind the scenes, helps ensure that our men and women in uniform have the equipment and technologies they need to protect our country. it's vital to protect these facilities against the various

forms of encroachment that can undermine the effectiveness of their operation. my colleague's amendment would ensure that any new use of lands already owned by the federal government around these installations be approved by the department of defense. i urge my colleagues to join me in support of this commonsense amendment that strengthen ours national security. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from new mexico reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: who has the right to close on this? the chair: the gentleman from washington will close. mr. smith: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new mexico is recognized. . mr. pearce: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pearce: -- mr. bishop: thank you, i appreciate the invitation from mr. pearce. this problem illustrates a couple of overwhelming problems we have. one is that agencies don't talk one with another. when the f.a.a. closed towers

down they put three military bases in a difficult situation because they didn't talk. when nasa changed its policy on manned space flight it increased the cost of missile defense system because the agencies didn't talk. here's another situation of agencies not working together which illustrates a second reason why in this bill when we tried to talk about land we're not talking about withdrawing land so two different agencies have the same land, we're transferring land so one agency can make the decision. in this case it should be the military. as subcommittee chairman for the public lands committee, subcommittee in the resources, i want to say i support this amendment and i would ask that people would pass this amendment. there may be some areas of trying to change some language to limit the scope of what we're doing here which could easily be done in conference if this amendment is placed on the table in the first place. we already have language in there that deals with white sands but this amendment would have to be in addition to that. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this if there are some areas we need to scope down

again, we can easily accomplish that, if we have the opportunity of doing so in a conference. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from new mexico reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from new mexico is recognized. mr. pearce: mr. speaker, the situation is quite simple, quite transparent, we're trying to resolve who can make the decisions on land that is owned by one agency and air space owned by another. nowhere else -- nowhere else in the u.s., no else in the world do we have this long, uninterrupted range to test weapons. it gives us great insight into the successes and failures of those weapons. if we're going to preserve this national asset this ability to test new and different weapons, then let's get a clear line of understanding. i would urge passage of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico yields back the plans of his time the gentleman from washington is recognized

to close. mr. smith: i yield myself the balance of my time. i want to thank -- i think the gentleman from utah makes a reasonable point, one agency shouldn't be shutting something down that has a negative impact on another without consulting them and perhaps if we work in this amendment to figure out some way that consultation is required, some balance, but it's the way -- this gives the department of defense the ability to do what the gentleman from utah the other agency did which is just, whack it, not talk to anybody else. we're happy to continue to work on this going forward, in its current form i am still opposed to it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 113-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek

recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 offered by mr. coffman of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. coffman: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, my amendment, number 208, cuts $250 million from the defense rapid innovation program or commonly called drip, and moves the money to alleviate training and readiness shortfalls. the drip program is a relatively new program started by congress in the wake of the earmark ban in 2010. the funding was not requested by the department of defense and congress uses the program through d.o.d. to provide grants to small businesses. the funding can be better applied. yesterday deputy defense secretary carter said, the

sequester hits particularly hard in the operations and maintenance accounts and as a result train something hurt and our nation's military readiness plummets. this is unacceptable. but we can't just bemoan this fact. we have to address it. it is our duty to our men and women in uniform and our nation's security to ensure that we spend our defense dollars in the most efficient and critical way possible. a quarter billion dollars for the drip program is not the wisest use of our tax dollars. as a form small business owner i am naturally very protective of our nation's small businesses. i understand the pressures they operate under. but i am also aware of the effect sequestration is having on our military's operations and maintenance accounts. we are seeing across-the-board cuts to vital operational funding. the air force grounded 13 squadrons for the year. the navy has canceled ship deployments and deferred

maintenance. the army has canceled major training exercises for the year. and while i am sure that there have been good results from some of the spending in the drip program, i am sure that this program is duplicative of many other efforts in the department of defense. there is already $76 million for quick reaction special projects, $62 million for emerging capabilities technology development, $174 million for joint capability technology demonstrations, and $34 million for the defensewide manufacturing, science and technology program. there is over $1 billion for department of defense small business initiative research funding. and so on. joint programs and technical support programs. transferring this money will not leave small businesses or technology development without

funding. what it will do is significant nat to the american people that we are willing to -- signal to the american people that we are willing to make the hard choices necessary to prioritize our men and women in uniform by supporting the operations and maintenance accounts they rely on. and which are a higher priority than the potential drip results. i repeat, the drip program was set up in 2010 as a way to get around the ban on earmarks. in today's restricted fiscal climate, we have higher defense spending prirltes that we should -- priorities that we should fund instead. i ask for your support for this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> rise to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, if this amendment one , we will strip away of the main tools that we have in the defense budget to ensure that small businesses continue

to be part of the defense industrial base. the rapid innovation fund was created a couple years ago in order to ensure that small businesses who had technology, who had resources to help the war fighter could get funding to develop that technology, to develop those resources and get service to the war fighters sooner rather than later. mr. larson: in 2011 alone -- mr. larsen: in 2011 alone, over 3,500 white papers were evaluated, proposals for the rapid innovation fund. ,500, 200 final proposals were invited and of that total of 3,500, 177 awards were made. 95% of which went to small businesses, 80% to current or prior sbir participants and the average product value of $2.2 million awarded to companies in 32 states and the district of

columbia. this is an important program to help small businesses continue to be part of the defense industrial base. we should not strip drip funding out of the bill. if we're going to deal with operation and maintenance, let's do what everybody on the committee wants to do. let's stop the sequester. replace the sequester with something more balanced to ensure that the accounts, as well as great programs like drip, are funded. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. coffman: thank you, mr. speaker. every dollar wasted in the defense budget is a dollar not spent on defending this country. this is not a program that was ever requested by the department of defense. this does -- this is a jobs program. and i think, given the fact that the defense department is under incredible stress, that we've got to fund the priorities that our men and women on the frontlines need.

and that is putting this $250 and n to operation maintenance, $250 million, this spending program that is already duplicated in other parts of the department of defense budget. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask how much time i have left? the chair: the gentleman from washington has 3 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from colorado has 1 1/2 minutes. mr. larsen: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. shuster: i thank the gentleman and i just want to echo what the gentleman from washington said. this is an extremely important program to small business and operates in the defense industrial base. and we are making it more and more difficult for them to operate. this fund, the rapid innovation fund, is just the solution to keeping them involved in the innovation and coming out with

new products, faster products. so in the long run this is going to save money. it's going to have new products the war fighters need. this fund has been very important to them. mr. larsen and i chaired a panel, this panel on business challenges to the defense industry, we traveled this country listening to small businesses and this is what they asked for. this is so important to the development of their products. and in fact, when we started this we had secretary rumsfeld come before the committee and say, when i asked him, what would you recommend to small businesses doing business with the department of defense and he'd say, i recommend they don't do business. it's so difficult. in fact, he said it's like sleeping with a hippo. eventually it's going to roll over and crush you and it will never know that it did it. this is extremely important to the small business community, to keep them engaged. the big defense contractors need the small folks there developing and innovating. so i urge a no vote on the coffman amendment and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. coffman: mr. speaker, the question before us, in an

environment of limited resources, is whether we fund an economic development program for small business. as a former small business owner, i certainly would think under normal circumstances that would be important. but we're doing it out of the department of defense budget. and we're doing it at the expense of priorities within the department of defense. and the department of defense is not asking for this program. what the department of defense is saying is that there are shortages in funding operations and maintenance. and so i believe that it's critically important to take this $250 million that the department of defense is not requesting and put it into an area where they are requesting it. and, mr. speaker, i yield back. but reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: i yield a minute to the gentlelady from california,

ms. sanchez. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to this amendment. i understand my colleague's oncern with the shortfall in the department but that's a result of sequestration. what we're talking about here is innovation. and innovation doesn't generally happen in the big companies. it happens in the small companies. the companies that are able to move quickly so that we get what we need. and that's what the program is about. this is not an earmark. in fact, just yesterday the prenotification for the fiscal year 2013 process was released, it said, any and all companies can put forward proposals. that's not an earmark. the r.i.p. process contributes to cost savings to the surface's training -- service's training activities. the navy added cost reduction as a critical focus area in the fiscal year 2012 rapid innovation fund broad agency

