you can see the high numbers of hispanic and black birds of large numbers of asian and we have more information on the website. host: that website is cebsus.goiv. thank you both for being here. we were also joined by the pew research senior writer, vera cohen. we appreciate your time. we now go to the floor of the house of representatives. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god, our father, we give you thanks for giving us another day. bless the members of the people's house as they gather at the end of another week in the capitol. endow each with the graces needed to attend to the issues of the day with wisdom that the results of their efforts might

benefit the citizens of our nation and the world. on this flag day, may we be reminded of the greatness of the democratic experiment that is the republic of the united tates. inand diligence in our constitution for all who claim this country as their home. we also ask your blessing leading into this weekend upon fathers throughout the country. may they be their bestselves and may their children appreciate fully the blessings their fathers have been to them. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved.

the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady from california, ms. matsui. ms. matsui: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i can unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, last monday i attended a briefing by the american enterprise institute concerning foreign policy issues. i particularly appreciated the presentation by fred kagen, and he provided a map which i believe should be known by the american people of the al qaeda and associated movement areas

of operation and safe havens. by said somalia is led warlords. in mali, there are new reports of terrorist training with surface to air missiles. this war began with safe havens in afghanistan on september 11, 2001. i believe we should be proactive, working with our allies to stop terrorists overseas. we cannot wish the threat away because in fact threats are growing. we should support peace through strength to stop terrorism from overseas or face more attacks on the streets of america. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in upport of access to higher education.

mr. matheson: one grew up watching both of her parents struggle providing for her, continuing reminding her that america is the land of opportunity. recently i had the privilege of sitting down with her and several other college students to talk about their experiences paying for college and why it is critical that congress don't come together to solve the current loan debate. she enrolled in a.p. colleges and graduated at the top of her class. she was accepted to college out of state but due to finances she stayed in state hoping her family will pay for medical school later on. but with interest rates on subsidized student loans to double on july 1, the chances her family can afford medical school is little. we need to help ensure that all americans have the opportunities to reach their educational dreams. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, today the house will be voting on the national defense authorization act known as the ndaa. the ndaa's purpose is to ensure our brave sons and daughters who serve their country will have what they need to be trained and resourced to do their work effectively. this is one of the few matters in washington that is not view through a lens. as a father of a son serving in afghanistan i am proud to say that is the case. today's ndaa includes an amendment i added that would mandate the department of defense implement a preliminary mental health assessment before individuals join the military. the goal is to ensure mental health resiliencey for those who will be facing the combat realities of war. the suicide rate among our military is unacceptable and this amendment will help reduce it. the department of defense has

done medical assessments for many years. mental e we bring health to preliminary assessments. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. matsui: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. matsui: mr. speaker, i rise today as a member of the safe climate caucus to highlight the four-part plan released last monday by the international energy agency about the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. it is yet one more report sounding the alarm that we are not on track to meet the agreed upon target of eliminating the rise of average global temperatures to two degrees celsius. mr. speaker, how many more reports must be released before we act? every day that congress continues down this destructive path of ignoring climate change is a missed opportunity to bring immense benefits to our

country. by failing to enact responsible climate change policies, we're missing the opportunity to simultaneously create good-paying jobs, protect our environment and leave a sustainable planet for our future generations. the time to act is now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: i seek -- the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. broun: mr. speaker, there's a lot going on in our country right now, but we here in congress need to remember that the number one priority remains getting our economy back on track. that's why today i reintroduced an original jobs act. my jobs act would reduce the corporate tax rate and capital gains tax to zero. it would totally eliminate them.

it would also extend for three years bonus depreciation and would allow 100% expenses for business assets. finally, the jobs act would permanently repeal the estate and gift taxes, the death taxes. my bill would give businesses the boost they need to create more jobs. it would stimulate our economy and will bring manufacturing jobs back to america. i urge my colleagues to support my jobs act and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamborn: mr. speaker, i rise to recognize the many dedicated firefighters, first responders and military personnel who are battling the ongoing black forest fire to save countless homes and lives in my congressional district. i would also like to recognize the coordinated response of all the federal, state and local resources that have come

together to contain the fire. since erupting tuesday afternoon, the black forest fire has at this time claimed two lives, destroyed 379 homes and displaced over 41,000 people, making it the most destructive fire in colorado history. i will continue to do all i can to help the thousands of families displaced by this fire and ensure that our brave firefighters and first responders have all the federal resources they need. i ask all of you to keep the people of the black forest and the family of the two who have died in your thoughts and prayers during this tragedy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. rohrabacher: mr. speaker, 20 years ago albania was struggling to leave behind its years of repression and

dependence and deprivation, a period when it was a north korea clone. now, albania is a democracy with elected representatives who engage in open debates with a vigorous civil society. albania is a member of nato that continues to contribute troops to the international security force in afghanistan and participated in the u.s.-led liberation of iraq and it now aspires to have membership in the european union. in contrast to the dictatorship it left behind, albanian churches and mosques are full, similarly marxist economics have been replaced with an expanding market economy. america needs to be especially grateful to the government of albania and to the albanian prime minister who has been a steadfast and courageous ally of the united states. recently, when the u.s. needed countries willing to provide

asylum to members of the m.e.k., now stranded in iraq, the prime minister agreed to accept 210 members of that group, far more than any other country. that was a sign of good faith and friendship for america. it will not soon be forgotten and it took real courage on the part of the prime minister to make this generous offer. we will not forget his friendship. the speaker pro tempore: 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 illinois, mr. hultgren, kindly esume the chair.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of the bill h.r. 1960, which the clerk will report by 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 prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rows june 13, 2013, the -- rose june 13, 2013, the seventh en bloc amendments had been disposed of. the chair understands that amendment number 18 will not be attended. -- will not be offered. pursuant to the order of the house of june 13, 2013, it is now in order to consider amendment number 19 printed in part b of house report 113-108. for what purpose does the

gentleman from indiana seek recognition? -- the gentlewoman from indiana seek recognition? mrs. walorski: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 19 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mrs. walorski of indiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentlewoman from indiana, mrs. walorski, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from indiana. mrs. walorski: thank you, mr. chair. in may, the president declared a renewed intention to transfer detainees from guantanamo, quote, to the greatest extent possible, end quote. he also announced he was lifting his self-imposed suss suspension on the transfers of -- suspension on the transfers of detainees to yemen. it's dangerous for our troops fighting overseas. it's dangerous for our citizens living in the homeland. the amendment i'm offering prohibits the department of defense from transferring gitmo detainees to yemen for one year. in other words, this amendment simply puts into the law the

president's previous judgment that transfers to yemen should be suspended. those listening to the debate today might be asking, why is this prohibition needed? for starters, the defense department should not transfer detainees to yemen because they represent some of the most dangerous terrorists known in the world. it's important to note that these individuals are still in gitmo because even the obama administration believes they're being legally held. the bush administration didn't feel comfortable transferring these terrorists, and after yemen was the starting point for the foiled airline bombing over detroit, the obama administration correctly decided not to transfer these terrorists back to that troubled nation. these individuals pose a real threat to the united states. detainees at gitmo pose a real threat to our national security. transfers to yemen should be prohibited because yemen has become a hotbed for terrorist activity. in fact, al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, which is widely believed to be the most

lethal of all alk -- al qaeda affiliates, are believed to be in yemen. james clapper says it remains the affiliate most likely to conduct a transnational attack. this is an organization for which we are at war. an organization that is resolute on killing as many americans as they can if we don't stop them first. it makes no sense to send terrorists to a country where there's an active al qaeda network that we know has been engaged in targeting the u.s. . the chrises in a day bombing attempt, and the radicalization of the fort hood shooter can be traced back to yemen. let's look at the facts. we should not be in the business of sending get me detainees to yemen because, number one, they represent some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world. number two, yemen is home to the most active al qaeda affiliate.

and lastly, because they have a poor track record of securing their prisons. -yemeni authorities when he escaped. luckily he was recaptured but he was able to escape again along with 2,200 other terrorists. why risk minority leader jailbreak. this is a commonsense amendment with the purpose of protecting americans. my amendment does not say the president can't transfer detainees elsewhere. my amendment is only in effect for one year to give yemen time to demonstrate it can safely and securely handle gtmo transfers. before taking additional steps, i also believe it's prudent congress receive the department of defense's report on factors that contribute to re-engagement so the informed choices of future transfers can be made. this report is mandate bide law and currently overdue. in closing, i want to share a statistic from the office of the director of national

intelligence. in 2012 odni reported that the combined suspected and confirmed re-engagement rate of former gtmo detainees has risen to an alarming 27.9%. when i speak with constituents, moms and dads at home, they ask me how safe are we really? this rate of engagement comes to my mind. i ask my colleagues to consider the national security implications of transferring detainees to yemen and join me in support of my amendment. mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from indiana reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: i yield myself two minutes. the 56 inmates we are talking about at guantanamo are not the most dangerous terrorists in the world. the intel community, the department of defense, all determined they were acceptable risks for release back to yemen, back to their home country.

not everybody that we rounded up and took to guantanamo, unfortunately, turned out to be the very, very dangerous terrorist that is we thought they were. the problem we confront is, with these 56 that we have determined are not a grave threat to the country, determining that if there is any minimal threat whatsoever we are simply going to hold them forever is well, quite frankly, un-american, and contrary to our values to say we are going to hold somebody indefinitely. i gather forever, because we think there might possibly be some risk. that's not the way the constitution is supposed to work. more than anything this amendment restricts the president's flexibility. if the president determines that this is safe, the intelligence community determines this is safe, if the defense department determines this is safe, they ought to have that option. this amendment takes that option away and once again makes gtmo the classic hotel california. you can check in any time you want, but you can never leave.

we cannot warehouse people forever. we need to give the president options not restrict them. there are certification requirements that will always be in place to make sure that the secretary of defense before releasing these people certifies that he believes it is an acceptable risk. we will have to have that, but i think an absolute prohibition ties the hands of the president in an unhelpful way. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. the the gentlewoman from indiana is recognized. mrs. walorski: thank you, mr. chair. i yield one minute of my time to the honorable gentleman from arkansas. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the gentlelady from indiana for her effort on this very important amendment. for four plus years the obama administration has declined to transfer these terrorists at guantanamo to yemen and i would suggest that nothing has changed. if you look at the facts of the matter, yemen remains a partner in our war on terror.

but it still has weak capabilities. it still has not yet demonstrated the ability to house such terrorists or to deter terrorist activity in its own quarters as we have seen from things like the underwear bombing plot or the fort hood massacre. mr. cotton: if we transfer these terrorists to yemen, we cannot know for sure it will not mean more attacks on our soldiers, afghanistan, embassies around the world. citizens around the world or here in the united states or allied countries. i urge my colleagues on both side of the aisle to support this temporary amendment to ensure terrorists at guantanamo bay do not escape back to the battlefronts in the war on terror. the chair: the gentleman from yields back. the gentlelady from indiana's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you. i thank my friend for yielding. there is more agreement here than meets the eye.

i think everyone in this chamber agrees with no person who is a dangerous threat to the people of the united states should be released. i think most people in this chamber agree that if the government of yemen is unprepared to effectuate adequate security means, then no person should be released to yemen. the question here is who gets to make that decision? in this instanches -- instance the people who know the most about this, leaders of our intelligence community, of our military, of our law enforcement community have reviewed the specific details of 56 cases. and they have concluded, based upon their review of those details, that the right thing to do is to release these detainees to yemen if and when they are satisfied that yemen's security measures are appropriate. the question here really comes down to whether this judgment should be made by the members of

this body who have varying degrees of knowledge about this issue, including the gentlelady who is very diligently learned a lot about this issue and cares a lot about it, or whether the decision should be made by people whom we have entrusted with the defense of our country, who have developed specific granular factual expertise about this question. i believe this is the case. where the proper decision belongs with those experts. the proper decision belongs with those who know the most about this matter. ridgedly limited -- rigidly limiting the options is a mistake. although i believe we share the same intentions we don't share the same view of this amendment. i believe the decision should be made by those in the best position to make it. if and when they determine that security conditions in yemen are appropriate, then the decision to release should be made. in my view that's the right process. i urge a no vote on this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the balance of the time to say i completely agree with the arguments of the gentleman from new jersey. it's not a question of whether or not these people should be released, it's a question who should make that decision. should congress make that decision? restrict the president? restrict the intelligence community? restrict the department of defense? as the gentleman from arkansas pointed out, yemen has been a very capable and helpful partner in the war against al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. i believe these decisions are best left to the experts not to have congress restrict them and limit their options. with that i urge opposition to the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from indiana. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. smith: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentlewoman from indiana will be postponed. pursuant to the order of the house of june 13, 2013, it is now in order to consider amendment number 20, printed in part b of house report 113-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: to offer the amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 20, printed in part b of house report number 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, will each control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. smith: thank you. this is a very straightforward amendment.

