100 amendments in order, the rule makes only one amendment on syria, and that amendment simply reiterates current law. despite the shear number of amendments made in order, the republican leadership ducked a real important debate when it comes to syria. i hope that a few years down the road we don't look back on the fact that we avoided a debate on syria and express regret. we get sucked into this war without a real debate. that's what we're here for. when people say, these are tough issues, i'm sorry, we can't duck every tough issue. maybe that's been a problem with our overseas policies, that we haven't talked about what needs to be done, we haven't debated these issues. we've gotten involved in wars that we found are more complicated than originally thought. there's nothing wrong with debate. it is incredibly important and in the people's house of representatives, we ought to have a debate on this issue.

i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. ms. kaptur: mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for yielding to me. and also thank our ranking member of the defense subcommittee, mr. visclosky of indiana, and our mutual friend and colleague, chairman bill young of florida, for their hard work on this bill. and it will benefit our nation, our men and women in uniform, our armed forces and all of those who are touched by what is contained in this legislation. within the limits provided and despite severe cuts, this bill has been written in a bipartisan way by our subcommittee. i thank the members for working so collaboratively together. it is a model for this house and our committee on how to do the work necessary to meet the needs of the american people. the bill includes $125 million above the president's request

for funding health research for traumatic brain injuries and posttraumatic stress conditions, the signature wounds of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. the bill also includes $544 million for cancer research, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer and lung cancer research that are endured at a much higher percentage among our troops in the population at large. the bill also contains continuing support for our nato responsibilities. by including continuing joint operations related to the newly independent states. the bill includes the requested amount for the iron dome missile defense partnership with israel and the bill also includes $1.5 billion above the request for the national guard and reserve equipment account, to fund equipment requirements of the national guard and reserve components. ring the last decade of war, our national guard and reserve units have proven themselves as strategic partners for our nation. our subcommittee continues to provide the funding necessary for our guard and reserve units,

to continue their missions which they do extremely well and much more cost effectively than in the active forces. this legislation also continues the military's commitment to lead our nation toward energy independence. the pentagon is the largest petroleum user in the world, must lead our nation forward toward energy numbers. no challenge could be more vital to our national security and economic security than energy independence. high fuel costs are an enormous burden on american families and might i be yielded an additional 15 seconds? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman very much. thank you, congressman mcgovern. high fuel costs are an enormous burden on america's families and our military. it is also a burden on every branch of the service where it costs us $400 a gallon to deliver $1 -- one gallon of gasoline to troops at the frontline. thank you again to chairman bill young, to ranking member visclosky for their leadership,

to our ranking member on the full committee, mrs. lowey of new york, and chairman rogers of kentucky, for working with all of our members to meet the needs of our nation, our army, navy, marine corps, air force, those who serve us every day so nobly. i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: i just would like to comment on the gentlelady's comments as it relates from ohio. i appreciate her comments and her support for the military and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i am going to urge people to vote no on the previous question and if we defeat the previous question i will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the house to consider the van hollen resolution, calling on speaker boehner to proceed to a conference on the budget. it is time for the majority to follow regular order by immediately appointing conferees to negotiate the 2014 budget conference agreement with the senate. and to discuss that proposal i yield five minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the distinguished ranking member of the budget committee, mr. van

hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank my friend from massachusetts. and i want to at the outset associate myself with the remarks of mr. mcgovern and mr. welch regarding the importance of this body having a debate and whether or not we should be sending u.s. taxpayer dollars tone gauge in support -- to engage and support the rebels in syria. this budget supports the defense democratic, it also supports the intelligence agency. so this is the time and place to have the debate about taxpayer dollars going into a civil war in syria. it's also the time and high time that we get on with passing a federal budget. we've heard a lot of talk on the floor today about the importance of supporting our military. absolutely true. but this legislation does nothing to turn off the

sequester. so unless the congress comes together on a bipartisan and bicameral basis to resolve the budget, this defense appropriations bill is going to .e cut by about $48 billion just as the nondefense parts of the budget will be cut as a result of sequestration. so, i don't think the american people recognize that as of today, even though we're working on these spending bills, the united states congress has not passed a budget. no federal budget in place today. now, we heard a lot there our republican colleagues over the last couple of years about how the senate was derelict in its duty for not having a budget. guess what? the senate passed a budget, it passed a budget 122 days ago. ever since that time we've said to our republican colleagues, let's take the next step in the process. let's have a conference. senate, house, get together to

work out those differences. in fact, senator murray, who is the chairman of the senate budget committee, has asked now 17 times for unanimous consent in the senate to begin negotiations. we have called upon the speaker of the house to appoint conferees to negotiate on the budget. he has refused. this motion's very simple. i'm just going to read the resolve clause. it's the sense of the house of representatives that the speaker should follow regular house procedure and immediately request a conference and appoint conferees to negotiate the fiscal year 2014 budgets remain -- resolution. very simple -- budget resolution. very simple. calling for exactly what our republican colleagues have called for for the last three years. we heard from you many times, no budget, no pay. we don't have a budget. members of congress are getting paid. now, senator mccain and a lot of republican senators have made

the point that it's insane to no not go to conference on -- to not go to conference on the budget. here's what he said. senator mccain. i think it's insane for republicans who complain for four years about harry reid not having a budget and now we're not going to agree to conferees. that is beyond comprehension for me. that sentiment was seconded by lots of other republican senators. in fact, i think my colleagues know, i've heard from a lot of our house republican colleagues quietly, saying they're frankly embarrassed at the fact that the house republicans have refused to appoint conferees and take the next step in the budget process. we got to get our economy moving in full gear, the congressional budget office has told us that as a result of the sequester we're going to have 700,000 fewer jobs in this country. by the end of this calendar year. that it's going to reduce our economic growth by 1/3.