announcement. and several of these selected r.i.p. projects actually seem to -- r.i.f. project includes the cost of training. i urge a no vote on this amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from olorado is recognized. the gentleman from colorado has 30 seconds remaining. mr. coffman: mr. speaker, there are already -- in this bill there's already $76 million for quick reaction to special projects. $62 million for emerging capabilities technology development, $174 million for joint capabilities technology demonstrations, and $34 million for the defensewide manufacturing science and technology program. the department of defense small business innovation research and small business technology transfer programs spend about $1 billion per year in research and development funding for our nation's small technology companies. so, the issues that they're

talking about are already addressed in multiple ways and this is really a part -- this is unfortunately wasteful pentagon spending that's got to be cut. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. chairman. how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman from washington has a minute and a half remaining. mr. larsen: thank you. i yield a minute to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. without objection. -- without objection, so ordered. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. while i fully understand and appreciate the gentleman from colorado's intention, i must strongly disagree with his amendment. specifically its choice of offsets. cutting our future to pay for the present is the very definition of penny wise and pound foolish. this amendment would have a severe negative impact on small businesses in the defense industry. the rapid innovation fund was created by the armed services committee. it is a fully competitive program to facilitate the rapid

insertion of innovative small business technologies and processes into military systems or programs that meet critical national security needs of the war fighting. projects are now -- are under way now and just yesterday the prenotification for the n.y. -- f.y. 2013 process was released. the process contributes to the cost savings of the services' training activities. in fact, the navy added cost reduction as a critical focus area in its f.y. 2012 rapid innovation fund broad agency announcement. so several of the selected projects actually seek to reduce o&m costs, to include the cost of training. so according to the department, r.i.f., and i quote, has a high return on investment while returning a venue for the to y innovative solutions small businesses to our near-term challenges. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. for 30 seconds.

mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. in conclusion, i'd ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. i think we made a good case, folks have heard the argument. just a final note, the defense business panel that mr. shuster it from pennsylvania spoke of, we did travel around the country talking to small businesses. and everywhere we heard that this is the program. the rapid innovation fund is the program that they see as most valuable, they want to us keep tch in place. so -- this in place. so i ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment -- for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. coffman: i'd ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on this amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado ill be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> pursuant to h.res. 260, i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number one consisting of amendments numbered seven, eight, 16, 17, 42, 6, 30, 34, 35, 40, 41, 130, 154, 111, 113, and 159, printed in house report 113-108 offered by mr. mckeon of california. the chair: pursuant ho house resolution 26240erk gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, and the yell from washington, mr. smith, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i urge the ea committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority. i yield one minute to my friend and colleague the gentleman from florida, mr. bilirakis. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bilirakis: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of my amendment which would allow disabled veterans with a sr. have -- service-connected permanent disability rated as total to travel on military aircraft on a space available basis. my amendment would allow disabled veterans who have bravely served our country and made enormous personal sacrifice that follow them in their daily lives to travel through the space aid program at no additional cost to the department of defense. the space available program is a d.o.d. program which allows active duty service members, their families, retire yeses and other others to fill empty seat ops d.o.d. flights. while active duty members an

their families will remain the primary beneficiaries of this program, in order to azest them with the rigors of military life, my amendment allows these veterans, the same benefit. i would like to thank chairman mckeon and ranking member smith and their staffs were their assistance in the amendment process. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from illinois, ms. duckworth. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. duckworth: i rise in support of my amendment which will strengthen small business participation and government contracts. in my district and across the country small bys are the back bone of our economy. small businesses innovate, know how to operate on a tight budget and create good-paying jobs. i want small businesses in places like elgin, illinois, to be able to win government contracts from the department of defense because i know they will do more with taxpayer

dollars and provide superior products an services for our men and women in uniform. however the government is lagging behind on awarding contracts to small businesses. we're not meeting our goals of 23% of contracts going to small piss. 23% is a pretty low bartha we should be raising even higher, meet. struggling to it is even more unfortunate we are failing to award enough contracts to women and veteran owned smalls by. my amendment seeks to remedy this by asking the small business administration and federal agencies to include remediation plans on small business contracting goals. the government should explain why it's not meeting its small business goals. it should identify faulty past practices and propose new businesses an prackfisses -- practices to increase small business participation. we need an action plan to support our small businesses and my amendment would do just

that. i thank chairman mckeon and ranking member smith for their help on this amendment and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and our small businesses. thank you and i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield one minute to mr. fitzpatrick. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fitzpatrick: i thank the chairman for the opportunity to address two amendments part of this package, first is 2003 igs -- tuition assistance to allow members of the military to prepare themselvesers in civilian job market upon leaving the service. last year, approximately 300,000 service members used tuition assistance to pursue their goals. last march they chose to end that program and it took congressional action to overturn the decision that would end even the specter of this ever happening again.

our sole yes, sailors, airmen and marines deserve better. second is an amendment requiring the secretary of defense to conduct a study on veteran owned business contracting and examine the feasible of putting a priority on veteran owned small business contracting goals first. similar to a successful program in the v.a. they'll be examining how fair contracting practices if veteran-owned small businesses could positively affect veteran unemployment, homelessness and suicide. mr. chairman, the fact is there are 250,000 service members transitioning each year from military life to civilian life. one in seven are self-employeed or small business owners an about a quarter of our veterans say they're interested in starting or buying their own small businesses. they play an important role in our economy this congress needs to help them in the transition and getting america back to work. i'd like to thank the chairman and ranking member on the bill and urge the support of these amendments. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield two minutes

to the gentlelady from florida, ms. frankel. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. frankel: i'm the mother of a united states marine war veteran and i remember well the pride my son felt when he put on his uniform. my constituent alicia morrow felt the same pride but at age 22 she joined the united states coast guard. she started boot camp full of hope for her future. and that hope quickly turned into humiliation and sorrow as her company commander became her enemy. he ordered her to clean his office and later harassed her with sexual innuendos an advances night after night. feeling hopeless and fearing retribution, she stayed silent until the commander became more emboldened. he ordered another female recruit to his office at night this time he ordered her to remove her clothes and engage in unwanted sex.

thankfully, the victim was brave enough to pursue charges but because it was determined that she was not under physical threat and she did not fear for her life her assailant got away with a lesser offense of cruelty and maltreatment and adultery instead of being charged with rape. this is not full justice, when our daughters and our sons put on the uniform to protect us, the united states, they must be protected from such abuse of power to the utmost extent. mr. chairman, the intention of this amendment is to do just that. i thank you and i yield pack my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield one minute to my friend and colleague from kansas, mr. huelskamp.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. huelskamp: i thank the chairman for yielding to me i appreciatest perblesly his efforts on the ndaa last year in which we were able to add language to require the department of defense to adopt new regulations to protect the religious liberties of our military personnel. especially our brave chaplains. however, since march and since the adoption of that law, we have sent three letters to the department of defense asking for progress updates and the department has only responded with an acknowledgment that it's received our letters but to date we are unaware of any progress. instead, it seems that secretive meetings continue with individuals opposed to religious liberties. in light of this delay, my amendment is very simple. it would require the department to ro provide congress with a report on meetings between employees and civilians with respect to the development in military policy related to religious liberty. i encourage my colleagues to

support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cuellar: i rise to encourage my colleagues to support my amendment to the national defense authorization act this amendment will bring the department of defense and other federal, state, and local agencies together to map out the futures of u.a.v. i first want to thank chairman mckeon and ranking member smith and their staff for their assistance on this important issue. i also want to thank those who have co-sponsored this amendment, representative green, representative poe, and chairman michael michaud. it calls for the secretary of defense in consultation with homeland security and the federal aviation administration to develop and implement plans to review the potential of joint testing training that might serve the dual purpose of providing capabilities to the department of testifies to