it simply asks the president to put together a plan to close guantanamo bay. one of the complaints in recent weeks as we have seen guantanamo become more and more untenable. it continues to be an international eyesore. way back in 2007 president george w. bush said it should be closed. then candidate john mccain should it should be closed. as recently as last week senator mccain and other senators went down and reached that conclusion as well. i think a justifiable criticism of that comes from the other side of the aisle that said, well, you can't close it unless you have a plan for what to do with the inmates and plan for how to close it. that's what this amendment does. it requires the president within 0 days to come up with a plan for -- 60 days to come up with a plan for closing the prison and it also removes all of the restrictions in this bill that would stop him from generating that plan. the bottom line is, we do not need guantanamo. guantanamo was set up in the first place in the hopes because

it wasn't actually on american soil we could somehow hold people outside the normal bounds of due process of the constitution. but the court ruled otherwise. the court ruled that habeas does apply because guantanamo is effectively under control of the united states. so there's no benefit there. there is no greater rights in the u.s. than there are in guantanamo. we just continue to have this prison that has been set up in a way that the international community cannot stand. and it makes a problem for us in terms of being able to cooperate with our allies and have our ability to get that cooperationle to properly prosecute the war on terror. so i am simply asking that we put a plan in place so that we can close guantanamo bay once and for all. something that republicans and democrats have liked, said they wanted to do. we simply haven't taken the steps necessary. the prison is becoming very, very, spencive. there is $250 million until milcon contained in this bill to

keep it at a somewhat temporary status. beyond that, the prospect of the united states simply wear housing 1 6 people forever with no end in sight is contrary again to i think our values and our process. i really want to emphasize the fact that we have here in the united states well over 300 terrorists incarcerated. there is a notion that somehow we couldn't possibly accommodate them here because of the threat, but we have ramzi yousef. we have the blind sikh. we have some of the most notorious terrorists in the world housed here already, safely and securely. that is simply not an argument against doing this. the temporary facilities down at guantanamo are not sustainable. i'm not going to rush this and say we have to close it tomorrow. if we don't have a plan. i'm simply requiring the president to come up that plan and giving him the legislative

freedom to develop that plan. it's what we have dop in this bill far too off is restricted that. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i rise to claim opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. mckeon: i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the sea power subcommittee on the armed services committee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. forbes: thank you. mr. chairman, on may 28, 2010, i stood on this floor and made a motion that effectively stopped some of the worst terrorists in the world at guantanamo bay from being transferred to the united states. at that particular point in time the then chairman of the armed services committee, democrat ike skelton, stood on the floor and said this, we are in a position to accept this motion. i just wish to point out that there is no difference between the democrats and republicans when it comes to fighting terrorism.

today we step on a course with this amendment to change that as the highest ranking democrat on the armed services committee seeks to overturn essentially that motion. mr. chairman, if the gentleman was asking that these terrorists be brought to his district that would be one thing. he knows that's very unlikely. and what you are having with this motion is very generously saying they could be brought to any of our districts. we are hearing a uniformed core stand up from north carolina, virginia, guam, every other place. don't bring them to my district. the reason is they know two things. they know the moment they touch u.s. soil they will receive additional constitutional rights that no one in this room can argue what they are exactly. secondly, that they have placed a target on every elementary school, every shopping mall, every small business in that district by other terrorists. that's why, mr. chairman, it's important that we come together, unified and send a mechanical to the president. we might not be able to stop

every terrorist from coming to u.s. soil, but we can stop these terrorists by defeating this amendment. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia dwreeleds back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: 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: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the smith-nadler amendment which provides a plan for closing get he mow. it will remove existing limitations on transfers, strike the current request for construction at gtmo, and end funding for the facility on december 31, 2014. the time to close guantanamo is now. it is a stain on our national honor. we are holding 166 people at gtmo. 866 whom have been cleared for release -- 86 much whom who have been cleared for release. they have been found guilty of nothing and not to pose any danger. there is no reason or right to hold them further. mr. speaker, i wonder which of our colleagues doesn't believe in the american system of justice? i wonder which one of us does

not trust our own american courts? i wonder who among us does not believe in the bill of rights? who does not believe in the right to counsel or people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty? what we have at gtmo is a system that is an affront to those beliefs and america. the last decade we have begun to let go of our freedoms bit by bit. with each new executive order, each new court decision, and yes, each new act of congress. we have begun giving away our rights to privacy, our right to a day in court when the government harms us, and with this legislation we are continuing down the path to desfroy the right of being free of imprisonment without due process of law. i want to commend the gentleman from washington and the gentleman from virginia for fighting to close the detention facility at guantanamo. the language in this bill without our amendment prohibits moving any detainees into the united states and guarantees that we will continue holding people indefinitely, people who are not necessarily terrorists, who we only suspect to be terrorists, who have not had a day in court to prove they are or are not terrorists. we'll continue holding them

indefinitely without charge. contrary to every tradition this country stands for. contrary to due process and civil rights because of this momentous challenge to the founding principles of the united states, that no person may be deprived of liberty without due process of law and certainly not indefinitely, we must close the detention facility at gtmo to restore our national honor. they will have no additional constitutional rights. the supreme court ruled that they have the same constitutional rights at guantanamo as they do here. we must close this facility, restore our national honor. support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield two minutes to my colleague, the gentleman rom ohio, dr. win strup -- wenstrup. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wenstrup: it must clearly address the transfer of

prisoners detained there. many are the most hardened terrorists, including those responsible for the 9/11 mass murders of many americans. there are three primary options -- transfer to another country or transfer to the united states or stay put. transferring these terrorists to another country comes with a substantial risk of re-engaging as an american threat. the current re-engagement threat of former guantanamo bay detainees is nearly 20%. i served one year in iraq as a medical officer as one of the largest detention facilities there. we saw the same people return for new offenses. additionally there were multiple escapes and attempted escapes as well as attacks trying to free the detainees. i've been to fwaunt and the facility offers a safe and secure location away from our soldiers on the battlefield. cuba are nk many in

trying to free those at guantanamo. i believe the prisoners at guantanamo bay are being treated appropriately in a way we can be proud of as a nation. the hunger strike policy is carried out humanely with the detainees treated as patients. the access to care givers at the medical facility is the same for those detained. the transfer would be expensive. we've already built a courtroom there that cost us in the millions of dollars. these terrorist detainees pose a very real danger to our security in america. they mean us real harm. the president has the ability to certify transfers of detainees to other countries but he's yet to do so. and until the president leaves -- leads with beater solution, i believe that keeping guantanamo is our best option, our safest option and logical option. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new

jersey, mr. andrews. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my friend for yielding. first, let me say i think we all agree our service members who served at guantanamo have done a tremendous job and have brought great honor to our country. i thank and respect all of them. i believe there is unanimity here that if someone is a credible threat to the united states they should be detained, tried and brought to justice. the question is where to do that. why should it be guantanamo? do defendants have greater rights if they are transferred from guantanamo to a place in the united states? the supreme court has said, no, they don't. so there's no tactical advantage. are they more likely to escape if they're transferred to the united states? the history says no. the number of escapes from maximum prisons, supermax

prisons in the united states has been zero. is it less expensive to hold them at guantanamo? most certainly not. the average cost of incarcerating someone in a federal maximum security, supermax prison is $34,000 a year. the cost to the taxpayer of incarcerating someone at million o is over $1.6 a year. is there some strategic advantage globally to holding these detainees at guantanamo? the opposite is true. general petraeus, admiral mullen, other leaders of our intelligence and military forces have said that guantanamo is the best recruiting device against the united states around the world for those who are trying to sell the lie that the united states is an inhumane and unjust place. there is simply no rationale for an indefinite extension of

the problem at guantanamo. for reasons of security, for reasons of law, for reasons of cost, for reasons of strategic advantage we should close guantanamo bay. that's why i support the smith amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. cotton. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. mr. cotton: i oppose this amendment, the closure of guantanamo and move them to the united states. it is a saith of art detention facility -- it is a state-of-the-art detention facility and the detainees habeas ve access to corpus hearings. they are not innocent goat herders swept up by a military which i detained numerous

criminals. one is cleed sheik mohamed, terrorists closely associated to osama bin laden who received explosive trainings, who were recruiters, poison experts, commanders of al qaeda training camps. i do not think we should bring them to the united states, give them more anda warnings, and if acquitted and not accepted by their home countries be released onto the streets of the united states. if that's what the advocates of this amendment likes i suggest they would bring it in a fashion that would bring them back to their congressional districts. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, you can pretty much win any battle you want to fight with superior military might.

but for wars of consequence, you have to be fighting from the high ground consistently. that's what this amendment is all about. we will win this war against violent extremism, but in order to do so we have to win over the hearts and the minds of hundreds of millions of muslims around the world who want what we have. they want equal justice under the law. they want fairness and truth and transparency and democracy. e vast majority are young, idealistic, very impressionable and fortunately too many of them are misled and

manipulated. we have a superior set of values and principles. it's what defines us as a nation. but we have to hold steadfast to those values and principles. we have to show that even when we are challenged, even when it's politically difficult, we believe in equal justice under the law. we believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. we believe that every life matters. we believe in human rights. we don't believe in torture. but we do believe in our justice system. it is not our justice system that's operational at guantanamo. it was set up there to be outside our justice system so we could detain people indefinitely. can i have another 30 seconds? mr. smith: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. moran: at this time in our history when we're furloughing 650,000 department of defense mployees, how can we justify spending $1.5 million per detainee at guantanamo when half of them have been cleared for release? doesn't make sense. now in this bill we're authorizing another quarter of a billion dollars to be spent at guantanamo. those are misguided priorities. it cost $34,000 to jail very dangerous terrorists in this country, but in this country we can convict them. we can punish them. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. moran: that's what we ought to be doing. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo. the chair: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for one minute. mr. pompeo: thank you, mr. chairman. a few facts appropriate to bring to this debate. i oppose this amendment

vigorously. just two weeks ago i was down at guantanamo, part of the house select committee on intelligence. i will tell you the soldiers and sailors and airmen are taking tremendous care of our facility, detainees. those who suggested this facility should go away will create a problem that is worse than the one we have today. this amendment is a pattern of appeasement does not export with the fact that radical islamists will not attack us if we wish them to go away. we know at least a quarter of them will return to the battlefield. we could bring them back to the united states and go to civilian courts and undoubtedly some of them will end up walking the streets of the united states. and perhaps the final fact and one i heard said in support of this amendment is if we simply close this facility that recruiting for radical extremists will diminish. this seems illogical. no support for this.

it's an important asset. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized and has 30 seconds remaining. mr. smith: i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. smith: whole bunch of false arguments are being laid out here. as has been clear, no grater constitutional rights come to -- greater constitutional rights come to people from guantanamo. that is a phony argument. second phony argument is somehow they cannot be held safely. i have an i.n.s. detention facility in my district and if there was a supermax facility in my district i would not have problem for them coming to my district. they should be held. i would hope all of our supermax facilities, which are holding very, very dangerous people, they better be holding them securely right now. it's $1.5 million a year versus $34,000. it is an absolute recruitment tool for al qaeda. our military leaders, general petraeus, have all said this is

something that is harmful to u.s. -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield to the vice chairman of the house committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, cost is a red herring argument here. does it cost more to keep a detainee in guantanamo than a federal prisoner here? probably. but nothing like the figures that have been repeatedly cited on the other side. for example, if you look back at the fiscal year 2011 department of justice budget request for moving the detainees to the u.s., it ends up on the first year being about $1.9 million per detainee and about $500,000 per detainee in recurring costs. on the other side of it, even the president in his speech at national defense university says it's less than a million dollars per prisoner now on detainees. is there a difference? sure.

is it anything like we've been hearing? no. and the rest of the story is, under the geneva convention, if you're holding somebody under the laws of war, you cannot put them with federal prisoners. even in a supermax prison. they have to be segregated. so those costs of bringing them here are higher. but that's not really the issue here. the issue is, what is the best thing to do to secure the country and to deal with the terrorist threat? and i just remind everybody the ban on closing guantanamo is not permanent. we have to reapprove it every year, so if the president actually comes up with a real plan, not just a speech, but a real plan to close guantanamo and then deal with the detainees, then that ban can go away. but you can't say, ok, we're going to remove all the restrictions and we're going to close guantanamo and then we're going to figure out what we do with these people and that's exactly what this amendment does. the gentleman from washington

says it's just ask for a plan. the underlying bill asks for a plan. his amendment removes all the existing restrictions and on page 4, subsection d, says specifically, no funds shall be used there to detain people after december 31, 2014. we've got to get the plan first before it closes. i think this amendment should be rejected. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from california has 2 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. mckeon: i yield myself the balance of the time. i strongly oppose this amendment. 2 1/2 years ago i sent the president a letter about these important issues. i said in that letter, and i quote, i fully recognize the importance of crafting a careful and comprehensive framework for the detention of terrorist who is wish to harm the united states. i also recognize the challenges

and legal complexities related to such an endeavor. this appreciation is why this issue is simply too important for the administration to address on its own, end quote. the president did not take up my offer at that time. nearly a year later in another answered -- unanswered letter i wrote, while i remain open to working together, i'm very disappointed that the administration has frequently shown a greater willingness to engage with the international institutions, foreign governments, and the media on issues relating to our national security than it has with the u.s. house of representatives. those are excerpts from two of the five letters that i have written to the president on this issue which he has not answered. yet he still has not come forward with a proposal of oversight or any plan. what to do with guantanamo is secondary to the president coming forward with a comprehensive plan. such a plan must include what he proposes to do with those terrorists detainees who are too dangerous to release but cannot

be tried. number two, how he he will ensure terrorists transferred overseas do not return to the fight. three, what he will do with the terrorists' recapture in the future. specifically, how will he prioritize intelligence questioning? finally, what he will do with the high value terrorists still held in afghanistan. this is a techly critical priority for me. there are several extremely dangerous individuals still in custody in afghanistan. the only option that i see as completely unacceptable for those detainees is to allow their release. we have already seen the outcome of making this tragic mistake in iraq. while i appreciate the proposed efficiency of my friend and colleague, ranking member smith's amendment, we cannot strike all prohibitions on transfers of gtmo detainees. agree to bring them to the united states, release them overseas, and end all funding for gtmo with absolutely no

confidence any of this will be handled in a way that best protects our national security. lastly, and this is important, i want to say that i'm proud of the men and women in uniform who serve our nation every day at guantanamo. it's not an easy duty. we owe them a debt of gratitude for their critical service to this nation. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington will be postponed. pursuant to the order of the house of june 13, 2013, it is now in order to consider amendment number 14 printed in part b of house report 113-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: mr. chairman, i have