the budget conference is where we worked out our differences and try and remove the uncertainty in the economy. by not going to budget conference, let's be clear, what our republican colleagues are doing, they want to take us right up to the cliff of government shutdown in the beginning of october, next fiscal year. they're talking about once again rolling the dice and playing a game of chicken as to whether or not the united states pays its bills on time. that is no way for the federal government to conduct itself. so, i would ask my colleagues to put aside all the gamesmanship and simply today appoint conferees so that we can begin to work out these issues on the budget. right now, as we head into the ext school year, the kids of our soldiers who are at fort bragg are going to miss five days of school this fall because , eir teachers are sequestered

they're going to be furloughed for five days this fall. these are the kids of men and women fighting to defend this country. that is wrong. so let's get on with replacing the sequester in a smart way, but you can't do that unless we get on with the budget conference. so, i ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can go to conference. i thank the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, it's always great to hear from mr. van hollen. he's been in front of the rules committee i think half a dozen imes on this particular issue. but that's not the issue we're talking about today. today we're talking about a rule to bring forward two bills and one is the appropriations bill for the defense of this country. i appreciate his comments but, you know, he also forgets to mention that in the last congress, this house passed two

pieces of legislation to actually do what he was talking about doing. and guess what? it went over to that place where they have rocking chairs, where they do nothing. and they didn't discuss it, didn't debate it, didn't even send it back to us because they just didn't have the time to do it in their busy schedule. so i understand that. i would be glad to yield 30 seconds. mr. van hollen: look, as the gentleman knows, we're in a new congress right now. and in the new congress, the rules, the law requires that we pass a federal budget by april 15. we're obviously way overdue. it's undisputed that the senate passed a budget. why not go to conference? nunal new jersey reclaiming my time -- mr. nugent: reclaiming my time. you brought up about shutting the government down. that's your words, not ours. i don't think you've heard that at all from this side. about not shutting the government down, it's about passing 12 appropriation bills that's really what we're

supposed to be doing. and we're committed to doing that. we don't want to see a government shutdown. that was the last thing and i think by our intentions about bringing appropriations bills to this house, shows in fact that that's not the intent and that's not the desire. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. just to build on what my colleague, mr. van hollen, was talking about, the reason why we're so frustrated over here is because it seemed that the republican leadership here is hell bent on doing nothing. stopping everything. we have 16 legislative days left until the end of the fiscal year. you've only passed three appropriations bills. no conference on the budget. now the house passed a budget and the senate passed a budget. we have a debt limit looming which i hear rumors that you're trying to figure out, you know, what pound of flesh that you can obtain in order to avoid us

defaulting on our financial obligations. this is not the way to run a government. and i would just plead with my colleagues on the other side that you need to get serious about sitting down and negotiating out differences. one of the things about a conference is you don't get everything you want and they don't get everything they want. but these appropriations bills that you are bringing to the floor, the allocations are so low that they're unamendable on the house floor. and they would do great damage to our economy. this t-hud bill which i don't think will ever see the light of day any more than the ag appropriations bill, but the cut notice community development block grants, you have the program, you cut in half, the desk station on cities all across -- the devastation on cities all across this country and communities all across this country would be so bad, people are going to lose jobs. the gentleman from maryland talked about the furloughs.

people losing their jobs because of the sequester. aunds sit back and say, oh, -- and you sit back and say, oh, it's not our fault. this is the body that voted for it. the people of this house voted for it. i didn't. but the majority of my friends on the other side voted for sequester. it is now the law of the land. that's part of what congress did. congress has to change the law. so we got our economy back on the right track. and one way to begin is to do what you're supposed to do and go to conference with the senate on the budget. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair will remind all members of the house it's central dequorum in the house, members are to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: may i ask the gentleman how many more speakers he has? mr. nugent: i have none. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from massachusetts has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from florida has 16 minutes remaining. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i don't have a problem within this rule. i have a problem with what's been left out of the rule. we have some serious issues to discuss. the n.s.a. surveillance program, limited debate in this rule. we need to talk about syria, whether we're going to get sucked into another war. multiple amendments were offered, all of them were denied except one that basically reinstates current law. there are issues about egypt that ought to be discussed on the floor. and i hear my colleagues say, oh, these are sensitive issues, we shouldn't talk about them on the floor, then where should we talk about them? this is the appropriate bill to talk about those things. yet many of these amendments were not made in order. that's why an open rule would have been more appropriate. and in terms of debate, i don't know why we have to limit debate on issues like the national