protect us abroad and on the international porder this will go a long way to make sure we utilize all available resources and not waste taxpayers' money. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield one minute to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. braden stein. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bridenstine. mr. bridenstine: i worry that they have taken guidance from an anti-christian se lot when making policy. mr. mickey weinstein described

christians at human monsters, responsible for racism, bigotry and prejudice. the called the presence of committed christians in the military a national security threat comparable to alchi dasm we're not asking to approve the military's calendar appointments but given the situation, congress needs to know when the military meets with anti-christian fanatics on issues regarding religious liberty. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is reserved. mr. smith: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: we have no further peakers. mr. smith: i have no further speakers, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i encourage our colleagues to support the en bloc amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed. to -- are agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number six prinned in part b of house report 113-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from highway seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. choi clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number six prinned in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mr. turner of ohio. the chair: pursuant to the -- the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. turner: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank chairman mckeon and ranking member adam smith for their efforts, they had given to representative tsongas

and myself the task of doing a bipartisan package to address sexual assault in the military. we know and people have spoke on this house floor on the tragedy of the issue of sexual assault in the military. we have to do something to change the churl and change the legislative regime that affects the protection of sexual assault and victims. many times victims report they are revictimized by the system. we want to ensure the perpetrator fears the system, not the victim. there is one other thing we need to address. many people have taken to the floor and said we need to go farther. the turner amendment is what we need to do to go farther. we have put in this bill currently a mandatory minimum meaning if you commit a sexual assault, you are subject to a statutory minimum that minimum in this bill unfortunately is only, you're out of the military. we want toin crease that to include two years of confinement. mr. chairman, 22125eu9s -- states have mandatory minimums that include confinement,

incarceration. of those 22 states, we took the minimum so we're not going higher than any state. but here's the issue we need to remedy. under current law if you commit a sexual assault on a base that's in a state that has a mandatory minimum you might avoid a mandatory minimum and that has happened. in the case of marine corps gunnery sergeant nicholas howard he committed a rape on a 23-year-old woman. he was quick odd sexual assault due to d.n.a. tisting and it was found -- he was found guilty of first degree sexual assault. he was given a dishonorable discharge but no yale time. in skea -- but no jail time. in alaska he would have been subject to incarceration. we shouldn't have people in uniform or on base avoid jail time because they're in the military. we shouldn't are is a lower standard. with that, i would like to yield a minute and a half to ms. what horsekey. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for a minute and a half. s. what horse -- ms. walorski:

toiled thank representative turner for allowing me to speak on this issue. currently there's no minimum punishment rirped when someone is convicted of military sexual assault. this means a service member can be quicked of a crime and receive no punishment. the amendment will impose a mandatory minimum sentence of confine and dishonorable discharge. right now 22 states have mandatory minimum sentences for those convicted of rape and sexual assault my state, indiana, is one of those states. in indiana, there's a mandatory sentence of not less than six years for rape. it's inexcusable that service members guilty of the most heinous crime should be allowed to remain in the military. allowing them to coexist with victims and potentially commit repeated offenses. crs must receive the full weight of jus fiss nor -- justice for their wrongdoing. american sons and daughters redeserve protection while

serving in the military and should never feel vulnerable or revictimized after suffering from any form of sexual assault or misconduct. this amendment is a much-need red form that ensures victims receive the justice they deserve. thank you and i yield back my ime. the chair: the gentleman from ohio yield reserves his time -- reserves his time. >> i reserve the time for opposition. mr. speaker, i really respect the gentleman and what he's bringing forward but the reality is that mandatory minimums have been shown to actually reduce the incidence of reporting. judges and juries need the ability to defy -- decide with discretion and not strictly by its appearance. mrs. davis: sometimes, and we've seen this, many times, mandatory minimums can have the opposite effect, encouraging jurors to make a decision based

on the potential sentence as opposed to the facts. and that's why i'm standing in opposition. because we also know that organizations who have worked very hard to look at this issue worry that this could go in the wrong direction. protect our defenders, which has been a very, very strong advocacy group for victims, worries that when a juror -- jury knows that a perpetrator will automatically be dishonorably discharged, that the jury will be less likely to assign confinement charges in addition. they need to see the full picture. so we must take caution to judge every case individually. i reserve the balance of my time. we have some additional speakers. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. turner: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from

ohio reserves his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. davis: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from massachusetts. the chair: the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. ms. tsongas: thank you, mr. speaker. i value my partnership with mr. turner and with the legislation we have crafted on combating the horrific crimes of sexual assault empty military. -- in the military. led year our work together to the act's incorps ration into the ndaa before us today. however, i must take exception to the amendment before us. i do agree that we must make sure that all individuals who are convicted of sexual assault in the military are punished with confinement. absolutely. but there are many different ideas about the best way to do that. some argue that a better approach would be a system similar to federal sentencing guidelines. and that's why mr. turner and i

wrote a provision in the defense authorization before us. it requires the secretary of defense to provide congress with a report on sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentencing provisions under the ucmj. before we make additional changes to the ucmj we need to see this report. since we have introduced a be safe act, we have heard from many groups, one letter from the national alliance to end sexual violence says, quote, long mandatory minimum sentences can have a chilling effect on reporting and prosecuting sexual assault in the civilian system and the national association to end sexual violence does not recommend them. we have to listen to these various voices. we cannot afford to take this risk in the military. reporting of sexual assault in the military already happens at abysmal rates. we need more reporting, not less. less reporting equals fewer prosecutions which ultimately will fail to deter the perpetrators from carrying out

this heinous crime. i urge a no vote on this amendment. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. turner: mr. chairman, how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from ohio has two minutes remaining. mr. turner: i do -- do i have the right to close, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentlelady from california will have the right to close. mr. turner: ok. mr. chairman, the -- i appreciate the concern that i've heard from the other side of the aisle. the issue i think comes down to that being in a military uniform should not be a get-out-of-jail-free card. the state of the law is that if you're in a state that has a mandatory minimum and you commit a sexual assault or rape, you're going to jail. but yet under our law, you could be a member of the military and commit a sexual assault or rape and be free from incarceration, even if you commit the assault or the rape offbase. when we talk about wanting to make certain that we uphold the victims and making certain that

it's the perpetrator that is the person that feels insecure and threatened by the system, you can't have a system that threatens the perpetrator when the perpetrator knows that by being a man or woman in uniform or by being onbase and a member of the military, that you're subject to a lower standard in conviction and sentencing. the case that we have in alaska where a member of our military, member of the marine corps, committed a rape and then received no jail time whatsoever, no jail time whatsoever, and if he had been offbase or if he'd been a civilian in alaska, would have been subject to a significant mandatory minimum of incarceration, when people ask what's different in the military, this is different. we need a mandatory minimum that says, if you commit a sexual assault and you're convicted, you are out of the military, you are dishonorably discharge and you are going to jail. and -- discharged and you are going to jail and that mandatory minimum will be at two years of incarceration. i was just at a facility where i asked commanders what

happened at their facility with sexual assault and they said they had had a sexual assault, they had someone who got seven months. that has a chilling effect both on reporting and it also has a -- it gives an environment where people who are perpetrators feel that they could be safe. our law, this amendment, would make it you're out mandatory, dishonorable discharge, two years in prison, and that's it. we urge support for the turner amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from ohio's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. davis: thank you. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california. how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentlewoman has a minute and a half remaining. mrs. davis: i yield that. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to the ranking member. i rise in opposition to this amendment. congress is of course outraged over the ongoing cases of sexual assault and sexual

harassment occurring in our military. there's no one in this chamber who doesn't believe that criminals should pay for such violent and atrocious crimes. and so i understand why my good colleague on the other side would offer such an amendment. i'll say several things. first, i'm pretty much opposed to mandatory minimum sentences in general. but this base bill, the base bill that we're considering today, the committee requires the department of defense to provide a report on mandatory minimums in sentencing guidelines in order to make sure that such sentencing reforms will not discourage the victims from reporting. and in addition to that, in the base bill, if you are convicted of these crimes, you will be dishonorably discharged. so, in order to avoid imposing laws that may hurt victims, i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. the gentlewoman from california is recognized for 30 seconds.