an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14, printed in part b of house report number 113-108, offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. chairman. it's a very simple amendment. we through our core need to support and do support various faith and philosophical beliefs among the men and women who bravely serve our country. we already support some nondeistic beliefs. we have buddhist chaplains. buddhism is a nontheistic faith. and what my amendment would simply do is allow chaplains who are certified or ordained as secular humanists and ethical culturists or atheists will also

be able to support the brave men and women in our military. roughly 23% of the men and women in our armed forces either have no religion or are eightieses. but there are no chaplains that currently are able to represent this important and growing demographic. under current law the armed forces only allow chaplains who are granted an endorsement by an approved religious organization. it received a graduate degree in theological or religious studies, precluding many of the seminaries and other institution that is can provide certification to nonreligious chaplains. that could provide much needed services to -- particularly to the roughly quarter of our service members who have stated that they have no religious beliefs or are atheists. there is no reason why the only, the only faith tradition and philosophical tradition in our military without chaplains does not have any kind of support to

address their health concerns. i have heard some say that, well, all members of our military, even those who are nonobservers, are able to see sigh kohl terrorists or counselors -- psychiatrists or counselors for support. that's a very different need than the spiritual needs and philosophical needs that people have. first of all, when someone sees a psychologist, psychiatrist, our counselor it has a certain stigma that can be attached to it that doesn't exist when you are seeing a chaplain. it also doesn't enjoy the same confidentiality that a chaplain visit does. and the information discussed with a therapist can actually have an impact on the chain of command in terms of negatively impacting the service members' future military career. so, again, the groundwork has already been laid with regard to nontheisic faiths like buddhism where we have active chaplains in our military. many universities already have

secular humanist chaplancies, including american university here in washington, d.c. other militaries have this as well. our allied militaries in belgium and the netherlands have humanist chaplancies. again it's a very concept and i think something that is long overdue to ensure that all members of the military, regardless of their faith background, whether they are believers or not. whatever their philosophy is in life, they have access to the chaplancy to support their spiritual needs. nonbelievers have spiritual needs just as believers do. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mckeon: i rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckeon: at this time, mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from louisiana, dr.

fleming. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. fleming: i thank the chairman for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. mr. speaker, let's exam what a chaplain really is. a chaplain is a person who is a minister of the faith. someone who ministers on the basis of a belief and a deity, a higher power. who is associated with or attached to a secular organization. an example, right here in this house each morning begins, each legislative day begin was a prayer from our chaplain. -- begins with a prayer from our chaplain. back home the hospital i am associated with, my good friend, a baptist pastor, is chaplain of our hospital. and so this goes to the core of the discussion. a chaplain is a person who is a man or woman of the faith of conscience, of spirituality, who

ministers to those with respect to a secular organization. i just heard the gentleman say, well, we need eightieses -- atheists chaplains, to me an oxymoron torques minister to the spiritual needs of soldiers. well, by definition as an atheist he doesn't or she doesn't believe in a spiritual world. makes no sense whatsoever. mr. chairman, the courts have affirmed that chaplains are mandated by the constitution to enable military personnel to exercise faith according to their conscience. nontheistic chaplains by definition cannot assist others in worship. for any concerns my colleague from colorado may have as to the nonspiritual needs of service men and women, who do not hold any sort of faith, i would submit that the military has resources readily available,

counselors, psychologists, and social workers are happy to meet those needs. i would also note that current chaplains will serve with respect to any service member, religious, nonreligious, nontheistic, atheistic, or agnostic alike who comes to them providing these brave men and women with any resources they might need in their service to the nation. so we have chaplains and secular advisors who can help anybody who claims to be or want to be an atheist. chaplains come to the military to give the department of defense recognized faith groups. very important, faith groups. it would be impossible for an individual who does not belong to any faith group to receive an endorsement, much in the same way that atheists have long insisted that they are not a faith group. and would thus be implausible they would serve as a chaplain in the military. mr. chairman, chen george

washington founded our chaplain corps on july 29, 1775, to make sure the continental army could have worship services -- 30 seconds? mr. mckeon: yield an additional 15 seconds. mr. fleming: i would like to say this, mr. chairman. the saddest thing i could ever imagine is someone standing over a dying man or woman from combat and saying to them, there is no hope. if you die, there is no world, there is no life thereafter. that is the saddest thing i could ever imagine. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: before further yielding i yield myself 15 seconds just to say i think we are seeing a double standard here. where if it's a person of particular faith, perhaps the gentleman approves of, you go see a chaplain for your needs. however if you have no faith,

you have to see a psychiatrist? all of our men and women who bravely serve deserve the same support. with that i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the chair: only has a minute and a quarter remaining. mr. polis: i yield the remaining time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a quarter. mr. andrews: i thank my friend for yielding. nothing in this amendment in any way impairs the relationship between a christian or jewish or other soldier or service member and his or her faith leader. nothing. nothing this in this amendment impairs the operation of the chaplain corps. what this amendment does is to show respect for the choices made by our service members. my christianity is an important part of who i am and how i see my life. i don't think that that same right should be denied to a service member who does not share my beliefs. what this amendment says is that for the thousands of service members who choose a humanist or atheistic philosophy system of

life, that they should be able to confide in an advisor who is not a mental health professional. go into a mental health professional is a choice laden with risk and some controversy for a member of the service. going to a faith advisor is not. depriving those who share the views that mr. polis outlined of the chance to go to such an advisor is unequal treatment. it's unworthy of the way we operate. nothing in this amendment disrupts the chaplain corps, but everything in this amendment respects the rights of our service members. i would urge a yes vote and yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: how much time do we have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from california has one and three quarters minutes remaining. mr. mckeon: i yield the balance of the time to mr. huelskamp from kansas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. huelskamp: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity to visit here today. i like to visit about two heroes

in the history of our country, one would be father capon, i had the honor of being at the white house a couple months ago where he was awarded the congressional medal of honor for his bravery in action ministering to the needs of not only men and women of faith but those who claim to have no faith. in addition, i have the honor the being the nephew of a 95-year-old army chaplain who also has been honored for serving, ministering to the needs of men and women in uniform. one thing i will want to note that instead of being dismissive of those type of sacrifices, i'll read a little bit from the duties of the chaplain. the navy and marine, an officer the chaplain corps may be a chaplain. shall have divine service

every sunday. madam speaker, how is it that one can hold a religious service for an organization as the amendment puts it that does not consider itself to be a religion? it's completely contrary to the directions, instructions and the very definition of the chaplain corps represented by others to appoint groups. when you take away the worship, prayer, everything that makes a religious service religious, nothing.be left with there are those who serve our country. in ace addition, i'm certain every chaplain that serves our brave men and women are available for those who do not share their faith. and that's the case. i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and be very supportive of our current brave men and women who serve alongside our members of the armed forces. with that i yield back the balance of my time, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman yields back. 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 is not agreed to. mr. polis: madam chair. on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. pursuant to the order of the house of june 13, 2013, it is now in order to consider amendment number 23 printed in . rt b of house report 113-108 for what purpose does the for what rom -- purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in part b of house

report 113-108 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, madam chair. ery simple amendment to reduce funding for the procurement of 14 ground base interceptor missiles that simply don't work the re inefficient and for refurbishment of the missled field at fort greely, alaska until they can make sure these are adequately tested and work. it's simply a question of making sure something works before we spend additional money. but congress needs to ensure that these missiles are effective before we continue to provide the department of

defense with a blank check. congress needs to verify every penny of taxpayer money we spend. we have a time of tradeoffs and of course it's nice to be able to support every program, but during this time of deficits and sequestration, we need to make sure we're vigilant to ensure that money we spend on the pentagon actually results in the maximum amount of heightened national security. since 1997, this weapon system has missed its target more than half the time. and my amendment would limit the funding for the procurement of 14 ground base interceptors until the missiles have had two successful tests before 2015. very reasonable. if it doesn't have two successful tests, why are we investing enormous amounts of taxpayers money in it. so two successful tests before 2015 certified by the secretary of defense, full confidence of the commander of the united states northern command and then the -- it is allowed to move forward. now, opponents of this amendment -- and i saw, you

know, a letter -- a dear colleague letter going out talking about how there's long-range missile threats from north korea and iran. there's no question, there's complete agreement of the dangers of a nuclear iran, the dangers of a nuclear north korea. what we're talking about here is that we -- the last thing we want to do is trust in an untested and unsuccessful missile to deter very real threats. we need a real threat deterrent system, not something that doesn't work and my amendment simply requires that it is working. my amendment would limit funds or the missile refurbishment fund for the missile field one in alaska. former defense secretary robert gates and former joint chiefs mike mullen in 2011 said missile field 1 was originally designed as a test bed. a significant infrastructure

reliability issues. there's also been reports of mold and leaks at the facility and refurbishment would come at a tremendous cost to taxpayers -- out securing the securing america. my amendment makes sure this is certified by the secretary of defense. we need to get our fiscal house in order. we need to make tough choices and we need to make sure our expenditures improve national security and simply demanding that our costly missile defense system is actually capable of keeping our homeland safe, it's very reasonable amendment national defense authorization will and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: madam chair, i rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckeon: at this time, madam chair, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the

gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. mr. lamborn: thank you, madam chairman. i thank the chairman of the full committee. i would urge defeat of this amendment. it would reverse what the obama administration and secretary of defense hagel came forward with on march 15 of this year. after seeing the north korean threat only increase, they appropriately came to the decision to add more ground base interceptors. now, i believe the administration has been too slow to appropriately address the threats we have from incoming missiles, but this is a good step forward, and so i applaud that. the secretary said, quote, we will take steps in the united states to stay ahead of the challenge posed by iran and north korea's development of longer range ballistic missile capabilities. i have to agree with that. how we came to this point i know there's been some disagreement in the intelligence community, but the

defense intelligence agency said they have moderate confidence that the north koreans can put together long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads. that is a threat we should take seriously. this amendment, if adopted, would not recognize that threat. also, by doing advanced procurement, we save the taxpayers $200 million, so this is ill-advised from a financial standpoint. the military is adopting a fly before you buy approach. there was one successful test a few months ago. another test is scheduled toward the end of this year. that will be the two tests that the author of this amendment says that he wants. so this amendment is totally unnecessary. it would delay what even the administration, which has been a little too slow, has said is appropriate. we should not slow things down further. the threats are real.

they are serious, and we need to fund them appropriately. i ask that you defeat this dangerous amendment. thank you, madam chairman, and i yield back -- i yield back -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i'd like to inquire of the chair how much time remains. the chair: the gentleman from colorado has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. polis: i thank the gentlelady. i yield myself the remainder of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: thank you. again, i think that to have any type of meaningful missile defense against potential threats in korea, iran and elsewhere, it needs to work. that simply what this amendment says. two tests that work before $107 million in spending goes forward. this financially -- this is financially responsible. why would we spend over six

years $1 billion on a system that doesn't work? it's a very reasonable threshold to have a certification by the department of defense if this works and provides an additional incentive to make sure america stays safe, demonstrates these works, have an incentive to actually make it work before the rest of the money is released. i think that's common sense. i think it aligns incentives of our contractors and our military and the defense of the american people. i think it's fiscally prudent. i think it improves our missile defense opportunities against threats from korea and iran and elsewhere, and i strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to adopt this commonsense amendment that would save over $107 million for the ground-based interceptors in the first year. $135 for the refurbishment in missile field 1 and also ensure our missile defense system works by having two tests and a certification that it's operational by the secretary of defense. i encourage my colleagues to

support the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: madam chair, i yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from california, the vice chair of our committee, mr. thornberry. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. thornberry: thank you, madam chair. madam chair, i'm convinced that the arguments against missile defense are the same today that they were the day that president reagan proposed it. you can't do it. it costs too much and it's provocative to try. and it doesn't really matter how the threat evolves, what north korea or iran do. it doesn't really matter how the technology evolves, and we just had a successful test just a few months ago. the events and facts don't matter. the arguments are still the same and they will always be the same because some people just don't want to defend the country against missile attacks. this committee pushed in 2010 and in 2011 and in 2012 to have

more interceptors on the west coast. the president opposed it every step of the way. it didn't happen. then all of a sudden with north korea this year, the president changes his mind. says, oh, maybe y'all were right after all. at least the president changed his mind and unfortunately it seems like some people cannot even do that. a lot of us think the administration is not doing enough, but to do less would be neglect and i think we should reject this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: might i inquire as to how much time we have left? the chair: the gentleman from california has two minutes remaining. mr. mckeon: madam chair, i yield our -- the balance of our time to the gentleman from arizona, a member of our committee, mr. franks. the chair: the gentleman from rizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. franks: thank you, madam

chair. ever since mankind took up arms against his fellow human beings there's always been an offensive capability and a defensive capability to try to match it. the spear was met with the shield. the bullet was met with armor, and today we face the most dangerous weapons in the history of humanity in nuclear armed missiles. and madam chair, we should have a capable defense. our ground-based mid course defense is the only system that we have that protects the american homeland from intercontinental ballistic missiles coming into this country, and madam chair, it is a limited capability and we should not further limit it in our policies here today. as has been so eloquently stated earlier, the president of the united states cut our g.b.i. capability in recent years and now has changed his mind where we will go from 30 to 44 interceptors and with the three to four to one shot doctrine we may be able to

defend ourselves against incoming missiles. madam chair, it's ok if we have a few too many but if we have a few it will change everything. across the world we've understood that the more we sweat in peace the less we bleed in war. and we need desperately to make sure we do our fundamental job in this congress and in this federal government by making sure that we protect the citizens against the most dangerous weapons mankind has ever devised. madam chair, this is why we want to reject this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. 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 is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: madam chair, on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be

ostponed. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 39, printsed in part b of house report number 113-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. van hollen: madam chairman, i rise to offer the amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 39, printed in part b of house report number 113-108, offered by mr. van hollen of maryland. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chairman. i yield myself one minute. i'm very pleased to offer this bipartisan amendment along with my colleagues, mr. mulvaney, mr. moran, and mr. woodall. i'm very pleased it has the support of the ranking member of the armed services committee, mr. smith. this amendment is about truth in

budgeting and making sure our military has the resources it needs to prosecute the war in afghanistan and overseas contingency operations. the defense department budget is split into two parts. the base budget for ongoing operations, and the part of the budget for the war and overseas contingency operations. what this budget does is provide the military with exactly the resources they say they need in fiscal year 2014, for the overseas contingency account. in fact, on wednesday, secretary of defense hagel and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, democracy, said -- dempsey, said what they needed was what would be provided as a result of this amendment. the problem is the underlying bill added another $5 billion, and this is becoming a slush fund, madam chairman. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: madam chair, i rise to claim the time in opposition

to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckeon: i yield one minute at this time to my friend and colleague, the chair of the readiness subcommittee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. wittman: thank you, madam chairman. ladies and gentlemen, our most important job here, our most sacred duty as outlined in article 1, section 8 of the constitution is to raise and support armies. to support the men and women we ask to fight on behalf of our nation on the fields of battle. this money supports our constitutional duty and most importantly our war fighters. this amendment seriously jeopardizes national security and our ability to replenish readiness accounts. raided in prior years to fund underfunded war costs. the majority of our forces still fighting in afghanistan will be there at least until december 2014. remember the goal is december, 2014. the war is not over.