security -- on the n.s.a. down to, you know, 15 minutes apiece. everybody's concerned about this. i would close, mr. speaker, by again urging my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question so we can offer an amendment to allow mr. van hollen's language to be made in order, that the republican leadership agreed to go to a conference with the senate over the budget. this sequester and these budget numbers that you are bringing to the floor on these various appropriation bills are destructive. you are hurting the -- my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are hurting this economy. this gamesmanship that my friends on the other side are playing is doing great damage to this country. we have to stop this. we have to be grownups here and do what we're supposed to do and the most important thing that can happen right now given the fact there's only 16 legislative days left at the end of this fiscal year is for my friends on the other side of

the aisle to go to conference on the budget and work out a deal so that we don't have these devastating cuts that will impact every city and town in this country, that will throw tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people out of work, that will do further damage to our infrastructure. you know, national security means the quality of life that people have here in the united states. it means whether they have good health care, good education, whether they have good roads and safe roads to drive on, whether they have a job. national security starts right here at home, and the numbers that my republican friends have been bringing to the floor in terms of allocation for these appropriation bills on domestic spending would be devastating to this economy. so i'd urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question and i urge a no vote on this rule. we should have an open rule where we can talk about all these major issues that are confronting our nation and the world.

with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: thank you, mr. speaker. i do appreciate the comments my friend from massachusetts have made in a lot of areas, particularly as it relates to the open rule. i do want to remind him, and i wasn't here in 2010, but the rules committee at that point in time -- and i know my good friend sat on that committee -- that that rules committee made a determination in regards to a structured rule. and that structured rule only allowed for 16 amendments to come to the house floor. out structured rule locked to of folks' idea as better the appropriations bill for the department of defense for that year. while this rule is not perfect, and i agree with my friend it's

not perfect but i do point out it does make over 100 amendments in order that are going to be debated here on this floor. amendment on syria. an amendment on egypt. two amendments on the n.s.a., which are appropriate to have a debate here. as we talk about authorization, particularly as we look at the n.s.a., that debate's going to come up in a very robust way because i truly believe that we need to have that. relates to it syria, i have three sons that currently serve in the united states military. the last thing i want to do is see us arm rebels where my sons may have to face those arms at some point in time. i've had sons deployed to iraq and afghanistan, and as a house, there are very few of us that served in the military in the same as it relates having our family members serve in harm's way. so i take it very, very right

to the heart that we want to make sure that we don't put our sons or daughters in any jeopardy, particularly as it relates to arming those we have no idea who they are. i think i've said enough, but my position on arming the syrian rebels, those we don't even know who they are or what we're doing in egypt or what's going to happen within the n.s.a. as it relates to our civil liberties here in the united states as american citizens, we certainly are going to address those issues as we move forward. mr. speaker, i support this rule and encourage my colleagues to do as well. as a father of three sons in the military, i'm disappointed we've gotten to this point where ideological factions have divided this house so deeply that we're forced to put a structured rule in place in order to simply consider a bill that funds our department of defense. and just to note, you know, two years ago when we were having this discussion, i got a call

from one of my sons who was deployed to iraq worried that his troopers were not going to get paid because that's what they were being told because of actions of this house. and the last thing is, when our sons and daughters go off to fight, the last thing they should have to worry about is how they're going to take care of the car payment or feed their children back here at home. they should have one focus and that's the fight ahead of them and returning back to their families and loved ones in the best possible condition they can be. to me -- these men and women are putting their lives on the line each day and we're playing politics with our national defense. but we can't put differences asidelong enough not to agree with a funding bill but to agree we should debate it at all.

when it comes to funding the pentagon, when it comes to funding our military, the issue at hand is too important to leave this subject to the political whims of select members who could tie up debate for days and end with irresponsible amendments that might ultimately put this nation and its citizens at risk because that's why we're here. that's why we've taken the three most hot button politicized issues and selected specific amendments that addresses each of these concerns while making in order every other amendment that otherwise -- that would not be otherwise be a subject to a point of order. i welcome debate on how we need to change the laws of this land. i'm an active proponent in having it. millions of americans, including me, are questioning many of the laws right now, especially when it comes to the use of military force and the powers given to the n.s.a. under the patriot act. it's clear. those are conversations that must happen in this forum here,

but we can't let it derail the basic funding of our troops and that's what it comes down to. this bill cannot possibly give the issues at hand the justice they deserve. it's only 10 minutes debate per amendment, it would cut short the conversation. although it's different than the normal appropriation process, this brings up h.r. 2397 under a structured rule. that said, the second half of the house resolution 312 is proof that this house is still dedicated to the open process. we fulfill our promise to both our constituents and ourselves by providing an open rule on transportation and housing appropriation. reminder to us that the defense bill is an example of extraordinary times calling for extraordinary measure. at the end of the day what's most important is we fulfill our core mission, and as anybody in the military would

tell you, sometimes we have to adapt. it's not perfect. we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, especially when we're talking about keeping our troops and our citizens safe. for that reason i'm proud to support the rule and i encourage all my colleagues to do the same. with that i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: all time having expired, the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess for a period of less than 15 minutes.