mrs. davis: ok. thank you, mr. speaker. this is a complex issue. we know that. and i think what we feel is that this further complicates it. i think my colleague has introduced, with congresswoman tsongas, a bill that does much of what we're talking about here. but there is an exception in terms of the way that the jury is able to move forward here and we think that this actually makes sense. so that the decisions that are made are absolutely based on an individual case and what we can offer in terms of making certain that the perpetrator is held accountable. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question 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 amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in art b of house report 113-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mr. ridgele of virginia -- rigell of virginia. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. rigell, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. rigell: i thank the chairman. mr. chairman, these are very, very challenging fiscal times. our deficit continues to grow. and that's putting pressure on every single line of our federal budget. including defense. and yet the world has not become a safer place. so, what's clear, mr. speaker, is that we have a duty, an absolute duty to invest each and every dollar of our defense dollars wisely and that's exactly what my amendment does. it does that by eliminating a

regulation that's holding back competition and in doing so it's hurting the american taxpayer. when it comes to understanding the value of introducing competition into things, the american people get it. from groceries to computers, we know that when competition is introduced, that good things happen. the prices go down and quality goes up. now, the same is true or it should be true when it comes to the department of defense and the ability of the private sector and the public sector to compete. now president obama put it this way, he said, taxpayers may receive more value for their dollars if noninherently governmental activities that can be provided commercially are subject to the forces of competition. in my service to my district, i'm always looking for commonsense ideas and common ground. and on this particular issue, i see both in the president's statement. my amendment moves competition

forward by eliminating a full moratorium that congress has put in place. and it said the department of defense said in 2011 that it wanted that particular moratorium removed so it could meet its statutory obligation. now, what is that statutory obligation? it's this. this comes right out of their own report and recommendations. the secretary of defense shall use the least costly form of personnel consistent with military requirements and other needs of the department of. -- department. we know that some activities are inherently governmental. for example, criminal investigations. my amendment has nothing to do with those type of activities. they should be performed by the federal government. but other activities, mr. chairman, for example, janitorial services, that's not inherently governmental. and should be subject to competition. and that's what this amendment opens up. it really isn't affecting what's known as the 50/50 rule and those core services that are provided by deepows. so, i believe that -- depots.

so i believe the amendment offers both common sense and common ground. i urge my colleagues to vote for it and i'd like to yield a minute to my friend, mr. coffman. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. mr. coffman: thank you, mr. chairman. over the past few years the prevailing trend within the department of defense has been an over-reliance on federal employees to perform commercial services. given our nation's need for fiscal as you mr. terry: ty, a problem made -- austerity, a problem made more acute by sequester cuts, it is important that congress provide the pentagon with the necessary tools to drive efficient sis and cost savings. public-private competitions are one such tool. public-private competitions are an effective way of injecting performance and accountability into government operations. the private sector constantly competes for new business opportunities. when the federal government performs commercial functions, they too should be required to compete. unfortunately congress has placed a moratorium on public-private cost

competitions. effectively granting monopoly power to the federal government when it comes to providing commercially available goods and services. we all know that without competition, both innovation and quality suffer. this does not mandate the use of public-private competitions, it simply unlocks an essential tool that the defense department can use to drive cost effectiveness and efficiencies and save valuable taxpayer dollars. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. mr. rigell: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? ms. hanabusa: i claim time in opposition to the rigell amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized for five minutes. ms. hanabusa: i yield myself one minute and i have other speakers. mr. speaker, the rigell amendment would lift the current moratorium on the public-private competition to the a-76 process. unfortunately it's based on very faulty assumptions. listening to morer to yms will -- listening to moratoriums

will eliminate the process as well as fish the -- finish the service contract's inventory. it's based on the following assumptions which have been proven to be faulty. one, that the private contractors for some reason save money and we know from the reports that noist not true. as d.o.d. evaluates the correct balance between civilian and contractor personnel, it is critical to make sure that our federal employees, the strength of our country, the backbone of defense, are protected. efficient government requires focus of attention on supporting and strengthening our dedicated federal work force and making sure that they have the tools they need to complete our mission. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. -- igell: i, too, apple a am a strong supporter of our

work force. i believe this is good for the american people. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. hanabusa: i yield one minute to mr. cartwright of pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cartwright: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition of this amendment and in support of the over 5,000 men and women who rk at the toby hannah army depot. the process which this amendment seeks to reinstate has been prohibited because it's unfair to federal employees and wasteful of taxpayer dollars. the o.m.b. and the pentagon who have historically been the biggest boosters of this process both acknowledge that a-76 is flawed and they oppose its revival. the d.o.d. acknowledges it's still improving its stattoryly required improvements and it will be rash for us to jump past their internal procedures

for improvement. lifting the moratorium would eliminate the incentives the department needs to fix the a-76 process, and we would not be doing our jobs if we rushed to allow a flawed procedure to lay off our dedicated civilian work force and in many case hurt the taxpayers in the process. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. rigell: i just refuse to agree with the gentleman's proposition there about laying the federal employees off. this does not state -- has nothing to do with that in fact. it simply says this is a tool for the department of defense to use. it does not require a public-private competitions to go forward. i just believe in the federal worker. i believe in the free market as well that competition is a good thing and it needs to be introduced because this is how we will make our defense dollars go as far as they can possibly go. i see this as a duty to the

american people, to advance this amendment. i ask my colleagues to support it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from hawaii. ms. hanabusa: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to mr. bishop of utah. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for one minute. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. even though i appreciate the efforts and the goals of the gentleman who is introducing this amendment, this means that a-76 has brought along delays and those delays, even if they are in the form of a study, has caused delay to the work. the fixed cost overheads that our depots have obviously faced have to be paid from some source which is the taxpayer. a-76 is about low cost not necessarily best value. which means if you're dealing with a market system, the -- you're dealing with military equipment which must be performed and must be repaired on a timely day cisand in a

specific way. that's why the department of defense, the office of management and budget are opposing this amendment as well as why they halted the process mountain first place because they found they were strksurel flaws inherent in this -- structural flaws inherent in this process. public-private partnerships which we're already doing at the logistic standards, by taking the creativity of the private sector with the stability of the public work force we actually get the best of work worlds. that will be far better, far better than tearing this open with a food fight that would affect the quality of military equipment which is at stake. thank you. the chair: the gentlelady from hawaii. ms. hanabusa: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to mr. jones of north carolina. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. jones: mr. chairman, thank you very much. i rise in opposition to this amendment. we were able to put it on the shelf for a period of time.

i think trying to activate it and bring it back is absolutely the wrong thing to do. i have cherry point marine air station in my district, i have a depee there with over 4 -- depot there with over 4,000 workers. they fight these wars in afghanistan and iraq, leave their families back home and stand there with the war fighter. we need to kill this amendment because it is opposed by the o.m.b., by the d.o.d., and there is no reason to reactivate the a-76. it should be dead and buried. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from hawaii. ms. hanabusa: mr. chairman, i yield to the gentleman from utah. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i had the honor of serving as a b-1 air pilot. my last assignment was working as liaison and the multitude of private contractors. because of this i saw firsthand the struggles that the military had in successfully having

requirements. mr. stewart: i saw the work that was being performed and in some cases actual complete work stoppage. as a conservative -- and i want to be clear on this -- i have supported free markets and open competition, but markets can only be free when there is a level playing field and that is not possible under the current rules regarding a-76 contracting. neither the military nor the private contractors are well served by a flawed process that leads to a flawed result. which is the reason why the department of defense has spoken out so strongly against this amendment. the department appreciates the value of a-76 public-private competition as a tool to help the department's work force, and i do as well. however, the department has also identified a number of improvements in policy changes that could lead to -- before the moratorium is removed. the department is working hard to put these processes in place. let's give them a little more time to do that. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady from

hawaii has 30 seconds remaining. ms. hanabusa: thank you, mr. chairman. i would claim the 30 seconds. mr. speaker, it is faulty to assume when the department of defense has not resolved long-standing problems in the 86 process that have identified the d.o.d. that this is the way to proceed. we must keep that moratorium on until we are certain that in fact this is in the best interest of the people of our great nation. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it and the mendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in part b of house report 113-108.