these funds are needed to help them do their jobs and execute their missions as outlined in the strategic plan. stripping this money from the overseas contingency fund, literally from our all volunteer force that is engaged in combat operations, places the plan in jeopardy and makes a december 14 goal irrelevant. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i thank you, madam chairman. i find it interesting that the gentleman would suggest that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the secretary of defense are not asking for the resources needed to protect our men and women in battle. i now yield a minute and a half to mr. mulvaney. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. mulvaney: i haven't been here very long. only three years, but i have seen a pattern developing now which is that each year the defense department, the pentagon comes over and asks for a certain amount of money and we give them more than they ask for.

what the amendment does today is simply gives the pentagon what they asked for. they asked for $80 billion to run the overseas contingency operation. for some reason we decided to give them $85 billion. they come in, they defined a mission and tell us what it costs to do that. for some reason we decide to give them more. all we are doing today is taking the folks who run the military at their word that they know what it costs to defend this nation. i think it bears repeating that both secretary hagel and chairman of the joint chiefs were here just last week and said that $80 billion was enough to meet the mission. simply spending more money than the defense department asks for does not mean we are stronger on defense than anybody else. it's simply foolish to waste money. if the pentagon tells us they needed $80 billion, we should look seriously at giving them $80 billion. i disagree respectfully with the

gentleman from virginia this would hurt national security. if you assume that, you must assume that what the pentagon asked for in the first place would hurt national security. i am not willing to believe the pentagon would come over and ask for an amendment -- amount of money that would be bad for national defense. it gives the defense department exactly what they need and gets us out of this rut of equating higher spending with a stronger national defense. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mckeon: madam chair, i might note these same gentlemen last year said they haven't had enough money and they spent $13 billion more. i yield one minute at this time to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from nevada, dr. heck. the chair: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for one minute. mr. heck: thank you, madam chair. i rise in strong opposition to the amendment. this amendment will severely undermine the operational readiness of our guard and reserve forces. over the past decade we have

built incredible capability in our guard and reserve and that was largely paid for by overseas contingency operation funds. to mitigate the risks associated with this administration's force reductions of 100,000 active component service members, our nation will have to rely on our reserve componen. in testimony before the house armed services committee, the army chief of staff stated that in order to lessen the risk of active duty force reductions, the army will continue to rely on the reserve components to provide key enablers and operational debt. decreased funding has already resulted in the cancellation of numerous guard and reserve deloifments which undermines the capabilities and readiness of these units. it's for these reasons i strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chairman. i would urge all members to read the amendment itself. there is nothing in here that says we will reduce one penny from the national guard and reserves. this is an across-the-board

provision. it will be disproportionate. mr. moran, i yield a minute to mr. moran. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: thank you, madam chairman. i rise in support of this amendment. we are about to authorize more than half a trillion dollars for our military. the secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff says, we don't want or need this extra $5 billion. what's our response? we tell them, no, you have to spend that. but you also have to cut $50 billion from our military in the most stupid, irresponsible, irrational manner possible. and within that $50 billion, you have toe get -- to get $2 billion in savings by furloughing 650,000 department of defense employees? we are going to save $2 billion by furloughing people? we have to force them to spend $5 billion over in afghanistan

while we furlough people here. what's the rationale? we can't justify that. of course we should hold to what our military says they need in afghanistan. we ought to also give them what they feel they need here in the united states. thank you, madam chairman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: let me note that the national guard association, reserve officer association, national governors association all oppose this amendment. at this time i would like to yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the chair of the sea power subcommittee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes. the chair: the gentleman from california has 1:15 remaining. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. excuse me, the gentleman from california has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. forbes: thank you. in the last four years the administration has told the pentagon, the pentagon has come band they have cut out of

national defense, $778 billion before they even get to sequestration. each time they acknowledge they increase the risk, f, and their dove information risk is acceptable risk. if you ask them what that means it means how many ships we can lose, planes we can lose, men and women we can lose and still have some probability we'll win the conflict if every single assumption that they make holds true. if you support that definition of acceptable risk, you need to vote for this amendment. but i believe we need to change the definition of acceptable risk and say it means this. when we send one of our men and women into conflict, we have done everything reasonably possible to make sure they have the highest probability possible of returning to the home they are defenting and the families that they love. if you support that definition of acceptable risk, you need to defeat this amendment. with that, madam chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from maryland has one minute and 15 sickeds remaining. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam

chairman. i yield a minute to my friend, mr. woodall. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. woodall: thank you, madam chair. i rise in strong support of this amendment. i would say to my friends on the republican side of the aisle who have spoken, i agree with absolutely everything you said. but as i look at a chairman who i know has more of a love for our nation and national security than perhaps any other member of this body he and i both voted in favor of the budget control act in august of 2011. rightly or wrongly we set the law of the land how much we are going to send on national defense. today we are talking about how we are going to spend in afghanistan. if we need to spend more money to improve national guard readiness here at home, deal with maintenance accounts here at home, we need to come together and change those budget caps and i support doing that. but i am tired of living in a town where when you don't like the rules you find a way around them. when the president doesn't like the law of the land, he just

ignores it. if we don't like the defense budget caps, we just ignore them and fund it other ways instead. we ought to give the joint chiefs of staff every penny they are asking for to support our men and women in afghanistan. if they come back and asking for more we should give them that as well. but the law means something. these caps mean sfplgt we should either change it or stick with it, madam chair. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: note that oco is not included in the budget control act and we are totally within the budget control act on this budget. i yield at this time 30 seconds to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. bishop: as counter intuitive it may appear, when there is a drawdown there may be long-term savings but short-term savings are not there. in fact, the costs spikes. as all the equipment comes back from the war, it has to go to the depots for resetting, repair, and restoration. that is an extreme cost that has

to be borne by the depots if it's not in this particular bill. that's one of the reasons why i support the chair's mark which is supported by chairman he as well as chairman ryan and as well as the original obama budget when it was sent here before for whatever reason they decided to put $5 billion out without giving us a plan going forward. this needs to stay. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland has 15 seconds remaining. mr. van hollen: i thank you. may i inquire of the chairman of the committee are you ready to close? i reserve the balance of my ime. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: might i inquire as to the time we have left? the chair: the gentleman from california has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mckeon: who will be closing? the chair: the gentleman from california will close.

the gentleman from maryland has 15 seconds remaining. mr. mckeon: thank you, madam chairman. i yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the member of the appropriations scommeet, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in opposition to this amendment. the rationale we have been talking about here is a human rationale. we have as we speak over 60,000 military serving, doing the work of freedom in afghanistan as we speak. as they prepare to leave, we should not be cutting funding in these very dangerous times. as you are leaving, you are incredibly vulnerable. they are still in the fight. they are still working hard. they need to protect themselves. while the administration hasn't offered any strategic plan other than a date for withdrawal, those who serve there deserve our support because they have an important mission to perform. whether it's in kabul at our forward operating base, they are

in a dangerous situation. the reality is that things in afghanistan are hotter than the administration estimated in their budget request. we need this money for contingencies. we need this money because of the delay due to pakistan affecting our ground transportation, our exit. i strongly oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland continues to reserve? mr. mckeon: i yield 30 seconds to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for 30 seconds. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam chairman. today i stand to support keeping the money that we need for readiness. having that $5 billion in here is why i think it's absolutely immoral we would sign up, superintendent, and ship out men and women in uniform and not

give them the readiness and the skills and the training that they need. the flying hours program is a great example of that. in the $5 billion that the gentleman would like to cut is the money for the flying hours program. 37,000 flying hours. it would equip us with 500 aviators we need. let's fund these efforts for the men and women in uniform. yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chairman. i find it interesting the gentlelady would suggest that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey, would ask for an amount of money for our war fighters that is immoral. what is cynical is to use the afghan and overseas contingency account as a slush fund to fund operations that are part of the base budget. this is about truth in budgeting. i urge our colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentleman from california's time has expired. mr. mckeon: i thought i had 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman from california's time has expired. the question is on the the ent offered by gentleman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. van hollen: madam chair, i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. van hollen: yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 53 printed in

art b of house report 113-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. walz: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 53 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mr. wals of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walz, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. walz: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walz: chuck luther joined the army after the 9/11 attacks, he served in iraq until a mortar round hit near him knocking him unconchuss. he had blurred vision, chronic pain, trouble concentrations. liz served honorably in the united states army.

she survived a rape at the hands of a fellow service member. she did her best to continue her military service with at dream of attending west point. she was raped two more times with police reports and hospital visits to prove it. i know each of my colleagues here would expect each of these warriors received the best care this nation could provide. sadly the reality is far from that. along with liz and chuck, since 2001, over 31,000 of our warriors have been discharged from the military without benefits because they were determined to have a personality or an adjustment disorder. these are considered pre existing conditions which -- pre-existing conditions which meant they never should have been allowed to be in the military in the first place. went, the luther military casually threw him away and denied him benefits. a 2008 g.a.o. study concluded

at least 40% of these personality discharges were handed down without going through the proper department of defense process. that means without the service member being diagnosed by a licensed mental health professional, without the service member receiving notification of their discharge and without the service member receiving any formal counseling. five years after this report, congress has done nothing to ensure that these service members' records are reviewed or corrected or to ensure they receive the care that they earned serving this nation. this week mr. denham and i submitted an amendment that would allow these warriors to have the basic appeal process. this amendment is the same as the bill i have, h.r. 975. this would only afford these warriors basic rights and due

processes, the same ones they put their lives on the line for that we had. that amendment was not allowed to come to this floor for debate or a vote. shame on us. a second amendment i offered would have simply put a moratorium on this process until we understand why it's being done and what's happening. that amendment was not allowed to come to this floor to be debated or voted on it. shame on us. now, i want to be clear. the chairman and the ranking member of this committee had nothing to do with those decisions. and i am appreciative that they allowed the amendment that i'm debating today to be brought here. that's going to allow us to do another g.a.o. study to determine if the problem is still there. fine and good, but i tell you what, chuck luther doesn't want a study. he wants justice. liz luther doesn't want a study. she wants justice. the american people don't want another study. they want justice for their warriors. i would ask each of my

colleagues, go home this weekend, ask your constituents if they think this is fair and if they want a study or if they'd rather do what's right and take care of these warriors. i'd also challenge my colleagues to ask the question, why wasn't the amendment made in order? why couldn't we debate other than a study? so i ask my colleagues, support this amendment. it's something. it will let us know what the scope of this self-inflicted injury and tragedy to our nation is. it's not enough. it's not nearly enough. we should be ashamed that we've not shown liz and chuck the same respect and courage that they showed us as a nation to serve in uniform. i for one am not going to rest until justice is served, our warriors are cared for and this wrong is made right. i reserve the balance of my time, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california -- for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mckeon: madam chair, i rise

to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. but i will not oppose the gentleman's amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is -- has one minute remaining. mr. walz: i just rise once again, i thank the chairman. i thank him for understanding this. as i say this very clear, it's not the chairman's decision. he was gracious to bring this down. appreciate his support. same to the ranking member and just ask my colleagues, don't let this issue drop. get this right. we owe it to our warriors. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mckeon: madam chair, pursuant to h.res. 60, i offer

amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 8 onsisted of 146, 149, 150, 52, 153, 156, 157, 158, 161, 3, 166, 170, 171, and 172, printed in house report 113-108 offered by mr. mckeon of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: madam chair, i urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority and, madam chair, at this time i yield two minutes to the

gentleman from california, mr. issa. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. issa, is recognized for two minutes. mr. issa: thank you, madam chairman. thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is not controversial but it's critical. at a time when over $80 billion is spent and over 10% of it goes completely wasted on information technology purchases by the government, there's never been a more important time to update the legendary historic clinger-cohen act. that act in 1996 was attached to the ndaa exactly as this one is and it created the positions of chief information officers o oversee i.t. management. 1996 is -- was a time when you could have an i.b.m. computer on your desk. the size and scope and dependency on the cyber

environment was never even anticipated. so as we modernize this act, i would ask both to have it considered as important but also have it recognized as critically necessary. one of the most important things -- and something that makes common sense to the people who may hear this today or read it in the transcript is that we have more chief information officers today than we have departments, and all but one have no budget authority. this legislation, when enacted, will eliminate that. it will eliminate duplicative i.t. purchases that cost us -- gives overruns as much as 20% in our purchasing of licenses, but it also will put meaning behind chief information officer. when a program goes right, the