host: concerns did you bring to the president? guest: well, i get the overriding concern is addressing poverty in our country. and we've had for several years a proposal what's called 102030 that was created by jim clyburn in conjunction with charlie rangel and maybe one or two other members that would target funds, 10% of the new funding or program initiative to communities that had 20% or more higher poverty level for 30 or more years. and so that and other efforts to reduce poverty in our country, and bring more people into the middle class was probably the overriding issue, whether it was in making sure that any transportation

programs, those set-asides for minority and disadvantaged businesses stayed. whether it was talking about education and loans for students, which is another big issue. whether it was health care. all of it really came under eliminating poverty and providing opportunities and pathways out of poverty. host: did the president suggest what he might propose to address those concerns? guest: yes. i think he -- you know, he thought, for example, using a targeted approach to assess communities was a good approach. he agreed that the transportation provisions for minority and disadvantaged businesses was something that needed to be protected. the loans issue with the studentses with a little more complicated, but it was a major issue for members around the table. i think, you know, he understands the need to -- i mean, he's had a job agenda for

six years now, almost six years now, and we haven't implemented it so he understands the need to create job opportunities and economic opportunity and to make sure that those communities that need the most help get the most help. so i think he was very responsive. host: how would you describe the tone of that meeting? one publication notes it's been two years since he last met with the congressional black caucus, that the session lasted 90 minutes. describe the mood. guest: the mood was very -- there was no antagonism in the mood or anger over the two-year hiatus. we met with many members of his cabinet and his personal staff over the years. and there had been some individual discussions with individual members and the president. so it was a very open discussion, very friendly discussion and really looking forward to setting the stage for the c.b.c. and the

president working more closely together on issues. we don't always agree so it's very important for us to discuss some of the more sensitive issues that may be -- may be coming out of the white house or initiatives coming out of the white house before they come out so we can collaborate more on it. of course we discussed health care reform and the rollout of the provisions that are coming onboard next year. host: we'll talk about that. but on the economy, here are some headlines from "the new york times" this morning. for the administration, another try to put the economy at center stage. president obama will be going around the country to talk about the economy and it says, even -- he'll be first at knox college in illinois this wednesday to talk about a new catchphrase. middle out. in short, prosperity needs to come from the middle out rather than the top down. we heard him use this expression the other day when richard chord ray was approved by -- cordray was approved by

the senate to head the consumer financial protection bureau. it's something the president has road tested and will use a lot in this economic tour. were you briefed about this? what do you know about the middle out catchphrase? guest: i really hadn't heard that catchphrase before but i know the president has been very focused on providing opportunities to improve and support the middle class because he's always believed that if we focus on the middle class and we want to make sure that we also include the poor, that everyone will benefit including those at the top. trickle up lk about economics rather than trickle down economics. host: i want to show you the "washington post" editorial page about his race speech on friday. he missed an opportunity to preach personal opportunity.

he said the president could have said -- guest: well, the president speaks often about personal responsibility, but i think he took this opportunity to bring a certain sensitivity to this issue that people who are not african-american may not have, and to show the other side. and to try to bring more understanding to the reaction that we are having to the killing, the judicial process and the verdict.

but the president has -- sometimes being criticized for emphasizing personal esponsibility. i think it's an unfair criticism about this president. host: some of our callers here and we'll get back to some other issues. bill is up in massachusetts, republican caller. hi, bill. thank you, congresswoman -- host: delegate christensen. caller: i want to ask her if she's seen the bill o'riley talking points from last night? host: i have not. -- guest: i have not. host: and your point, bill? caller: you have to watch bill o'riley. he said it all last night. ost: about what, bill? caller: about everything you talked about, bill. host: we'll move on.

bobby is next in gifford, illinois. independent caller. hi, bobby. caller: hey, how are we doing today? guest: good morning. caller: i was wondering if the delegate could answer a couple questions for me. it seems that the race divide in the country is becoming wider and greater and i wonder if that has something to do when we have titles like the black caucus. if there is a part of congress that is called the white caucus there would be such an uproar. and with george zimmerman trial and the tragic death of trayvon martin, we keep ham -- reading about in the press that it is black and white. george zillerman is hispanic with african-american. he's biracial. we are taking advantage of every opportunity we can to

make race an issue, to talk about -- disenfranchised areas and groups and try to seek financial help for them using race as a key driving point. guest: well, we would wish that race was not an issue and that groups like the congressional black caucus did not have to exist to address issues of inequity that are based on race and ethnicity. also poverty. last night the c.b.c. was on the floor doing special orders and charlie rangel said to one of the younger members from new york that he had wished by the time hakeem jeffries came here that he would be able to say we did not need a black caucus any more but the needs still exist. we don't create the race issues. the race issues are there. it is our responsibility, it's the responsibility of all americans to address them. host: let's talk a little bit about your status in congress.