for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: i want to claim time in support of my amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mr. mcgovern of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, i want to yield myself one minute. mr. chairman, the war in afghanistan has gone on for more than 12 years. the longest war in american history. 2,235 u.s. military personnel have been killed. over 17,000 have been wounded. and more will fall before our troops finally come home. the human and financial costs are staggering. $778 billion on operation enduring freedom. nearly all of that in afghanistan. $7.2 billion each and every month. the president has announced and is implementing a timetable to wind down u.s. military operations in afghanistan. he's carrying it out. this amendment requires the

police department to stick to his time -- requires the president to stick to his timetable. depending on your point of view, this amendment puts the wind at the president's back or holds his feet to the fire to fulfill the promises he made to our brave troops, their families and the american people. more importantly, it expresses that should u.s. troops be asked to remain in afghanistan beyond 2014, then congress needs to take its constitutional responsibilities seriously and hold a specific vote to authorize that mission and troop presence. the future and fate of tens of thousands of uniformed men and women deserve a vote. i ask members on both sides of the aisle to vote yes on the mcgovern-jones-smith-lee-garame ndi amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: i rise in opposition of the amendment though i am not -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: this amendment is a reflection of the president's current policy in afghanistan.

my concern about the president's afghanistan policy are well documented. i do not believe we should have given our enemies a date certain for our withdrawal. i believe the commander in chief should submit our troops to combat if he's committed to getting the job done right. notwithstanding, my underlying concerns, i must acknowledge the amendment articulates the policy that reflects the president's current policy. i look forward to working with the sponsors of this amendment to further perfect the language going forward. in particular, i note that the amendment expresses the sense of congress that a post-2014 troop presence should be authorized by a vote in congress. this congressman does not agree with that assertion. the congress does not vote on status of forces agreements with other countries. they're not defense treaties. it would be bad policy and a bad precedent to treat afghanistan any differently. moreover, the underlying bill takes meaningful steps to

ensure any bilateral security agreement with afghanistan protects u.s. interests and our troops' abilities to defend themselves. this is not a trivial issue. our vital national security interests are at stake during this delicate time period in afghanistan. my position is unchanged. the transition of the mission should be based upon the conditions on the ground and the input of our commanders. i for one hope that the president's decisionmaking process is not based on a nonbinding restatement of his current policies. rather, i hope his decisionmaking is commensurate with the national security interests at stake. i look forward to working with the gentleman further and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. combovegove mr. chairman, at -- mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, it's my pleasure to yield to mr. jones of north carolina for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. jones: mr. chairman, thank

you. it's been said before we have been in afghanistan for 12 years. we in congress should have the opportunity to vote yes or no on any commitment of troops after 2014. as a former commandant of the united states marine corps who agrees with my opinion that we should withdrawal our troops from afghanistan said to me, and i quote the commandant, what do we say to the mother and father, to the wife of the last marine or soldier killed to support a corrupt government and a corrupt leader in a war that cannot be won? mr. speaker, congress has neglected this war for far too long. we should not allow another american to die in afghanistan unless we vote on the policy. the american people want our troops out. the american people know that afghan is a failed policy. the american people don't want any more blood or any more treasure to be spent in afghanistan. i join my friend from massachusetts and my other friends, please vote for this

amendment offered by mr. mcgovern, myself and others. it is the right thing to do for our military. it's the right thing to do for our nation. it is our constitutional responsibility, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, i'm privileged to now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the ranking member of the armed services committee, mr. smith. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for how long? mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman from massachusetts for his leadership on this issue. my opinion is that we have done what we can do in afghanistan. a substantial portion of the mission, which was very clear, to try to contain the taliban and contain al qaeda so they can never again use it as a base to attack our country. and it is not easy work. as mr. jones pointed out and others, there are many, many problems and challenges in afghanistan, not the least of which is the corruption within the government, but our goal has always been clear. whatever the minimum is to get a government that can stand and

deny a safe haven to those who threaten america, that was a fight worth doing. but we have done what we can do. we have trained hundreds of thousands of afghan national security forces, and it's time to turn that responsibility over to afghanistan. it will always be a challenging part of the world in both afghanistan and pakistan, violent extremists are abundant in both places and we'll have to keep an eye on it but we don't need the troop levels we have now. we need to drawdown in a very responsible way, and i think the gentleman's amendment weighs out a plan to do it and i support it and i support his efforts to get out of afghanistan as soon as we responsibly can. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: how much time do i have left? the chair: 1 3/4 minutes. mr. mcgovern: could i yield -- could i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher?

the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 30 seconds. r. rohrabacher: keeping our troops in afghanistan any longer than they have to absolutely be there is not -- is a disservice to those people who are protecting our country. they are now doing what we said they would do, once we've announced they were relieving, they're picking our people off -- we're leaving, they're picking people off. how do we say to patients -- parents -- let's not send any more over there. let's make sure it's a decision made by the house of the people rather than a click in the pentagon or elsewhere. we need to make sure that we're watching out for our troops and i think that this is the best amendment that would do just that. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from california. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, i will close for our side.

i yield myself the remaining time. mr. chairman, hundreds of billions of dollars, hundreds of lives lost, it is time to end the war in afghanistan, bring our troops home and take seriously our duty as a congress to specifically authorize any mission and troop presence beyond 2014. we are not bistandarders in this war. we are responsible for sending thousands and thousands of men and women over into afghanistan. the least we can do is take seriously our duty as a congress and authorize any mission and troop presence beyond 2014. members of congress ought to go on record as to where they stand on this. we owe it to our troops, we owe it to their families and the american people and i would urge my colleagues to support the mcgovern-jones-smith amendment on afghanistan and send a signal to the administration and to others that we take our responsibility in this matter very seriously. we will have a vote if this war goes beyond what the president

has said -- has stated. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, at this time i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from texas, the vice chairman of the committee, mr. fortenberry. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. fortenberry: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, i would simply want to point out, members have a variety of opinions about afghanistan. and a number of members have come to the floor to voice their opinion that we ought to leave afghanistan. i understand that. that's not what this amendment says. this amendment basically restates the president's policy with regard to afghanistan and then, as the gentleman from massachusetts said, it says congress ought to exercise its responsibilities under the constitution. now, we can do that in a variety of ways. we can have oversight hearings, we can have amendments dealing with funding and we've had those sorts of things before. but the point is that some of

the rhetoric doesn't match the amendment. as the chairman pointed out, the underlying bill tries to encourage a bilateral security agreement. so that looking ahead, beyond 2014, it is very important to many of us that any american troops who are remaining in afghanistan have the protections that they should have under such an agreement. and so the underlying bill has a fence on some of the funding going to afghanistan until there is that sort of bilateral security agreement. so the point is, moving ahead, beyond 2014, there are lots of unknowns at this stage. we're trying to help shape it in a way that is beneficial for our security but also protects our troops. but the underlying amendment to get back to what's before us basically restates the president's position, says congress ought to exercise its responsibilities, i think that's true. meanwhile, members can have their own opinions about afghanistan and what should

happen between now and then. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i request a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in art b of house report 113-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from v.a. -- virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i move to consider amendment number 11. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mr. goodlatte of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from virginia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i

may consume. on september 18, 2001, congress enacted the authorization for the use of military force which empowered the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the united states. section 1021 of the fiscal year 2012 national defense authorization act reaffirms the president's authority to detain so-called enemy combatants by affirming that the authority of the president to use all necessary and appropriate force, pursuant to the authorization for use of military force, includes the authority for the united states -- for the armed forces of the united states to detain covered persons, pending disposition under the law of war. a number of members from both sides of the aisle have expressed extreme discomfort that -- and even outrage that the notion that a united states citizen apprehended on united

states soil can potentially be held indefinitely under this act. to that end i supported an amendment to the fiscal year 2013 national defense authorization act that reaffirmed the ability of the writ of habeas corpus for any person detained in the united states pursuant to the 2001 aumf or the fiscal year 2012 ndaa. while this provision was a step in the right direction, many would view the current proceedings as unfair to the petitioner. for instance, the government presumption ttable that its evidence is accurate and authentic and it must only prove its case by a prepond rans -- preponderance of the evidence. for united states citizens, the burden should be on the government to prove that the detainee is an enemy belligerent. u.s. citizens should not be put in a position to prove that they are not a terrorist.