chief information officer is responsible. when a program goes awry, it's his or her job to make it right. so once again, i urge support for a bill that was considered, numerous hearings was held and passed unanimously out of my ommittee and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, is recognized. mr. smith: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and i appreciate the committee leadership for including this amendment in the en bloc amendment. it is important that we deal with improving the quality of life for our service members and their families. in a situation all too familiar for our military families, every few years they find themselves living in a new military base with their children having to start a new school, having to adopt a new

environment and making this transition even more difficult, their loved ones could be serving in iraq or afghanistan in constant danger. this is an effort here to make sure that we help our military installations include things that enhance the livability of that environment, to help with green space, public gardens, sidewalks, bike and running trails, things that are recognized in urban development as important amenities that add value and quality of life. while helping the department of defense adapt best practices to build military bases to promote this close nit communities that work for families is critical. i appreciate the progress that's been made and the committee working with us to make sure that this is enhanced as we move forward. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oregon yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: madam chair, i

yield at this time two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston, for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, i rise today to engage a colloquy with my friend, chairman mckeon, regarding the defense contract audit agency, or dcaa, and express concerns about the potential overreach of its authority. the dcaa plays a critical role in our contracting system. as such, in recent years congress has provided substantial human and financial resources to address its well-documented work back load and other challenges. i'm in favor of such resources and encourage dcaa to focus on eliminating the backlog. however, it appears dcaa may be broadly assessing a myriad of

contractor documents that have little or no impact on determining the effectiveness of contractor business systems. in the fy 2013 national defense authorization act contained a provision, section 832, which set parameters for dcaa's access to the internal audits of companies that provide goods and services to the department of defense. specifically, it is my understanding the committee was focused on contractors' business systems and ensuring robust and independent internal audit controls to those systems. however, it appears dcaa is broadly interpreting section 832 as providing dcaa with the authority to assess all contractor internal audits and supporting documents. this is concerning on many levels. i would ask the chairman if he has considered the potentially chilling effects on a company's

desire to maintain a robust internal audit program if the government is demanding unfettered access to information that they may not need or may potentially misuse. this is especially worrisome when it extends to the very proprietary data that makes these companies competitive in the marketplace. i thank the chairman for his leadership and ask if he shares my concerns regarding the potential overreach of dcaa. mr. mckeon: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. kingston: i thank the chairman and i will yield to the chairman to ask if he shares these concerns. . mr. mckeon: i thank the gentleman for yielding and bringing up this important issue. as you were aware we did not reopen the issue in the current bill. however i share your concerns and would hope that the dcaa is not overreaching on its authority. the potential for dcaa to misuse corporate internal audits, or to go fishing through these audits

without understanding their context or purpose is very concerning. the committee's continuing to monitor their implementation of access to company internal audits. i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. and is willing to take additional action if we determine dcaa is acting beyond the limited grant of authority that congress provided. again, thank you for raising this important issue. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. swalwell. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. swal well: i want to thank my friend, congressman pat he han, for co-sponsoring my amendment. due to sequestration the department of defense has not been allowing military bands to perform at community events. even when the sponsoring community organization pays for

all associated expenses because the department of defense is saying that the reimbursement is never credited to the proper account. well, this is hard to believe. first because it's been going on before where community events have reimbursed the department of defense. there have not been any problems that we have been aware of. since sequestration they are now saying it cannot be done. well, this is a civilian force of over 700,000 people. i'm sure that we can find a way to make this work and support our event events. my amendment is simple, it will allow military bands to perform at community events when the hosting organization fully funds the band expenditures by ensuring that the money from the hosting organization is returned to the relevant department's account. this issue came to my attention when a marine corps veteran from my district in pleasantton, california, bruce, informed me at this year's 148th scottish gathering and games, the marine

corps band wouldn't be able to perform, even though his organization would fully fund the band's expenditures just as they have always done previously. public performances by military bands like the marine corps band bring a sense of patriotism to our cities and towns. they also help enlifen -- enliven events. i ask my colleagues to join congressman meehan and i in supporting our military bands and amendment. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. garamendi: thank you, madam chair. i want to thank the ranking member and the chair for making my amendment an en bloc amendment. this amendment deals with the

50-plus billion dollars that we have spent on the afghan national security forces. an additional $7.7 billion is to be added this year. a 50% increase over last year. the $2.6 billion addition is for equipment with absolutely no justification, no idea what the equipment is. airplanes, no knowledge whether the afghan national security force could use it or not. the amendment simply says that money will not be available until and unless there is clarity as to where the money is going to be spent, how it's going to be spent, how the equipment will be purchased. we don't want to write a $2.6 billion blank check for additional craft and corruption in afghanistan. this amendment, the en bloc amendment, i thank the committee for making it possible. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon. mr. mckeon: continue to reserve. mr. smith: i yield two minutes -- the chair: the gentleman from

washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. connolly: i thank the chairwoman. i thank my colleague. i thank the distinguished chairman of the committee as well. i want to talk about the federal information technology acquisition reform act that i am a co-author of with the distinguished chairman of the oversight and government reform committee, mr. issa. this is the most sweeping reform legislation since kwlinger-cohen. today federal i.t. acquisition, madam chairwoman, is a cumbersome bureaucratic and wasteful exercise. in recent decades taxpayers have been forced to foot the bill for massive i.t. failures that ring up staggeringly high cost and exhibit astonishingly poor performance. cost overruns plague the vast majority of the i.t. investments. while federal managers report that 47% of the budget is spent on maintain antiquated and

inadequate i.t. platforms even today. the annual price tag of this wasteful spending is estimated $20 billion a year. the air force invested six years in a modernization after a cost of more than one billion, but failed to deliver a usable product, prompting assistant secretary of state on personally appalled at the limited capabilities that prom has produced relative to that amount of invest. mission critical i.t. investors not only waste taxpayer dollars but jeopardize our safety. our bill would make more transparent by actually posting 80% of all acquisitions on the website. it would streamline the decisionmaking process. right now the 26 major federal agencies, madam chairwoman, have over 250 people called c.i.o., chief information officers. we would designate one per agency who is responsible primarily and accountable primarily for i.t. acquisitions. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. i again thank the distinguished

chairman and the distinguished ranking member of the armed services committee, and their very able staff for cooperating with chairman issa and myself on this very important form of legislation. i certainly hope that when we get to conversation -- conference with the senate it will persevere. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california continues to reserve. mr. mckeon: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: we have no further speakers. we'll yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman from california has 5 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. mckeon: i'm going to use that time to make up for the time i lost earlier. what i'd like to do is read the letter from the national guard association of the united states . this is a letter to chairman

mckeon and ranking member smith and he says, as you are aware there is an amendment sponsored by representatives van hollen, moran, mulvaney, and woodall that would strip $5 billion out of the overseas contingency operation funding and the underlying readiness and modernization plusups supported in the bill which includes $400 million for the national guard and reserve component equipment account. this would have a significant impact on national guard equipment as this funding is critical for new equipment rchases not planned for or funcheded by the active components in the president's budget. we urge you to oppose amendment 39. then he he goes into details about what that would mean. finally ends with, for these reasons we urge you to oppose amendment 39 to remove the $5 billion in funds where the

national guard's funds are included. thank you for your attention to this critical matter. signed, gus harget, major general, u.s. army, retired national guard association. i think it's very important that we understand fully what we are alking about in these funds. congressman van hollen referred to general dempsey saying that this was all the money we needed. let me just read to you from the transcript that he was talking to general dempsey about in their hearing. congressman van hollen. general dempsey, does the o.c.o. request that was made in your judgment satisfy our military requirement for o.c.o.? general dempsey? yeah, it does, but this year's request proved inadequate to the

task. we have to have some understanding of trying to predict the future two years out. let me just go back a couple years. they asked for a certain amount of money in last year's budget. but they actually spent $10 billion over that. so they are overbudget coming into this year, and we know based on past experience that they are going to spend more than that. and then to try to have an amendment to take $5 billion out of that when we are trying to compensate for the shortfall they had from last year, and then going into this year, is just irresponsible. when i was in afghanistan, i guess a couple months ago now, i was meeting with the commander there, general dunnford. he said the thing people need to understand as we are winding down this war effort in afghanistan, and we have to have the troops out of there by the end of 2014, it's going to cost us more because we are closing down the bigger bases.

and we have to accomplish that this year. we've got the commander saying it's going to cost us more, and we have an amendment saying we should cut $5 billion out. i think that it's important that we really put this all in context and understand how those troops who are out there today, fighting, going outside the wire, having attacks on their compounds, are going to be short $5 billion if this amendment passed. there exists nearly $7 billion shortfall in funding to meet just the current readiness requirements. the army alone needs an additional $3.2 billion beyond what's requested in the president's budget. this is testimony from the chiefs of these different services. the marine corps needs another $3 it 1.6 million. the navy has funded $1.62 below required levels, and the air force $1.3 billion short of

needed funding. i needed that time, madam chair, that 15 seconds that i lost earlier. i think it's very important that people understand this will be one of the most important votes coming up in this next series. we cannot afford to cut money out of the war fighters who are over there putting their life on the line for us today. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 123 printed in part b of house report 113-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition?

mr. blumenauer: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 123, printed in part b of house report number 113-108, offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. blumenauer: madam chair, we spend appropriate time on the floor commemorating the bravery of our men and women who were in harm's way in iraq and afghanistan. but there were other brave men and women who worked with our soldiers, putting themselves in harm's way. i'm referring to foreign narbles -- nationals, iraqis and afghanistan citizens who were interpreters, who were drivers,

who were working for n.g.o.'s. people who made it possible for our troops to perform at the highest level. they served shoulder to shoulder with our service members. now, i am pleased that there is a partial extension in the special immigrant visa program in the underlying bill for iraqi and afghanistan. it's important that we have these special visas. i have been pleased to have played a small role in helping create the special immigrant visa program that enables these people to escape harm's way. many of them are in danger of being killed because people know that they helped our forces. and they are left behind. i really appreciate the ranking member and the chair for their staff work to help partially extend the special immigration visa program.

but this bipartisan amendment offered with my colleagues, congresswoman gabbard, mr. kinzinger, stivers all three of whom served in the field of battle, have an opportunity to help ensure these programs finish the job for which they were created. these programs expire for iraq at the end of this fiscal year, september 30, and the following september 30, for afghanistan. as they are set to expire, they continue to be plagued by inefficiencies and bureaucratic hurdles through fiscal -- hurdles. through fiscal year 2012 only 0 noveget iraq visas have been issued, only 12% for afghanistan. the "washington post" reported darily r 5,000 document

complete afghan aply cages remain waiting. i yield myself another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. blumenauer: living in constant hiding knowing they or their families could be killed at any moment. this enhances the programs by providing efficiency, transparency, accuracy and oversight. madam chair, i would yield the emaining time to congresswoman gabbard. the chair: the congresswoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. gabbard: i rise in strong support of this amendment to improve the special immigrant visa programs for local civilians who put their lives in danger to aid our troops as

they've served in iraq and afghanistan. we see in times of war and in times of conflict that our service members are lauded and honored for their service and tremendous act fice but there are many stories that remain untold, there are many unseen heroes who sacrifice every single day as they serve alongside our troops. during my first deployment to iraq, i served in a medical unit, we had two interpreters who worked with us on a daily basis. one was named kadam. he sat in our clinic, went out on missions with our medic and i spoke with him almost every day and learned so much about his family, his community, and the challenges that he overcame very day to just work with us. he drove home every night with a firearm under his driver's seat in fear, not only of his own life but in fear of the health and safety of his

family. he had a few young children and he spoke very strongly about his hopes and his dreams for them being able to have a future, to have an education. which was a far cry from the life he was living there. and that's why he served with us. we had another interpreter who our hawaii unit called kahuna. his situation but very differently, he lived in secrecy, his neighbors and friends didn't know he was working with us and because of that, he stayed in our camp, he lived with us, worked with us on a daily basis because he believed in what we were doing and wouldn't want to risk his family's life. the stories go on and on of those who have sacrificed so much not only because they believed in what we were doing, what our mission was, what our work was, but in the hopes that they could also live a free life for thems a life where they were not fraught on a

daily basis with just getting by and for that i personally stand in strong support of this. thank you very much. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the -- for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mckeon: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, however, i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection. mr. mckeon: i yield the plans of my time to the gentleman rom illinois, mr. kissinger. dmb mr. kinzinger. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kinzinger: thank you for this, ms. gabbard and everyone, we're a nation of commitments, a lot of times washington gets the reputation of republicans and democrats don't agree on anything, and we fight like cats and dogs. this is a great example of where, frankly, people are coming together to say as a nation, what's the right thing to do here?