the previous caller referred to you as congresswoman. congressman. you're a delegate. explain what that means for those that are unfamiliar. guest: i'm sure that everyone in the district of columbia is familiar, but delegates represent the territories. it was an act of congress that allowed us to have representation in the congress around 1972. and we wrote in committee, we hold committee positions. we can chair subcommittees. even committees, it's possible for a delegate to chair a committee but mostly subcommittees but we don't vote in final passage. when the democrats are in the majority, we have all -- since 1992, i would believe, we have been able to vote in committee of the whole. as we can vote in committee i think it's just an extension of that to be able to vote in committee of the whole and to be able to vote on amendments to shape the final passage even if we don't vote on final

passage. host: you're serving in your ninth term representing the virgin islands. what are your concerns for your constituents? guest: top issues, energy issues. we have the highest per kilowatt cost for energy in the entire united states. i believe alaska may be higher, but the state subsidizes them. down to a certain level so our residential custom is paid 50.8 cents per kilowatt. and our residential -- our businesses about 54 cents per kilowatt. and that's five times the national average. so energy is a major, major issue. host: and can you explain why? guest: because we're 100% dependent on diesel. that's true for almost all of the territories with the exception of puerto rico which has already begun to diversify its energy sources. but we're working right now to change that to use some solar. of course we're islands and we

have an abundance of sunshine. so we're using some solar and we're also getting ready to transition to propane and later on to natural gas which is really the ultimate goal. but the logistics of getting the liquefied natural gas to the territory, storage and all of that would delay our ability to reduce the cost to our consumers. so probably by this time next year we expect to be utilizing more propane as well as solar and we're also going to be using some wind. but right now we are totally dependent on diesel. ost: jobless rate? guest: the jobless rate in the territory is somewhere around i think 12%. st. croix is where we have the highest jobless rate because our largest private employer, he oil refinery, closed last

year, early last year. and the job losses and the ripple effects through the community coupled with the higher cost of energy because the company provided diesel to our utility at a lower cost so the increased cost has really devastated the st. croix area and has had an impact across the entire territory. host: what is the economic picture of st. croix and other islands? the virgin we were talking earlier to our viewers, the city of detroit and the mismanagement there, filing for bankruptcy and possible federal bailout. guest: we do have -- we've been experiencing some shortfalls and we do have a deficit that's i think a little over $1 billion. and the government of the the n islands has across board cuts over two years, some layoffs, some reductions in

operating costs for many of our agencies. it's been a difficult couple of years for us, even before hovansa closed but since they closed it's really been worse. of course we depend a lot on tourism. we -- and our tourism has remained fairly stable. there have been some ups and been pretty stable and we're glad for that. host: sasha on twitter. what is the crime rate? st. thomas was the worse. now is it st. croix? guest: no. i think they are about equal. but the crime rate for the overall virgin islands is high. it is high. those are areas -- both puerto rico and us in the v.i. are working together to address it, of the crime issues. the influx of guns and drugs in our territory and the impact that has had. of course where you have a high poverty level and joblessness,

there's a fair amount of hopelessness. so that also contributes. host: we'll go to donna next. democratic caller. caller: hello. host: you're on the air. go ahead. guest: good morning. caller: well, i would like to know if the republican party can try to reverse the health care law by president obama and they are trying their best to defund it or get rid of it. they can't do that. guest: yes, i believe we are about the 38th try which is an exercise in futility. we knew when we passed the affordable care act that it was the best we could do at that time and that we would continue to work on improving it as we have had to do with medicare, medicaid, even the civil rights -- voting rights act and civil rights laws. but it was a great step forward. but we have not been able to do

that because the other side of the aisle has been intent on trying to repeal rather than continue to work -- >> and you can follow this online at croip.org. the house is gaveling back -- -span.org. the house is gaveling back in for votes. house resolution 312, and, adoption of the house resolution 312 if ordered. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 312 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 46, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2397, making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. and providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 2610, making

appropriations for the departments of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 229. the nays are 190. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the resolution -- the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been 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 will be 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 226. the nays are 194. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wolf: mr. speaker, i have a privileged report for printing under the rule. the clerk: report to accompany h.r. 2787, a bill making appropriations for the departments of commerce and justice, science and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the union calendar and ordered printed. oints of order are reserved.

for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i present a privileged report for printing under the rule. the clerk: report to accompany h.r. 2786, a bill making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for what purpose does -- and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 21 of rule 21, points of order are reserved. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that i may hereafter be considered the first sponsor of h.r. 1012, a bill originally introduced by representative markey of massachusetts, for the purposes of adding co-sponsors and requesting reprinting. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and their remarks include extraneous material on the consideration of h.r. 2397 and that i may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 312 and rule 18, the chair declays the -- declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for h.r. 2397. the chair appoints the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. miller, to preside over the ommittee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2397 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. chilly pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from florida, mr. young, and the gentleman from indiana, mr. visclosky, will each control 30 minutes, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida. chairman, i am yield myself five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: the subcommittee has produced this bill after months of bipartisan cooperation, months of hearings and months of classified briefings and we present a bill that today that , $3.4 illion dollars billion below the c.b.o. estimate of the president's

request and approximately $28.1 billion above the estimated sequestration level. for overseas contingency operations, o.c.o., it includes $85.8 billion which is $1.5 billion below last year's level. we have worked closely with all parties. mr. visclosky has been involved in every step of the way on producing this legislation. our committee staff has done a tremendous job for the subcommittee. just some highlights of the bill. $580 million -- to authorize the military pay raise. $36 million to fully fund the

anticipated fuel costs. $950 million to fully fund the second virginia class submarine. $922 million to restore facility sustainment, modernization and restoration funding. and $692 million for military medical research, including $246 million for cancer research and $125 million for traumatic brain injury. during the next couple of days, we are going to consider 100 amendments, so everybody be prepared. it's going to be a long day and long night and madam chair, to get us started off on the right track, i am going to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: madam chair, i yield myself such time as i may

consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: i would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to chairman young and to congratulate him on the bipartisan and transpart manner in which he's crafted the fiscal year 2014 defense bill. i also want to express my gratitude to chairman rogers, ranking member lowey and all of the members of the defense subcommittee for their efforts. we would not be here today but for their outstanding effort. would also note that this will be the last defense appropriation bill we bring to the floor with the membership of mr. bonner from alabama. with his leaving this institution, we are losing a very serious and thoughtful member who has worked every day to leave the world better and certainly want to recognize his individual contribution.