today with this amendment i want to make clear that nothing in the aumf or the fiscal year 2012 ndaa or any other law for that matter can be construed to deny the great writ of habeas corpus. further, this amendment requires that proceedings for united states citizens apprehended in the united states, pursuant to the aumf, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the citizen is an unprivileged enemy combatant and there is no presumption that the government's evidence is accurate and authentic. this is an important amendment that should alleviate any of the well-founded concerns of the american people concerning the possibility of indefinite detention of united states citizens. the presumption of innocence until proven guilty will be preserved by adopting this amendment. i want to thank the chairman of the armed services committee for supporting this amendment and i appreciate his commitment to ensuring that this language

stays in the bill as it moves through the legislative process and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. >> i rise to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. make no mistake about it, even with this amendment, the president of the united states, the department of justice, will still have the ability to indefinitely detain people captured in the u.s., be they u.s. citizens or not, without the normal due process of law. mr. smith: habeas will be available but even with this increased standard, it is a very minimum standard, and it does not afford the normal article 3 court rights that are in the constitution for everybody else. the president will still have the ability to indefinitely detain people here in the u.s. this amendment is insufficient, first of all, to deal with the concerns that i think people legitimately have about excessive executive power over

people in the u.s. the executive will continue to maintain, under the authorization for the use of military force, the ability to indefinitely detain anyone who is deemed to be a covered person, an enemy combatant, and, yes, it is a slightly higher standard, but it is not beyond the reasonable standard that is required to incarcerate somebody. the president doesn't need this power. president obama has never exercised it. president bush only briefly exercised it in three instances. he doesn't need the power. but to keep it on the books is a threat to liberty and a threat to freedom here in the u.s. and the specific problem with this amendment is it carves out u.s. citizens whereas the , and tutional protections deliberately, were for any person. the bill of rights does say any u.s. person, it says any person. now under habeas you will have two different standards. you have the -- you will have the standard to hold a non-u.s.

citizen, the government will still, you know, have the presumption that what they're saying is true, but for a u.s. citizen you will have a different standard. that really messes with the constitution. there's a very simple way -- simple way to do. this i'll have an amendment and a couple of amendments that gets rid of the ability to indefinitely detain anyone captured in the u.s. straightforward, no question, no weasel words, no back and forth between u.s. citizens and not, it gets rid of indefinite detention. i would urge support for that amendment and opposition to this one and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i want to respond to the gentleman. first of all, the contention that there is no distinction drawn between united states citizens and noncitizens in the context of the fourth amendment of the united states constitution, the supreme court has held that the fourth amendment does not operate to protect all citizens, regardless of their connections to american society. so the 9/11 hijackers are not

in the same status as individuals in this country who are citizens of the united states. rather, the fourth amendment operates only to protect the class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country, to be considered part of that community. the farther that an individual is removed from such community, then the weaker the claim he has to constitutional protection. i agree with the gentleman that rewriting the authorization for use of military force and extending this protection, particularly as it pertains to the united states citizens, should be done, but what the gentleman wants to do doesn't have the strong bipartisan support to pass the house. this amendment does and i urge my colleagues to support it and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this amendment, but mr. goodlatte

and chairman smith and i are in agreement, i think, on the goal. so i think the three of us mutually disagree on elements of this amendment. the amendment, while intended to enhance protection for u.s. citizens, in fact does the opposite. right now americans on u.s. soil cannot be detained indefinitely without charge or trial. rather than affirming this fundamental principle, the amendment implicitly authorizes the military to detain americans on u.s. soil indefinitely by premisings i protection on the mistaken -- premise on the mistaken assertion that the aumf allows such detention. which i disagree with chairman smith, it does not. no such authority exists. the aumf does not grant this authority and we should do nothing to suggest otherwise. in fact, we should be taking clear the immediate steps to ban indefinite military detention altogether and the smith-gibson amendment, which i support, takes a good first step in doing this by prohibiting the detention without charge of any person arrested or detained in the

united states. we should also pass my no detention without charge act which would cure the problem altogether by preventing indefinite detention without charge or trial for all persons in u.s. custody, at home or overseas. secondly, this amendment would create greater encertain -- uncertainty in habeas cases. the amendment seeks to raise the burden on the u.s. government to prove that a u.s. citizen is an unprivileged enemy belligerent, but that is not the same as requiring proof that the person is being lawfully detained, which is what habeas corpus is designed to do. the creation of the two-teared habeas system, with one set -- two-tiered habeas system, with one set for citizens and one standard for noncitizens, raises very troubling constitutional concerns. our constitution simply does not permit us to permit greater basic due process rights based solely on citizenship and although the chairman, mr. goodlatte, is right in citing that the case that he cited, he talked about connection with the united states. someone who is in the united states, physically in the

united states, and is arrested there, has the same constitutional fourth amendment protections as an american citizen. any changes to habeas protection should be studied carefully through regular order, not through rush attachments to defense authorization acts. this would be a dangerous mistake. i urge my colleagues to vote against it and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has one minute remaining. the gentleman from washington has one minute remaining. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i myself the balance of the -- i yield myself the balance of the time to say to the gentleman from new york, you caused the members of the congress to have a choice of having to choose to give the protection to every single person in the united states, including the 9/11 hijackers and others, or you have the opportunity to choose to give it clearly to united states citizens who have -- who are clearly entitled to have it. you do not have the ability with your amendment to draw that line between those who are lawfully present in the united

states and would be entitled and those who do not. and as a result of that, i would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment that the gentleman describes and support this amendment which will advance the cause of giving united states citizens greater protection, reversing the burden of proof, putting that burden on the government, which is, after all, the american way. it is after all what the bill of rights provides. you have to show that in order to convict a united states citizen in our courts or certainly in an article three court, and it should be in these military tribunals, the burden of proof on the government to prove that and do it by a higher standard than they have to under the law, that exists right now in the aumf, which is only reasonable proof, not clear and convincing as this amendment requires. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, as the best way to move forward and protect the rights of american citizens. the chair: the gentleman from washington.

mr. smith: i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. i share with the author of this amendment the goal of clarifying and strengthening the time-honored writ of habeas corpus for all american citizens. but my concern is that sometimes by omission we limit people's rights. this amendment is very carefully but narrowly drawn in such a way, it begs questions about the exclusion of those outside the am by the of this amendment and -- ambit of their amendment and -- of this amendment and their rights. the gentleman, i know in good faith, is trying to promulgate an amendment that broadens the right of habeas corpus, but when compared to the smith-gibson language that this modifies, that it raises by omission an intention of the congress to narrow the right of habeas corpus, so although it is not the gentleman's intent i

believe it is the effect of this amendment. and those that it should be strengthened and broadened should support the underlying language as i in fact do. i yield back. the chair: the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, he ayes have it. >> i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, eavementeavement the gentleman from washington will be postponed -- further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington will be postponed. it is now in order consider mber 12 printed in part b of house report 113-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. radel: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mr. radel of florida.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from florida, mr. radel, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. radel: thank you, mr. chairman. for too long, the white house has been operating with secret memos and behind closed doors hidden from you. and this is why we're offering this amendment requiring the department of defense to submit an annual report to congress which basically goes over who, why and what. who, the names of any u.s. citizen subject to military detention. why, the legal justification for their detention. what, the steps the executive branch is taking to either provide them some sort of judicial process or the path of possible release. now, this amendment requires that an unclassified version of the report be made available to every member of congress. this amendment shines light where there has been darkness in this country, ensuring freedom, liberty and justice