we've made commitments, taken ourselves, and people have put thems out on the line for us, what's the right thing to do? i would even dare to speculate that those of us who are sponsoring this amendment probably don't agrow on the future of the iraq war or the afghanistan war. but we do know we believe we have to hold to this. as ms. gabbard was talking about, there's a lot of unsung heroes in iraq and afghanistan, people who were iraqi nationals that put their lives on the line in order to fight for a new iraq, to fight for a new freedom, to provide for their families and to understand that they want to build an alliance between iraq and the united states. and a lot of them went home at night, as was eloquently expressed, went home at night in fear that this was going to cost them their lives but

knowing that the strength and power of the united states was there with them and they could rest easy at night knowing we would keep oour -- keep to our words. unfortunately, many of these folks have been killed or targeted for killing and do continue to live in fear and so we created a program which would allow a lot of these who have put their lives on the line in order to facilitate what our interest is in afghanistan and iraq to be able to come to the united states. unfortunately, this has been bogged down in bureaucracy that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. it's been bogged down in a definition of whether they worked for the united states or whether they worked for isaf. i would tend to say with you worked for isaf or the united states you should fall under this program. i think it's right that we as a nation figure out what's going wrong and do this. and i think this is a great opportunity. s that great opportunity to come together and say you know you put your life on the line for us, we're going to do everything we can for you. i think about all the times when i would be ready to go fly

and you talk to folks that are associated with what we're doing and had we not had interpreters there to be able to bridge the language between -- to bring the ladge -- languages of the united states and iraq or afghanistan together, we would be sitting there staring but to have folks who come together and talk about what it is we really need to do is the right thing to do. as americans we have to hold to our commitments. this program provides life-saving protext to those that served us. it's providing countless -- it will provide refuge to countless iraqis and afghan civilian who was helped us. i want to say to mr. blumenauer, ms. gabbard, mr. stivers and to everybody watching, frankly and listening to these proceedings, thank you for your help, thank you to america for standing up and doing the right thing and to those that continue to defend us day by day. with that, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield back the plans of

my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment from the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: i would like a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 137 printed in art b of house report 113-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? ms. delauro: mr. speaker, my amendment would -- the chair: does the gentlewoman offer an amendment? ms. delauro: i'm sorry, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate. the clerk: amendment number 137 offered by ms. delauro of connecticut. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260rk the gentlewoman from connecticut,

ms. delauro and a member opoed each will control five minute. ms. the lauro: my amendment would -- ms. delauro: my amendment would stop the defense department from purchasing from the russian arms dealer. estimates of the death toll in syria hit 93,000 and the administration confirmed use of chemical weapons by the assaad regime yet remarkably, u.s. taxpayers continue to provide subsities to russia's arms dealers through pentagon purchases of mi-17 helicopters even as the firm continues to serve as top supplier of the weapon theas syrian regime is using to fuel the tragic war. in fact the russian arms dealer recently took aned orer from the syrian army for a wide range of weaponry and the possibility remains that russia may provide syria with s-300 air defense systems. it is unacceptable that at the same time the pentagon is purr

chastchassing mi-17 helicopters for the afghan security forces a no-bid hrough contract that do not allow u.s. companies to compete. ast year the army purchased 31 mi-17's from the russian arms dealer. the president signed into law last year's defense bill banning the pentagon from using 2013 funds from entering into a contract with the russian farms dealer yet in a clear riles soft -- violation of the spirit of the law, they announced they would use 2012 afghan security forces funds to purchase 30 more mi-17 a contract signing that's imminent. meanwhile, the defense contract audit agency or dcaa attempted an audit of the pricing of mi-17 helicopter which is the firm refused to cooperate with. this is outrageous. my bipartisan amendment

prohibits the pentagon from purchasing congresswomen from the russian arms maker unless 's certified the firm is cooperating, and has in the signed new contracts with syria. it also requires that any -- any new helicopters for after begans be competitivelyed by. the defense department shouldn't engage in business with any company arming the syrian regime. furthermore, if we are going to spend taxpayer dollars to provide helicopters to the afghan national security forces we should spend those delears purchase of u.s.-made hets. i urge support for the amendment and reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: i will not oppose the amendment.

i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, can you tell me how much time remains? the chair: you have two and a quarter minutes. ms. delauro: i yield the balance of the time to my colleague from virginia who has worked on this issue with me, mr. moran. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: i thank my food friend from connecticut and the chairman of the committee because i trust that he will support this as well. this amendment passed overwhelmingly last year, bipartisan vote. the problem is that the defense department ignored it. they went ahead continuing to buy weapons from this export company, the same russian arms supplier that's enabling president assaad to kill more than 90,000 of his own people

who are -- who is now we confirmed using chemical weapons against his people, 1 ppt 6 million syrian refugees are scattered across five countries and within the year, half of the syrian population is going to be in need of aid. this has to be fixed. the a owaugh -- the obecause ma -- obama administration says we're going to have to get more aggressively involved, supplying more military assistance to the insurgents. but think about this. the problem is that assaad is getting all the weapons he wants. in fact, he's asked this ussian arms exporter for advance s-300 missile defense batteries, 20,000 assault

rifles, 20 million rounds of ammunition, machine guns, grenade launchers, sniper rifles with night vision silingts, mi-17 helicopters are also made by this company and we're buying helicopters from them. can't we coordinate the right hand with the left hand? we should not be basically subsidizing this company who is the -- a large part of the roblem in syria. some suggested that without russia's aid, president assaad can't continue killing his own people. i don't know if we can convince president putin to stop this it's obviously a state-owned arms supplier but sure the congress can say, no, don't purchase from the same person that is supplying the syrian regime. the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut's time has expired.

the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from connecticut. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the -- ms. delauro: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceed thonings antidepressant offered by the gentlewoman from onnecticut will be postponed. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings on the house will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 113-108.

on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 21 by mr. turner of ohio. amendment 22 by mr. holt of new jersey. amendment 25 by ms. mccollum of minnesota. amendment number 32 by mr. nolan of minnesota. amendment number 33 by mr. larsen of washington. amendment number 36 by mr. gibson of new york. amendment number 37 by mr. coffman of colorado. amendment number 19 by mrs. walorski of indiana. amendment number 20 from mr. smith of washington. amendment number 14 by mr. polis from colorado. amendment number 23 by mr. poll from colorado. amendment 39 by mr. van hollen from maryland. amendment number 123 by mr. blumenauer of oregon.

and amendment number 137 by ms. delauro of connecticut. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first series in this vote. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 21 printed in part b of house report 113-108 by the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 21 printed in house report number 113-108 offered by mr. turner of ohio. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 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.]

can

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 239, the nays are 182, he amendment is agreed to. the committee will come to order. the committee will come to order. the committee will come to order. please take all conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?

>> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the chair: without objection. mr. barton: thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the house will please come to order. take all conversations off the floor if you need to continue them, otherwise, the committee will come to order. the gentleman will continue. mr. barton: i have my 7-year-old son jack with me this week and we walked on the floor, he asked me, daddy, why is that trophy on that desk? and i said, well, son, they won he game last night. i rise in reluctant recognition of the fact that last night at national stadium the democrats overked out a 22-0 victory

the stalwart republican team. our m.v.p. is senator jeff flake from arizona who was a member of this body until last year. we had a number of other members who played very well. john shimkus, bill johnson, mike conaway, ron desantos, the list goes on and on. but the fact remains the democrats won. they are entitled to the trophy. and our hats are off to you. with that i yield to my good friend, the manager from pittsburgh, pennsylvania, mr. mike doyle. mr. doyle: thank you. first off i want to thank my good friend, joe barton, he is y good friend, for a good game last night. i couldn't really single out individuals. this was a team effort on the democratic side. our team had 24 hits and no

errors in the field. cedric richmond, who normally strikes out a lot of batters, last year cedric had 16 strikeouts. for the first five innings cedric didn't strike out a single batterment we had 15 put outs in the field. when you hit the ball, we fielded it, we made the throw to first and made the plays. it was the best team effort i have seen out of the democratic side in the 19 years i have been associated with the game. want to congratulate my team. as my good friend joe barton knows the real winners of this game are the three charities. we broke a record this year. we raised $300,000 for our charities. the washington voice and girls club. the washington literacy council. and the dream foundation, which in theg to help children seventh ward in washington, d.c., this goes to be a great program for the kids, for boys and girls, to learn baseball,

but also to learn more important things in after school learning centers and the like. to the charities, the real winners of this game, congratulations. this is a great tradition that helps bring us together. i can tell you the members of the republican baseball team are friends of ours and we enjoy the camaraderie and the game every year. we look forward to it again next year. i yield back. r. barton: i yield back. the chair: without objection, two-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 22 printed in part b of house report 113-108 by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed in the voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 22, printsed in part b of house report number 113-108, offered

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 61, the nays are 362. he amendment is not agreed to.

the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 25 printed in part b of house report 11-108 by the gentlewoman from minnesota, ms. mccollum, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 25, print the in part b of house report number 113-108, offered by ms. mccollum of minnesota. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote please rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. the chair reminds the floor this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 134. the nays are 289.

the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 32 printsed in part b house report 11-108 by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. nolan, on you which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 32, printed in part b of house report number 113-108, offered by mr. nolan of minnesota. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counchted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on

this -- the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 71, the nays are 353, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 33 printed in part b of house report 113-108 by the gentleman from washington, mr. larsen, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 33 printed in house report 113-108 offered by mr. larsen of washington. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 195, the nays are 229. the agreement is not agreed -- the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is on the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 36 printed in part b of house report 113-108 by the gentleman from new york, mr. gibson, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 36 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mr. bibson of new york. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested those in support of the request for a

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 123, the nays are 301, the amendment is not agree tosmed the unfinished business is the request for a recorded

vote on amendment number 37 printed in part b of house report 113-108 by the gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 37 printed in part b of house report 113-108, offered by mr. coffman of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a record vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 110, the nays are 313, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 19 printed in part b of house report 113-108 by the gentlewoman from

indiana, ms. walorski. on which further proceedings were post pobed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote chesm clerk willres. re-designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment -- amendment number 19, offered by ms. walorski of indiana. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this amendment the yeas are 236. the nays is 188. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 20 printed in part b of house report 113-108 by the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes

prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 20 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mr. smith of washington. the chair: a recorded vote has been. -- has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 174. the nays are 249. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 14 printed in part b of house report 113-108 from the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, on which further proceedings from postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 150. the nays are 274. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 23 printed in part b of house report 113-108 by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, on which further proceedings were postponed and on the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 146. the naze are 248.

the amendment -- the nays are 248. the amendment is not agreed. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment 39 printed in part b of house report 113-108 by the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 39 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mr. van hollen of maryland. the chair: a request for recorded -- a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 191, the nays are 232, he amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request on a recorded vote 133 printed in part b of house report 113-108, the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 123 prinned in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon.

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 420, the nays are 3, the amendment is agreed. to the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 137 by the gentlewoman from connecticut ms. delauroed on which the further proceedings were postponed and on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. che clerk rill redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 137 prinned in part b of house report 113-108 offered by ms. delauro of connecticut. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the .s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 423, the nays are zero. the amendment is agreed. to the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the ayes have it. the amendment adopted. accordingly under the rule the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 1980 and pursuant to house resolution 260 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. in a separate vote -- is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as

amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. to the question is on engross. and third reading to the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to authorize propings if fiscal year 2013 for military activities for department of defense and military construction, to prescribe mill tafere personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: will the house come to order. the house will come to order. all members will take their conversations from the floor. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the chair: is -- the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlelady opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady qualifies, the clerk will report the motion.

the clerk: ms. duckworth of illinois moves to recommit the bill to the commow on armed services with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment, at the end of subtitle d of title 5 with the following section, con voning authority on the office of the chief prosecutor recommendation to proceed to trial of any charge involving sexual assault or other sex-related offense, a in yen, section 834 of title 10, united states code, article 34 of the uniformed code of military justice is amended, one, by redesignating subsection c -- s. duckworth: madam speaker, i'd like the amendment to be -- considered to be

read. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady have a unanimous consent in ms. duckworth: unanimous consent to dispense with reading. the chair: the gentlelady -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. duckworth: just a single case of sexual assault is unacceptable. this is a self-inflicted wound that has no place in the greatest military in the world. i love the military with every bone in my body. the lessons i learned as an army officer, the camaraderie i experienced are at the core of who i am, just as it is for my brothers and sisters in arms. that is why i am personally devastated to see how many predators continue to abuse and attack one of our own. the military is a place of great discipline, technical proficiency and personal sacrifice for the greater good. it is a place where young men and women grow and thrive, developing as great leaders and team members. this is the case for so many of them. however, for some, the military has now become a place of fear

and intimidation. the services have made significant efforts to try to stamp out sexual harassment and assault but there are still unacceptable failures in these efforts. with each new piece of data on the rates of sexual assault and on the lack of command responsibility by many in dealing with military sexual trauma, i have gradually come to the conclusion that we need another path to protect the victims. this adds a new course of action for victims to pursue should they choose it. it empowers them at a time when they feel most powerless with a new option outside the chain of command, with an independent investigation and prosecution system. i place the highest priority on the importance of a commander's authority to lead and discipline the men and women under his or her command. however, in the case of sexual crimes, there continues to be failures in the existing processes for investigations and punishments within that

chain. that is why we must empower victims with an additional choice so that they can seek justice. there are many, many good commanders. my own experience has been a positive one. all of my commanders and all of those who were men, being protective of other soldiers and doing the right thing. yet the data shows that there are enough predators and failed commanders that we need to take care of this now. this solution supports command authority but also, importantly, empowers victims by giving them one more option. the men and women in our armed forces are why we live freely in the greatest country in the world when our warriors face combat, they must be able to focus completely and single mindedly on the mission at hand. they cannot do this if they are threatened with sexual assault. when our when they are looking to join

the military, these moms and dads need to know without a doubt that their child will be cared for, that they will become disciplined, well-trained leaders. they should not have to fear that their child will become rape victims. the military is a place of honor, one where our troops serve with great pride. this amendment is a balanced approach that honors our military by providing the victim with a choice on how to seek justice. and i yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from california who's been our leader in the rights of victims. the chair: the gentlelady is ecognized. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. speier: i thank the heroic leader from illinois and i think hearing your words are profound and what we are seeing

here is not only are there physical wounds, there are emotional wounds. and so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have shared with me the stories of victims who have been raped and sexually assaulted. the fear, the pain, the tears and to the woman and the man how cowardly they feel. this particular amendment will give them a little leverage. this amendment is going to give them a choice. this amendment respects the chain of command. this amendment gives them the opportunity to use the chain of command or to seek to go to the chief prosecutor in each of the services to seek an investigation and an evaluation as to whether or not a prosecution should move forward. we have an opportunity here to really change the face of this issue. and i urge my colleagues to join in supporting this

amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from indiana seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. walorski: we worked for months on bipartisan legislation to confront this problem. the time for this congress to act on this issue is right now. i ask you to support the bipartisan solution in this bill, reject the procedural motion to recommit, and i yield back the balance of my time. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the amendment is -- ms. duckworth: madam speaker, 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. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill if ordered. [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 194. the nays are 225. voting e member present. this motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of

the bill. those in favor say aye. those will say no. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: madam speaker, i demand a vote, roll call 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 31. the nays are 108. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. without objection, the title is amended.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of 1960, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering, and cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate headings. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker. i'm pleased to -- once the house is in order. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. mr. hoyer: i'm pleased to yield to my friend, the majority leader, mr. cantor from virginia. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman from maryland, the kemic whip -- democratic whip, for yielding. last week, mr. speaker, the gentleman from maryland was kind enough to note and celebrate my birthday with a colloquy. and luckily i get to return the favor today.