the bill also could not have been written without the dedication, hard work and sound judgment of the staff that mr. young has already referenced. i do want to thank tom mclemore, sherry young, jennifer miller, walter hern, paul terry, b.g. wright, brook -- andrea rece amsey, maureen, paul jola, rebecca, kent clark, michael and joe. the bill at hand is fundamentally aimed at restoring readiness and training for the services, two areas that have suffered greatly. while chairman young has noted that the bill's $212 billion in funding is approximately $28 billion more than the fiscal

year 2013 postsequestration. it does contain a number of significant reductions. the bill cuts $617.8 million from the joint strike fighter program to address unjustified cost growth and unjustified concurrencey estimates for the program. it cuts another $112 million due to an overstatement of army travel requirement. the bill rescinds $443 million for c-27-j aircraft. the bill contained a significant amount of language and robust funding for initiatives to respond to sexual assault in the armed services. sexual assault in any circumstance is unacceptable and maddening. the fact it is prevalent within the military is even more so because of the standard to which our men and women in uniform hold themselves. these are individuals who are committed to give their last full measure of devotion to our nation, who in order to be

effective to unconditionally -- in order to be unconditionally trusting of each other. though i strongly support the efforts contained in this bill, they are aimed mainly at offender accountability and caring for victims. even though a comprehensive solution to this issue lies outside the services, it is imperative that the proper attitudes and training start during the recruitment process for the officers enlisted and continue throughout each service member's career. i would also note that the bill includes $20 million above the request for suicide prevention and outreach, consistent with the funding level of the past two years. suicides are another disheartening problem within the services, especially given the emphasis that the department and congress have placed on the issue over the past few years. but money is not the only solution. we need to spend the appropriated dollars as wisely and as effectively as possible. i was taken aback in a hearing

earlier this year to learn that the navy has a collection of 123 programs aimed at addressing suicide and resiliencey. while i'm sure that each one of these programs is well-intentioned, the -- it creates confusion. to their credit, the navy is in the process of implementing task force recommendations to dedicate more resources to the programs that truly work. additionally, i would like to express my support for a solution that benefits all future users of the integrated electronic health record program. i am proud of the efforts of our subcommittee and the military construction and veterans affairs subcommittee to have this long-awaited improvement for medical care for our still serving military service members and their families. the cooperation between our subcommittees and with our corresponding authorization committees demonstrates the importance congress places on the issue. i am pleased that the bill

report contains provisions that enhance oversight at the department. the office of the inspector general is funded at $347 million which is nearly $35 million above the administration's request. this plays a vital role in moving the department towards audible financial statements which are long overdue and which i attach great importance to. also, while the committee increased funding relative to the budget request for environmental cleanup at formally used defense sites, this increase is accompanied by additional reporting requirements. in the same vain as my prior comments, the money in this program must be spent more effectively going forward to ensure that we complete cleanup projects, not just continue them. regarding missile defense, the bill increases advanced procurement funding for additional ground-based interceptors. this funding is accompanied by a requirement to document the adequacy of the testing plant

for the ground-based interceptors. in light of the program's recent test failure, i continue to be very concerned about the concurrencey of this program. i believe it is essential to maintain rigorous standards to ensure that the weapons we pursue are fully developed before we begin fielding them and once fielded that these weapons effectively perform their missions. further, we should review to determine the cause of the atest test failure and understand that if this program needs to be changed we should re-evaluate our needs in conference. there are a few provisions i have concerns with. in particular, the three general provisions regarding detainees at guantanamo bay. i believe that the continued operation of guantanamo bay reduces our nation's credibility and weakens our national security by providing

terrorist organizations with recruitment material. i do regret that this bill and other relevant appropriation bills continues to thwart any attempts to close guantanamo by prohibiting viable alternatives. further, i am concerned that the bill essentially prohibits a bay raise for civilian employees at the -- pay raise for civilian employees at the department of defense. we rely on department of defense civilians working side-by-side with our military personnel to perform vital logistics, maintenance and acquisition services and provide many other essential services within the department. even a modest raise that maintains pay equity between military and civilian personnel is good for them. in looking ahead, i am concerned that if the shadows of the future remain unaltered we will experience serious problems ensuring the continued defense of our nation. todd harrison at the center of strategic and budgetary