for all. while there is a legitimate need that we recognize that the government protects us from terrorism, we almost always must ensure -- we must ensure that americans' rights to their due process and their day in court are always, always protected. you need to be guaranteed that your government is looking out for your rights. upon our founding, every american was guaranteed fundamental god-given rights that cannot be taken away from the government. these amendments ensures that these rights are safeguarded. i yield my time to the gentleman from arizona for such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. salmon: thank you, mr. speaker. this little document here, the constitution of the united states, is something that we all cherish. something when we were all sworn in, we said we would uphold this document. it is the framework this nation is built upon. and there are certain inalienable rights that are created in that document that

we just can't wave away. some of those rights i think are imbeded -- concerns about these rights are embedded in this bill. i have real concerns about american citizens being detained for an unspecified amount of time. i believe that this amendment goes a long way toward shedding light, the light of transparency on how these american citizens are handled. and i think that's the very least that we can do as a body to make sure that our people's fundamental rights of freedom are protected. one of the great leaders and founding fathers of this nation, benjamin franklin, once said those who are willing to trade their freedom for security deserve neither and shall probably lose both. i yield back to mr. radel. the chair: does the gentleman reserves the balance of his

time? mr. radel: yes, mr. chair, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: yield or reserve? mr. radel: i yield back, sir. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: parliamentary inquiry. isn't the normal order that one person speaks and they reserve and the opposition speaks? a couple times they've moved on to their next speaker and gone through. as i understand that's not the way -- the chair: that's normally but recognition was within the discretion of the chair. mr. smith: discretion of the chair. that's fine. i rise to claim time in opposition even though i am not in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: we should acknowledge and have this information been made available to us and i don't oppose that. i want to take the time to raise the issue of the next amendment, the smith-gibson amendment, coming up and it's a simple, straightforward debate d that is the militarization of u.s. law enforcement. and that's really what we're

concerned about with indefinite detention, and there are some who believe that any terrorist act committed within the u.s., that the u.s. military should basically take over. you should have indefinite detention, you should get rid of the normal due process contained in the constitution. i think that is dangerous, wrong and wholly unnecessary. i think the u.s. constitution and the department of justice have proven themselves more than capable of investigating, capturing, prosecuting, trying, convicting and incarcerating all the terrorists in the u.s., and i think it is a dangerous step towards executive and military power to allow things like indefinite detention under military control within the u.s. that's the heart and the essence of this issue, and we're dancing around this question. i take mr. goodlatte at his word. i believe that the constitution doesn't apply to everybody, but it doesn't just apply to u.s. citizens either, as he acknowledged. it applies to u.s. persons

broadly speaking. people who have a connection to this country. we shouldn't just protect u.s. citizens. we should protect u.s. persons under that constitutional definition. in a very straightforward way, do you believe the president of the united states should have the power to indefinitely detain people captured within the u.s. without the normal due process of law? i don't. and honestly i don't think most americans do and i don't think most members of congress do. we've gotten bogged down in different little subpieces of the debate and u.s. citizens and who counts and who doesn't count, but the fundamental question is, do you believe that the president should have the power to indefinitely detain people captured in the u.s. without normal due process of law? if you don't, if you are concerned about that executive power, then the only way to take that out of our law is to vote for smith-gibson. the rest of this just sort of moves it around the edges but very clearly leaves that power with the president, a power i don't think he should have. with that i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in part b of house report 113-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: i have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mr. smith of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ndaa -- mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for

yielding. i rise in strong support of the smith-gibson amendment. we consider the fiscal year 2012 version of this bill, i argued in opposition to sections 1021 and 1022. i argued then and i still believe now that these provisions go far beyond the aumf to suggest that the president has the authority to detain even u.s. citizens without charge indefinitely. the aumf gives the president no such authority. clearly we must roll back these provisions. the smith-gibson amendment prohibits the detention without charge of any person arrested or detained in the united states and is the first step towards restoring due process of law. it is a good first step. the scope is limited to u.s. soil and to the aumf. we should do more. that's why i introduced the no detention without charge act which would apply to all persons in u.s. custody at home and overseas and those present and future. it should not only prohibits detention without charge of

those arrested in the united states and prohibits the detention of any person anywhere except -- the detainee can challenge the action. in order to conduct itself according to the constitution and the law of war should not be controversial. i proposed towards affirming our values and securing our liberty. we should not -- this clarifies that the aumf does not give any president the authority to detain people without due process of law and to detain them indefinitely. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to sign on as co-sponsors of my bill. but right now support the smith-gibson amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from texas, the chairman of the

homeland security committee, mr. mccaul. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mccaul: i thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman from california. i rise in opposition to this amendment. as attacks in benghazi and boston demonstrate our fight against those who mean us harm and those who inspire is far from over. this amendment is of questionable constitutional standing as it seeks to deprive any president of lawful options that he needs to protect america, hinders our ability to gather information and actually provides an incentive for terrorists to come here to attack us. it prohibits the president from ever detaining anyone in the united states, including a foreign terrorist, under the authority of the 2001 authorization for use of military force. this amendment requires that foreign terrorists could only be prosecuted in civilian courts. but what if they could not be successfully prosecuted? currently, there are detainees in guantanamo who are too

dangerous to release but are not prosecuteable. under this amendment, it's similarly situated terrorists that were captured here at home, they would have to be released. our experience trying to deport illegal aliens whose native lands refuse to accept their return demonstrates the untenable position this amendment will leave us in. if we can't use the aumf to hold detainees and we can't successfully prosecute them in a civilian court, then what can we do? the amendment ignores the reality of the threats we face every day. consistent with the laws of war, we've long recognized the authority to detain enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities. in the 2004 decision, the supreme court reaffirmed the authority to detained a u.s. citizen captured fighting with the taliban who was later detained in the united states and that such detainees have the right to challenge their detention. and in 2012, the ndaa

reaffirmed it provided by the aumf as well as a right to habeas corpus determinations. the amendment overturns established legal precedent as well as undermines the statutory support for the aumf. it does not make us safer. it increases our peril, and i urge my colleagues to vote against it. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. gibson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. fwib gibb thank you, mr. -- mr. gibson: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman from washington. from our bill of rights, the fifth amendment, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. from sixth amendment, shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. that is the supreme law of the land. evidently, we have some ambiguity based out of the 2001 aumf so clearly we need to offer this amendment here today, and i rise in strong

support of it. when we think about the founding and that period shortly after the revolution and remembering the fact that we had americans that at the time that did not support the revolution and there were a lot of hard feelings in the immediate aftermath of the war. one thing that united everyone as the way that we check absolute power and further to check power between federalism, between and underpinning all of that the bill of rights, the bill of rights that united all of us then and unite us now and that's why it's very important we bring this clarity to this manner that we pass smith-gibson and we ensure that we bring clarity to the situation that our bill of rights are the supreme law of the land. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i combreeled one -- i yield one minute to mr.

cotton. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cotton: thank you. when i was a child i played a game called hide and seek, as i suspect many of you might have played. there was a phrase in that game could - that meant you come out. you no longer had to hide. this is that amendment of the war on terrorism. it invites al qaeda and associated forces to send terrorists to the united states and to recruit terrorists on u.s. soil. think about what happens if you're detained in the u.s. for committing an act of terrorism. you'll not be detained while you're interrogated, you cannot be used to stop future attacks. think about what will happen. you will get your mir and da warnings, you -- miranda warnings, you will get an attorney at taxpayers' expense, and you will be released into the streets of the united states. we are encouraging al qaeda to send terrorists here if we adopt this amendment. consider also about an illegal alien crossing our border, if he does so to get a job, customs and border control can

detain him and deport him. if he's detained by professionals, what happens? he goes into the court system and gets all the rights due to a common burglar. the concerns that we have about due process are misplaced. the law plainly lets every person, a citizen or foreigner, file a petition for the writ of habeas corpus to challenge their detention. i strongly oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. amash. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. amash glnch thank you, -- mr. amash: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. that provision which is permanent law and continues to apply to this day authorizes the president to detain persons who substantially supported forces associated with terrorists. it's important to note that substantial support and being associated with terrorists were

not defined in 2011 and still have not been defined by congress. there's a good argument that this provision is unconstitutionally vegas. in fact, a federal court has already -- vague. in fact, the federal court has already ruled that this is unconstitutional because it chills free speech. our constitution does not permit the federal government to detain anyone in the united states indefinitely without charge or trial. i strongly believe in protecting the country's security and equipping our armed forces with the tools they need to defeat our enemies. but the american people cannot support measures that in the name of security violate our constitutionally protected rights. the constitution entitles all people to be charged with a crime and given a trial when the government detains them in the united states. join me in affirming this right by voting for smith-gibson which is the only amendment that protects the rights of those of you watching at home. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. cohen: -- mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield to mr. king. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes.