so, mr. speaker, i would like to say happy birthday to my friend, mr. hoyer, and wish him many, many more birthdays. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time. i want to thank the gentleman for his kindness. and the american public must be thinking the geminis are schizophrenic. i yield back. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for lemming business. votes will be postponed until :30 p.m. on tuesday and wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. on friday, no votes are expected. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. in addition, the house will consider h.r. 1797, the paying

capable unborn child protection act. i also expect the house to consider h.r. 1947, the federal agricultural reform and risk management act. chairman frank lucas, the members of the agricultural committee, have all worked very hard to produce a five-year farm bill with strong reforms and look forward to a full debate on the floor. i thank the gentleman. wish him happy birthday again. yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his good wishes. i thank him for the information. if i can ask him a question initially about the farm bill, which has obviously been very controversial in the past. still remains controversial in many ways. i'm wondering in light of the fact that the senate passed a farm bill in a pretty bipartisan way, 66-27, with 18 republicans voting in favor, but i know that the speaker has observed the divisions within the republican

conference, obviously there's some divisions within our caucus as well, and i'm wondering whether or not in fact the gentleman is confident that we will get to completion and a vote on the farm bill next week. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. i would respond by saying it's certainly our intention to complete deliberation on the farm bill. the speaker has continued to commit himself and our conference to an open process for this house and look forward to a robust debate on what, as the gentleman knows, has been a bipartisan effort of the committee. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comment. as the gentleman knows on our side of the aisle there is very significant concern about the status of the supplemental nutrition assistance prap, and i would hope that -- program, and i would hope that as a rule is

considered on that bill that i don't know whether the gentleman knows at this point in time that we would have an opportunity to have significant number of amendments on that bill to reflect the house working its will as the speaker has so often observed. i yield to my friend for whatever information he may have. i know the rule has not been written and i don't know whether he has any insights into whether -- how much flexibility there will be on the rule. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. i would respond by saying that i do think there is a commitment to genuine and robust debate on all sides. and that would -- hopefully and without speaking to details, as the gentleman notes, the rules committee has not met, would include all subject matter of the bill. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that and look forward to that because i know on both sides of the aisle this is a bill that has strong feelings among different perspectives on

this bill, and with respect to different subjects. i think that -- as open a rule process and debate process as is possible will be helpful to the final product. i would hope we could follow that. mr. leader, you mentioned the unborn pain bill. i understand -- i have some information that says that the text of that bill coming out of committee may be modified in the rules committee. is the gentleman aware of that, and if so, is the gentleman aware of what textual change there may be from the bill that was reported out of the committee? and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. there's been a lot of discussion that i have been receiving, comments, input from members, and we're looking at weighing those suggestions and

inputs as to how the rules committee will deliver in terms of the rule and how the bill comes to the floor. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman, and his comment reflects there is a lot of discussion going on. hopefully we'll get significant notice of what changes there might be. can the gentleman tell me, would it be safe to assume this ill will be considered -- when and if considered no early than wednesday and will be considered wednesday and thursday? and i say that -- i tell you some of my members who are concerned about this bill are very concerned about when it might be brought up, timing from their perspectives. this is a very serious piece of legislation, as the gentleman knows. again, from all perspectives. and i would hope that this bill would be -- in light of the fact the rules committee will probably deal with it, i'm not sure whether they'll deal with

it on tuesday. my presumption is they'll deal with it on tuesday. but there will be time for proponents and opponents to whatever changes might be recommended to prepare their arguments for the floor. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding and would respond by saying that as has been the custom this congress, we -- and last -- we will continue to abide by the three-day notice, and i do think there will be dequate time for review from parties on both sides. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for the answer and i thank him that you'll be following the notice rule as has been discussed. i ask the majority leader, could i be confident in advising people who are very focused on this bill if they are here wednesday that they will be -- in time to consider

that bill? in other words, do you expect the rules committee would consider this bill before tonight? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i do think that the posting of the bill will go -- will occur shortly, and i also would tell the gentleman probably to expect the vote sooner than wednesday. perhaps on tuesday. as the gentleman indicated before by his question on the farm bill, that may take up a considerable amount of time in debate. i would respond in that way, mr. speaker. i yield back. mr. hoyer: so i thank the answer. for his an abundance of caution proponents or opponents would need to be here on tuesday. i thank the gentleman for that answer. t me ask an additional question similar to the one on the farm bill. we are very hopeful that the

bill we've just been discussing, whether it's considered tuesday, wednesday to a sday, is subject somewhat open rule. i don't expect it to be fully open but that amendments will be made in order. there are very strong feelings on both sides. that's why the gentleman's indicated there's a lot of discussion going on on his side and on my side. but i would hope we would have the ability, again, for the house to work its will and we would have the ability to offer such amendments as would be relevant and important amendments, not specious amendments, but very important amendments to be considered by the house and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman again. it has always been the commitment on the part of the speaker and majority to try to accommodate the need for open debate on issues of contention, especially, and not speaking for the rules committee, i do think that we'll continue to see that tradition in the house

being followed and, again, i thank the gentleman for raising the concern. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman and i must feel constrained to add, however, on the defense bill that we just considered, yes, there was a bipartisan -- to the extent that both sides agreed on a formulation on the sexual assault issue within the there y, very frankly, were two widely supported, widely discussed amendments that was requested, one by ms. speier from california, and one by ms. gabbard from hawaii, neither one of those was made an amendment. the only alternative that we had available to us was the committee agreed upon alternative with respect to sexual assault complaints that women in the military or men in the military might have.

then very substantive and i thought well thought out motion to recommit, which was deemed by the individual on your side of the aisle who opposed it, in n almost cursory fashion, less than i think 120 seconds, dismissed as a procedural motion. with all due respect to the majority leader and without the majority leader, obviously, it was anything but a procedural motion. it was a very substantive motion. would have, in my opinion, been -- of course we can differ on that -- but my opinion would ave made a very positive improvement in the piece of legislation we were considering. i voted for the piece of legislation, the defense bill. i never voted against the defense authorization in my career here. the national security of our nation is critically important. but we had somebody offer that

amendment who served in the military, who gave two of her legs for our country and who has been honored for her service both in the military as an officer, helicopter pilot, and for her service to veterans both in illinois and in our country. and very frankly that was rejected as a procedural motion. i understand the gentleman's representation that we follow the tradition of giving a full and fair -- but if i say with all due respect to the majority leader, if the motions to recommit are to be considered simply as procedural motions, which the gentleman will observe we did not do when we were in the majority. we understand that some of these made a difference and once we got rid of the procedural impediment that the

motion to recommit would send the bill back to committee, which is no longer the case, then we should consider very legitimate alternatives on a substantive basis, not the procedural objections that we were confronted with today. i say that to say this is a critically important bill. very strong feelings on all sides, and i would -- the gentleman has said this and i take him at his word -- that we allow alternatives to be considered on this floor as amendments that are not perceived as procedural but are perceived to be as substantive attempts to improve from the author of the amendment's perspective the piece of legislation before us. if the gentleman wants to make any additional comments, i yield to the gentleman. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. i would very quickly respond by saying the gentleman is correct. there's been a lot of debate around the issue that he refers to. there is considerable debate in

the house committee, and the house committee, house armed services, came up with a bipartisan approach to the sexual assault issue and it was inserted into the base bill and in fact it is consistent with president obama's view and the pentagon's view on this issue. so i understand that the gentleman may differ, but it was certainly a bipartisan product that was in the bill and i hear the gentleman in terms of procedure and perhaps the characterization of a vote, but i do think at the end the minority was afforded the the n to recommit, and characterization that we believe is a procedural vote, the gentleman takes it another view, i understand the subject matter was the same as these amendments. these amendments that were not brought forward on the floor was heavily discussed in committee, resolved in a

bipartisan basis. again, i understand the gentleman's point and look forward to continuing to do all we can to safeguard the women in our military and make sure that we protect all american citizens, which i do think this bipartisan resolution of the issue will do and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i understand that you do view the motion to recommit as procedural. we disagree on that. the motion would make a substantive difference in the piece of legislation. it would have set up a different scenario. to that extent it was clearly substantive, not procedural, and it would have i think exported with -- from many on our side's perspective, a better process to protect women d men from arbitrary and perhaps at some point in time unfair treatment and would give of what avenue

they would pursue to protect themselves and as ms. duckworth, captain duckworth, congresswoman duckworth so aptly stated would give more confidence, particularly to women, but men and women, entering the service that they would be protected. we don't need to debate the substance of the issue simply to say give us the alternative and the m.t.r. was an alternative but it was not considered on your side as a substantive alternative. therefore, my point being, on the bill that we're talking about, the pain bill, referred to shorthand as the pain bill, that we be given substantive amendments that is not perceived as procedural so that of the house 20% -- the armed services committee is less than 20% of the house. not the armed services

committee or any committee, for that matter, dispose of the issue and preclude the other 80% of us from participating in making that decision. so i would urge my friend to urge the rules committee and the leadership, which the gentleman is a principal ader, to allow substantive amendments, good-faith amendments to be made in order. lastly -- two more things, if i can, unless the gentleman wants to say something. let me say something on immigration reform, the paul ryan leader on your side and vice-presidential candidate, said of the bipartisan effort in the senate on immigration, he said, quote, i do support what they're doing. i think they put out a good product. it's good policy. that was reported on june 6 of this year in "the hill"

newspaper. immigration obviously -- nor did i expect it to be -- on the list for next week, but i want to ask the gentleman, in light of the fact comprehensive immigration reform by many on both sides of the aisle, including mr. ryan, but obviously in a bipartisan way in the united states senate, has been something that's been viewed as a priority item, can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is a near-term and by near-term i mean prior to the august break expectation that we will have any movement in this house on immigration reform, and i yield to my friend? mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd thank the gentleman and would say that the judiciary committee under the leadership of chairman goodlatte is very, very involved in the discussion around these issues and is intending to address and begin to address the issue of immigration this month and certainly my hope is that we in

this house can see a full debate on the floor throughout the committee process and make sure that we can address what is a very broken immigration system. i know that the gentleman shares with me the commitment to try and do all we can to reflect the notion of trying to address a broken system. so i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for those comments, and i look forward to us doing that and hopefully doing so in a bipartisan fashion because he and i both agree that the system is broken, needs to be fixed and my view and i think the view of many and certainly the senators who came together and offered the bill that's now being considered on the senate floor believe that a comprehensive plan was the best answer and i agree with that. lastly, if i can ask the majority leader, the student loan program, which has capped

interest on student loans at 3.4%, expires at the end of this month and therefore we're weeks away from having a substantial increase of doubling of student loan costs. the president has a proposal. we passed a proposal through this house, as you know, mr. leader, both of those proposals were defeated on the senate floor. for lack of 60 votes, the senate alternative, which mr. bishop has now introduced, got 51 votes, but neither of them got 60 votes. . can the gentleman tell me whether or not, it's not on the calendar next week, whether there's any plan to address the issue beyond what we have already done, which has been rejected in the senate, to ensure that students do not see a doubling of interest rates in the near future? i yield to my friend.

mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. and would say that, yes, there is a commitment to try and make sure that there is not a doubling of the interest rate to students who right now -- who would look to incuring debt to go to school. as the gentleman correctly notes, mr. speaker, this house is the only body that has passed a bill to provide for protecting these students against such a rate increase. and in fact, the bill that passed the house, as the gentleman knows, was a bill that allows for rates to go into variable mode to assure that any increase that would occur is not that encrease in the statute but long-term could protect students as well from that kind of a hit. the administration, i talked to several members of the administration, chairman, john

klein has beenhn in discussions. it is my hope, i would tell the gentleman, mr. speaker, that we can resolve this issue so that perspective -- prospective students cannot be -- can be assured that their rates would not double. but it is the house who has provided the pathway and road map to ensure that happens. and we are trying to work with the administration since the senate has been unable to act to avoid this from happening. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. mr. speaker, i'm sure you know and i'm sure the american public knows as well, mr. speaker, the reason the senate hasn't acted is because although they have a majority for an alternative, frankly they can't get cloture. they can't get 60 votes. and frankly, mr. reid doesn't have 60 votes in order to move

legislation. so while it's well and good to say we have acted, we have acted on a vehicle that the senate has rejected. and they rejected our alternative as well. they didn't reject it by majority vote. a majority voted for our alternative. frankly the house would not be able to act if 60% of the house were necessary to pass something. and the majority leader and i both know that. we would be at gridlock. frankly i think it's unfortunate the senate has a rule which allows a minority to control. i think that's not good for the country. i think it's not good for democracy, and it's not good for polcy. i think that's demonstrable and unfortunately being experienced by the american people. i would hope that in the next two weeks or eight legislative days we have left, that the gentleman's effort will bear fruit and that we can do something, not that we'll say

beat ourselves on the chest and say the house acted. that's the problem with the sequester. the house acted in the last congress. and we are not acting now because a bill that's dead and gone and cannot be resurrected was passed in the last congress as a pretense of -- not a pretense it was real at the time, but now claiming that is the reason we are not acting on the sequester, hopefully that will not be the reason we do not act on this student loan. i thank the gentleman for his efforts at wanting to get us to a compromise which will assure that students do not see on july 1 an increase in their interest rates. unless the gentleman wants to make additional comments, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask

unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on monday next when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair announces that the correct tally on roll call vote number 231 was 134 yeas, and 290 ays. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, in honor of

national bourbon day, i rise to celebrate kentucky's signature spirit. kentucky's signature burr bonn industry has enjoyed -- bourbon industry has enjoyed signature significant growth necessaryically and abroad creating billions of dollars in economic activity and 9,000 jobs including thousands in the legendary distilleries along the kentucky bourbon trail. bourbon is required by law to be stored stored for two years in charred white oak barrels. however they are unable to deduct their expenses during that unique aging process, placing them as a competitive disadvantage global marketplace. mr. barr: this week i introduced a bipartisan aged distilled spirits competitiveness act which would amend the tax code to fix this inequality and help level the playing field for kentucky's signature bourbon industry. american products can successfully compete with any in the world.