assessment has noted rather than getting larger and more expensive over the past decade, the military has simply grown more expensive. this reality makes our future choices even more difficult and it is imperative that congress joins with the department in working through these decisions at arm's length and also as a partner. the department of defense did recommend some very difficult reductions in the budget submitted to us earlier this year as they have done in previous years. . we as legislators can no longer reject those recommendations because they affect a specific company, specific region of the country, or are simply not the most politic of choices to be made. our military is at a familiar crossroad. as the end of combat operations near. the additions and subtractions to defense funding made today must be carried out with an eye

toward the future, with a sense of the strategic impact on america's future ability to muster a force capable of successfully defending and protecting our country. in closing, i again want to reiterate my appreciation to chairman young for his cooperation. and assistance in addressing the interest we have expressed. he and his staff have ensured that the committee continues its long tradition of operating collaboratively and effectively and transparently. i am pleased we are finally considering this bill on the floor and look forward to the debate. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: madam chairman, first i would like to thank mr. visclosky for his much more detailed description of this legislation. and i now yield to the chairman of the full committee on appropriations, who has strongly committed to making sure that we pass all of our appropriations bills, mr.

rogers, for five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized -- kentucky is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: big difference. thank you, madam chairman. thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding this time. of course i rise in support of this the d.o.d. appropriations bill. the bill provides more than $512 billion in base funding for our national security and military efforts, and $85.8 billion in overseas contingency operations war funding. this is a base funding decrease of $5.1 billion below fiscal 13, but is about $28.1 billion above the current level caused by automatic sequestration spending cuts. this total reflects an appropriate thorough analysis of what is needed to keep this country safe. freedom isn't free.

our liberties, our rights, our property are preserved by our national defense but at a cost. sufficient funding for the pentagon and our military is of the utmost importance to the continued prosperity of the united states of america. it is and should be our top priority. we have already seen the distressing toll that the heavy-handed, indiscriminate cuts of sequestration have taken on our military. from grounded planes to reduced training time to postponed maintenance all of which contribute to the loss of readiness of our troops. and as we saw all this month, as department of defense civilian furloughs began, our economy is also taking a significant hit. the funding level in this bill strikes a balance between fiscal responsibility and

sufficient support for our military. within this total we prioritize funding to advance our missions abroad, to prepare and equip our troops, and to ensure the readiness and effectiveness of our military. this includes adequate funding to purchase the equipment, weapons, and vehicles needed to keep our military protected at the ready and able to conduct successful operations. the bill also provides funding for ongoing operations and maintenance of military facilities, fundamental to the successful missions of our armed forces. and essential fund something provided to develop new defense technologies, to advance the success of current military operations, and to plan for whatever new threats may arise in the future. a well equipped military is not as effective without strong and

well prepared troops. this funding supports readiness programs that prepare our troops for both combat and peacetime missions, giving them flight time and battle training. in addition, the bill funds the authorized 1.8% pay raise for the military, above the 1% the president requested. to keep our troops healthy before and after battle, the defense health program receives an increase above last year's level, funding medical facility upgrades, traumatic brain injury, and psychological health research, and suicide prevention outreach. the bill also addresses what has been a black mark on our military, madam chairman, the problem with sexual assault. the legislation fully funds sexual assault prevention and response programs, and adds $25 million in funding for sexual assault victim assistance.

to preserve trust in our military and ensure that members of our armed forces are not sacrificing more than they already have to serve the nation. but a balanced budget, one that does not put us into massive debt to other governments or threaten our economic stability, is also paramount to our national security. even these critical national security programs cannot spend precious tax dollars unchecked. the bill is implemented, commonsense reductions wherever possible, including rescinding unused prior year funding, nicsing a proposed civilian -- nixing a proposed civilian pay raise, and saving $1 billion in excess funding. we also prohibited funding to modify facilities in the u.s., to house guantanamo detainees, or to allow their transfer into the u.s. or its territories. when all is said and done, this bill cuts more than $5 billion

below last year's elected level, but i must emphasize that these reductions will in no way harm or negatively effect our national defense or the troops that fight to protect this free contry. madam chairman, some will complain that the bill breaks the cap placed on defense spending under the sequester level for fiscal year 2014, put into place by the budget control act. to this i say, of course it does. mr. chairman i ask for an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. young: an additional two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional two minutes. mr. rogers: of course it does. this massive irresponsible dangerous reduction to defense spending under the sequestration cap is completely beyond the pail -- pale. for example, if nothing is done to cancel the next round of sequestration cuts scheduled to take effect when the congress

adjourns, this bill would be cut to a total of $468 billion. so before i close, madam chairman, i'd like to take this time to thank the venerable chairman of this committee, subcommittee, bill young. he's a national asset. and he has shown again the skill that he has in putting together a great bill. and to mr. visclosky, thank you for being a great partner to our chairman and throughout this process. and to the staff and the entire subcommittee members, without your hard work we would not floor.is bill on the i salute you and endorse this bill wholeheartedly. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i yield such time as she may consume to the ranking member of the appropriations committee, mrs. lowey. the chair: the gentlelady from norked is recognized for as much time as she may consume.