mr. king: i thank my good friend and chairman for yielding and i rise in opposition to the smith-gibson amendment. having said that, let me express my deepest respect for the ranking member, mr. smith, and my colleague from new york, mr. gibson, who has served his nation long and well and certainly acts within -- with the very best of intentions and i admire his patriotism and dedication. having said, that i strongly identify with the remarks of chairman mccaul and congressman cotton. and i think the ultimate theory here or the ultimate fact here is that we would be giving terrorists more rights if they come to the united states than if they'd been captured overseas. and to say that everyone captured in the united states is entitled to the full rights of a citizen in this country takes away from the fact that in a nazi soldier had attacked the united states in world war ii, would he have been entitled all the rights of a u.s. citizen? we had that happen in world war

ii. they were tried and executed with the approval of the united states supreme court. the ma -- a decision several years ago said there was no bar to this nation's holding one of its owns as an enemy combatant. a citizen, no less than an alien, can be part of supporting forces hostile to the united states or coalition partners and engaging in armed conflict against the united states. the fact is we shouldn't be saying this incentive for terrorists to come from afghanistan and come to the united states to fight and be captured here, he gets more rights than if he's captured in afghanistan. this goes against common sense and it in no way is what's happening under the aumf, in any way a violation of the constitution, so again i urge, as well intentioned as this amendment, is i urge a defeat of it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington has 45 seconds remaining. mr. smith: thank you. i yield myself the balance of the time. there is no incentive for u.s. terrorists to come here.

they are trying to attack us. but we capture them successfully, try them and prosecute them. a man came here and was captured. he was mirandized and he gave out an enormous amount of information that was very, very helple. we convicted him. what this is saying -- helpful. we convicted him. what this is saying is we don't trust the department to do their job, so we have to give the government the ability to detain someone whether there's evidence they committed a crime or not. we have tried and convicted over 400 terrorists in this country successfully. the only incentive to come here is that they're not going to commit a crime. all of the inmates down at guantanamo were not captured in the u.s. no one who has been captured in the u.s. as a terrorist have we failed to convict. let's trust the constitution. the constitution doesn't threaten us, the constitution protects us. let us use it and use it to

bring these terrorists to justice as every single time we have successfully done. i urge support for the amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington will e postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, pursuant to h.res. 260, i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 2, consisting of amendments number 46, 47, 8, 43, 44, 45, 96, 97, 1, 84, 85, 95,

1 is 14, 143, 164 and 165. printed in house report 113-108 offered by mr. mckeon of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from california and the gentleman from washington each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from minnesota, mrs. bachmann. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mr. baca: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise -- mrs. bachmann: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of this amendments package which includes three amendments which i've offered to protect and honor america's brave men and women in uniform. the first and the second amendments would both properly train and equip and staff the marine embassy security group and the crisis response task force. in the wake of benghazi and the tragedy there, protecting our nation's embassy personnel and classified materials has never been more important.

the third amendment requires certain federal buildings that are already required to fly the p.o.w.-m.i.a. flags on federal holidays, to fly those flags every day. we owe it to the memory of those who served, to honor their commitment and give them the funding and support that they need. and urge my colleagues to support this package. i want to thank you, to mr. mckeon, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield four minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for four minutes. ms. jackson lee: ask unanimous consent to address the house. the chair: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for four minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman from washington for his leadership and the gentleman from california for their work. and their work with my office and staff. one of the efforts that we have

been working on, when i say that, congress, individual members, is to approach and to continue to work on the issue of breast cancer, that impacts women throughout this country and certainly women and men in the united states military. i'm very pleased in this en bloc to have an amendment by jackson lee that really cements the collaboration between the department of defense office of health, to collaborate with the national institutes of health, to provide resources to identify specific genetic and molecular targets and biomarkers for triple negative breast cancer, offer often not heard of. but i will tell you, in the course of my involvement, i've had daughters of those who lost their lives, triple negative breast cancer is a particularly negative but deadly form of breast cancer where the victim

does not last very long. i've lost dear friends and this highlighting the biomarker will bring down the cost of treatment but more importantly will help to stem the tide of those who quickly die because thrgs no treatment, because -- because there is no treatment, because it accelerates so quickly and lives are lost. i also am grateful that we are beginning to make some steps. though i indicated my support for the spirse and gabbard amendment, i am pleased to be able to have in this language a place aboard, a place where sexual assault prevention information and resources, bringing out in the open, let people know, men and women, of how they can access resources. let's put it forward so that people are safe. so that we can stop it, get in the gap, and i think in honoring our men and women in the united states military, and

our women, it is particularly important. over the years i have supported increased funding for ptsd and recognized the crisis that many of our soldiers are facing in the need of mental health services. we can see some of the impact of those in terms of family situations and violence, domestic violence, and so i have in this en bloc an amendment that will provide more mental health counselors who are focused on more mental health counselors to ensure that the 200,000 veterans of military service and active duty solet soldiers have will the ability -- soldiers will have the ability to get that kind of service. it is also important to be fiscally responsible and i have an amendment that improves the management of defense equipment and supplies through automated information data captured technology. this would support the work of a d.o.d. to adopt a proven private sector method for managing inventory. that's inventory from what we have in afghanistan to leftover in iraq to many other places.

we want to save money. i also am very grateful that there is a managers in this en bloc, something that is very close and near and dear to my heart and that is the outreach to the department of defense, by the department of defense, to small businesses, minority-owned businesses, women-owned businesses. i can tell you that they are the backbone of america. but in working, even though we're downsizing on some of the contractual relationships, even though we're downsizing, i can tell you that obviously they bring about $537 billion as obligated by federal agencies, these small businesses can benefit. they create jobs and the outreach is going to be vital beyond where the bases are, beyond where the areas where you would likely think. let me also say this. i want to thank the committee for working with me on an amendment that i thought was very important and that is to study the procurement practices of our intelligence assets and to be able to improve how we deal with intelligence. i know that we will work together on that going forward and i believe that it is important that we do work

together. these are amendments that i believe will improve the conditions of our very important military personnel and again to all of them, happy father's day. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from alaska for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise to thank my good friend and chairman of the armed services committee for including an amendment on section 811 of the fiscal year 2010 national defense authorization act in one of today's en bloc passages and ask if he's as concerned as i am that the implication of federal agencies in section 811 of f.y. 2010 national defense authorization act has been inconsistent and contrary to the congressional intent? mr. mckeon: will the gentleman yield? mr. young: yes, i gladly yield to the gentleman. mr. mckeon: i thank the gentleman from alaska for raising concern over the inconsistency in 811.

mr. young: i thank the gentleman and i ask the gentleman if he agrees with me that section 811 was not intended to be a cap or a baron sole source awards above $20 million, and also ask if he's concerned about the growing number of reports that agencies are treating the threshold, requiring sole source justification as a proficient on such awards? mr. mckeon: will the gentleman yield? mr. young: i yield to the gentleman. mr. mckeon: i agree that it's intended to provide those awards but was not intended to be a prohibition on such crlts. mr. young: mr. chairman, i ask to you join me with my colleague from hawaii, ms. hanabusa, to continue oversight on federal agency implementations of section 811 and going the controller general provide us with a full report with respect to any inconsistencies in the ways agencies are implementing section 811 and negative impacts on such sections as having native american contractors and provide recommendations