this house is working overtime to enact policies that will promote american competitiveness, remove barriers to job creation, and spur this nation's economy. i am confident department that with the right tax policy we will produce even more growth in job creation for the people of kentucky. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the district of columbia seek recognition? ms. norton: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. . norton: mr. speaker, representative phil gingrey of georgia filed a national defense authorization amendment that was included in en bloc amendments expressing the sense of the congress that active duty military personnel in a private capacity should be exempt of the gun laws from the district of

columbia but not any other state or locality. this anti-democratic amendment continues a pattern of republican assaults on d.c.'s local rights and gun safety laws. but we have shown we know how to fight back. we defeated the gingrey amendment last congress and we will work with our senate allies to defeat it again. today after newtown when there have been serious attempts to toughen gun laws across the country and even here in the congress, the gingrey amendment goes in the opposite direction and attempts to use active duty personnel to further his own gun agenda. rather than addressing the needs of his own georgia constituents, phil gingrey is spending his time in a district meddling in a district more than 600 miles away. if there were a problem involving guns in our active duty military, he would not target only the district of columbia. the district will not be further the agenda of members of

congress unaccountable to our residents. we particularly resent being used as fodder by a member in a campaign running for the senate of the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i had the good fortune of getting to know ben getler during years of pickup basketball games with him. his philosophy about basketball wasn't too different from his philosophy about life. age is no reason to slow down. ben was still running a business and two charitable foundations up to his final days with us. he passed away on june 4 at age 87. ben grew up during a tumultuous time in our world's history, the experiences of his era imprinted upon him the importance of his heritage and shaped his

philanthropic pursuits. wenstrup: as the president of the jewish foundation of cincinnati, he organized a program to help more young men and women per capita to travel to slar than any other city in north america. ben also gave back to his alma mater, the university of cincinnati, by serving as the chairman of the board of trustees. today gettler stadium stands as a tribute to ben. as well as a reminder of his time in college as an outstanding track and field athlete. a grateful city thanks ben's wife and his children for sharing this energetic and passionate man with our community. the city of cincinnati is truly a better place because of ben. he will be missed but never be forgotten. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. pp

>> thank you, mr. speaker. this week we took up the national defense authorization and i was glad to join with my colleagues in working to improve the bill to meet emerging needs. specifically i want to thank the committee for the inclusion of two amendments which i authored in regards to iran and syria. the first amendment will what effect international sanctions are having on iran's military capacity. mr. schneider: we know that iran is currently capable of exporting military technology and resources to its network abroad. our sanctions must continue to press and place pressure on the iranian regime to limit its global reach. this amendment will provide clarity as to what extent iran's military capacity is being degraded by u.s. and international sanctions. the second amendment will put a renewed emphasis on how we approach policy options towards the conflict in syria. the administration revealed yesterday that chemical weapons have been used by the assad

regime on its own people. this amendment would urge the president to limit all arms trafficking into syria from iran, lebanon and russia. with the escalation of tensions in syria, this important amendment will provide the necessary condition for addressing future actions in the region. i again want to thank the committee for adopts these important policy provisions. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to congratulate the children's hospital of philadelphia. mr. fitzpatrick: which has earned the number one ranking among the nation's pediatric hospitals in the latest "u.s. news and world report" honor roll of best children's hospitals. p chopped programs were also ranked in the top four of each specialty areas in the survey. this recognition is a milestone for the largest and oldest

children's hospital in the world. and a credit to the dedication and expertise of the staff whose mission is defined by the hospital motto, hope lives here. and hope is what was involved in the recent double lung transplant performed by chop physicians on 10-year-old sara -- sarah whose plight received national attention. i also acknowledge the patient care provided at the satellite children's hospital in bucks county, an outpatient facility serving the families of bucks county and eastern montgomery county. i congratulate the entire staff of children's hospital philadelphia for this achievement and look forward to your many years of continued service and success. i yield back, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. schools across this country should be focused on educating

our children, but unfortunately they are struggling because obamacare is forcing them to cut hours for part-time workers. r. kinzinger: -- >> in indiana, bus criferse and coaches will face fewer hours and smaller paychecks. it's not just schools, back home many working families tell me more and more employers are making the tough decision to cut back hours, hold back projects, and take a pass on hiring. mr. stutzman: this administration sold obamacare as a benefit to hardworking middle class americans, but it's hurting the very families it was designed to help. hoosiers don't need more regulation or mandates. we need real solutions that empower patients instead of crippling schools. our students deserve the tools they need to succeed and that isn't possible when washington puts regulations ahead of

achievement. teachers, mechanics, grocers, farmers, and steel makers, all of them need an exemption from washington's madness. let's repeal obamacare and let educators focus on what's really important. our kids. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to speak in opposition to the decision on monday by the f.d.a. to allow plan b to be offered over the counter to girls of any age. i have been vocal about this issue and will continue to do so. mr. schock: i co-authored a letter to the commissioner of the u.s. food and drug administration asking the f.d.a. to reverse its decision. plan b should not be used over

the counter by girls without a prescription. now it seems he's changed his mind. as a result of this f.d.a. ruling, it will be -- mr. davis it will be easier for girls to get plan b than it will to get a tattoo. mr. speaker, this change is an insult to parents and the role they play in their parent's lives. i am very disappointed with the f.d.a.'s decision to allow plan b to be offered over the counter without age restriction. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of be a requested -- absence of ms. edwards for today and mr. poe of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2013,

gentleman from florida, mr. grayson, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. chairman, i rise today to discuss a shocking revelation reported in the media starting last wednesday, that is nine days ago, regarding the scope of the n.s.a.'s spying program, including both foreigners and americans. the n.s.a. is the national security agency. its duty as part of d.o.d. to protect us against foreign attacks. just as d.o.d. is expect to secure us from foreign attacks. and the d.o.d. like the c.i.a. is on the side of the firewall dealing with foreign threats as opposed to the f.b.i. and the justice department who deal with domestic threats.

as of a week ago last wednesday, the guardian reported that a particular court order had ordered verizon, the largest cellular telephone company in america, to turn over its call records for all of its calls. all of its calls. i have the document from "the guardian's" website here in front of me. it is a document that was issued as a secondary order by what's known as the fisa court. that court is the foreign intelligence surveillance court established under the foreign intelligence surveillance act. let's start with the name of the court. the foreign intelligence surveillance court. as the name implies, as the name of the act implies, the jurisdiction of the court is limited to foreign surveillance

and foreign threats. this is by statute. the order itself was printed and posted at the website. millions of people have seen it since then. what it purports to be -- i say purports to be but in fact the agency involved, the n.s.a., does not deny this is a valid, real document. it says the court having found application of the federal bureau of investigation for an order requiring the production of tangible things from very eyeson -- specifically verizon bissonette work services, etc., etc., orders that the custodian of records produces, not to the f.b.i., but to the national security agency, component of the defense department, upon service of this order and continue production on an ongoing daily basis thereafter for the duration of this order unless otherwise ordered by the

court an electronic copy of the following tangible things. right here. take a look at it. these tangible things are identified in the order as follows -- all call detail telephony data from verizon, communications, one, between the united states and abroad -- sounds like it might be international. d then, two, wholly within the united states, including local telephone calls. on its face, this is an order for verizon, our largest cellular telephone company, to turn over call records for every single call in its possession. mr. chairman, that includes calls by you. it also includes calls by me. in fact, it includes calls by me when i'm calling my mother or my wife or my daughter.

and for those who are listening on c-span or otherwise, it includes every call by you. now, the first question that comes to mind is, first, is this just for verizon? well, we don't know for sure at this point. but the n.s.a. has not denied that there is similar orders in extent for m.c.i., for at&t, for sprint, for every telephone company that carries any significant amount of data or calls in this country. another question is how far back does this order go? the order itself is dated on ts face april 25, 2013, one of the more interesting things about this posted at the guardian's website is that it has no starting date. under this order, under the plain terms of this order, verizon has to go and give the federal government, specifically the department of defense, the n.s.a., all of its

call records of all of its calls going back to the beginning of time. and this obligation continues until july 19 of 2013, presumably because the order will be renewed at that point, upon request of the n.s.a. and the f.b.i. let's be clear about this. this appears to be an order providing that our telephone companies providing service to us turn over call records for every single telephone call regardless of whether it's international or not. now, somebody come to minaya days ago and said to me, congressman grayson, do you think that the defense department is taking records of every telephone call you make or i make or anyone else makes i would say, no, i don't have reason to believe it. it would shock me. well, it is true and it does shock me. why should we have our personal

telephone records, the records of whom we call, when we speak to them, how long we're talking, why should we have that turned over to the defense department? what possible rationale could there be for that? well, i'll tell you what i think the rationale might be. because somehow that makes us safer. well, let me say to the n.s.a. and to the defense department, you can rest assure, there's no threat to america when i talk to my mother. now, what exactly is wrong with this? what's wrong with this, first of all, is that there is a firewall between the defense department and the c.i.a. on the one hand and the f.b.i. and the department of justice on the other. one protects us from international threats. the other one protects us from domestic threats. that's been the law in america since the 1870's when congress enacted and the president signed the act and this order

crushes that distinction. it eliminates it. it obliterates it. it kills it now and forever. now, the second thing that is offensive about this court order is that it clearly violates the fourth amendment. the fourth amendment reads as follows -- the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seize years shall not be -- seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or the things to be seized. now, first of all when the government seizes your phone records, unless you happen to be osama bin laden or someone close to him, there is no

reason why the government would believe or have reason to believe probable cause that you've committed a crime or you're going to commit a crime or you have any evidence about someone committing a crime. there's no probable cause here. secondly, the fourth amendment -- res particular laret particularity. there is no particulararity that verizon or at&t or sprint or anyone else be required to turn over their phone records to the government. there's no particulararity. and that really is the essence of the matter. if you ask the n.s.a. for justification, they say it's legal. what do you mean it's legal? well, according to their published statements, including a statement by the director last saturday, they maintain that it's legal because of a single supreme court case decided in 1979 that said that

the government, specifically local police authorities, could acquire the phone records of one person once. that's the case of smith v. maryland, 1979. and because the supreme court says that at that point the government could acquire the phone records of one person once, the n.s.a. is maintaining that its entire program is legal and that it can acquire he phone records of everyone everywhere forever. that is a farce. now, the other document that came to light last thursday -- in other words, eight days ago as i speak -- was a document again posted "at the guardian" and then later at "the washington post's" website, and this is document that is a

powerpoint presentation which according to the reports was a powerpoint presentation to analysts working for the n.s.a. this powerpoint presentation is abeled "prism: u.s. 984 x.n. overview." and what you see to my right is the reproduction of what was posted at the website a week ago. first of all, note that there are certain logos at the top of the page. gmail, is the largest provider of email services and hosting. it's run by google. facebook. many of us are familiar with that. i think my children are all too familiar with it. spend an awful lot of time on

it. facebook allows private messaging between friends. hotmail, which is microsoft's email server and service. yahoo!, which performs a variety of functions, including among other things hosting a large number of webpages and, by the way, when you go to their webpage, they can tell who you are by your i.p. address. and also a very widely used email service. google, i think google needs no introduction but i already introduced it. google allows you to do web searches. it together with microsoft has almost 90% of the web search market in the united states. they keep a record of the searches that you make based upon your i.p. address. skype, which is a telephone company that transmits calls electronically over the

internet. pal talk, i'm puzzled. i don't know what that is. youtube, which is the largest host of videos in the world. and, again, you can tell which videos you're looking at by your i.p. address. and a.o.l. mail, which by it sounds, is the american online email service. this document is dated at the bottom, april of 2013, meaning ast month. or maybe two months ago. et's take a look inside. one of the pages that's been produced on "the guardian" and "washington post" websites is this. by way of background, it's been reported that this is part of a longer document. 41 pages long.

only five pages have been released to the public through "the guardian" and through "the washington post." so i'm sharing with you the five pages that were released a week ago and are now public. let's take a look at this one. . this says the n.s.a.'s prison program performs the following functions. this is reported to be a training document given to n.s.a. analysts to explain what they can do in this program. who are the current providers to the program? microsoft, hot mail, etc., google, yahoo!, facebook, pal talk, youtube, skype, a.o.l., and apple. what are they providing specifically as the document said, what will you, meaning the analyst, receive in collection? collection from surveillance and stored