mrs. lowey: i thank chairman young, ranking member visclosky, chairman rogers for working across the aisle on the bill before us today in keeping with the defense subcommittee as' -- subcommittee's long bipartisan tradition. i also want to recognize and thank the defense subcommittee staff for working tirelessly on the nuts and bolts of this bill. sadly, however, the appropriations process has become a quandary that could easily have been avoided with good old-fashioned compromise. house we have disparate and senate allocations, house bills follow the ryan budget, which endorses sequestration, is unrealistic, unworkable, and economically misguided. while the senate and white house budgets are based on the higher level agreed upon in the budget control act. with only 18 days of session

left in the house before the end of the fiscal year, we are racing toward a government hutdown that is irresponsible. assuming the sequester is turned off, this is a good bill. it includes additional funding and tougher penalties to address the epidemic of sexual assault plaguing our military active duty or pay by 1.8%, enhancements to embassy security by increasing e presence of marine corps security guards, substantial investments in health services and suicide prevention, maintenance of all the national guard weapons of mass and continued support to the israeli cooperative program. however the bill also contains

serious shortcomings. july 8 i was in my district in new york where 48 of the more than 600,000 defense civilian employees nationwide are being furloughed. 20% ill lose $2,706, reduction to their fourth quarter earnings. on top of three years without a pay increase. yet this bill does nothing to fix the pay freeze or furloughs resulting from the sequester. in fact, the majority simply ignores sequestration when it suits their purpose, including n the spending allocations for milcon-va, homeland security and defense bills, while the republicans are steadfast in sticking to the postsequester overall discretionary

allegations they included in the ryan budget. they are comfortable breaking the budget control act's cap on defense spending by $47.7 billion. of course they may not tell you that unless we end the sequester on january 15, those funds will be lost. creating a gaping whole in the defense budget. and they don't have the courage of their convictions to admit that breaking the defense cap further shortchanges vital domestic priorities like medical research, head start, teachers for military families, energy efficiency, disaster preparedness, and other vital investments all of which create jobs. we have already achieved $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction nce 2011, including $1.5 trillion in discretionary cuts.

it's time for congress to buckle down to reach a bipartisan agreement to replace sequestration with a balanced approach that protects critical services and investments. as i did for milcon-va and homeland security, i support the overall funding level in defense because it's written as though congress will turn off sequestration as we should, but on the remaining bills, as with the energy and water bill, i will not support slashing investments in our families and work force. if we are to remain a global leader, we need a strong national defense and a strong economy. to the ou again chairman and the ranking member who have worked so hard in a bipartisan way maintaining the tradition of this committee.

and as we move forward, i do hope that we can go to conference and work together with the senate to come up with bill that can really pass and it sequestration being eliminated, thank you. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: madam speaker, i'm very pleased to yield four minutes to the very distinguished member from new jersey, important member of our subcommittee, mr. frelinghuysen. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for four minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair, mr. chairman, thank you for yielding me the time. i rise in strong support of our defense appropriations bill. under chairman young's leadership and collaboration and strong support from mr. visclosky, our committee held lengthy series of hearings examining various topics from

operations in afghanistan, the so-called pivot to the asia pacific, the army and navy need or modernization, navy shipbuilding, military health care, acquisition reform, sexual assaults, among other important issues, and of course the impact of the sequester, negative impact. the new strategic guidance from the department of defense, protecting our gains as well as preparing for current and future threats. china's growing military capability, continued uncertainty in north korea and that peninsula, the destabilizing civil war in syria, iran's race to develop nuclear weapons capability and their threats to close the straits of hormuzz and others. our -- hormuz and others. our goals is to support the war fighters now and in the future. whenever the next crisis arises. mr. speaker, our subcommittee, like other appropriation

subcommittees, clearly recognize the nation's debt and deficit and found areas in programs where reductions were possible without adversely impacting our armed forces and our modernization efforts. frankly, it is important that we find savings without harming readiness or increasing the risk incurred by our war fighters. under chairman young's leadership, our committee had a close examination of military needs and the very necessary oversight. so our legislation before us includes funding for critical national security and intelligence needs. based on a very strong hearing process. in addition, the bill provides essential funding for health and quality of life programs for all of our men and women in uniform. all volunteers and their families. they deserve nothing less. i want to thank the chairman, the ranking member for their leadership. i strongly support the bill and

yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: madam chair, i'd yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: and doing so would want to recognize the gentleman from california, mr. arr, to enter into a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. farr: thank you very much, madam chair. mr. chairman, i rise to strike the last word and wish to engage in a colloquy of the gentleman from indiana regarding timelessness, ackrassly and review of security clearance processing. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. -- as the 'd chairman is aware, security clearances are necessary to protect our national security and are required for thousands of jobs. however, the length of time to conduct the investigations, the

quality of the investigations and the continuous review of approved security clearances are three areas that could be improved. i believe that there is a solution to all three of these concerns, and it involves the leveraging of automated investigation tools already in existence. the defense department has within its subordinate activities the defense personnel security research persra.known as it has developed a number of tool sets that can reduce the time it takes to adjudicate investigations, to grade the quality of the investigations, to measure the human error and to provide a way to monitor and reaffirm granted clearances based on analysis of human behavior. these computer programs could dramatically increase the

quality of the investigation while at the same time saving money and short shortening the time it -- shortening the time it takes to security clearances. these tools are already available today, but they have not been leveraged. instead, the majority of security clearances are being investigated by analogue adjudication process that just doesn't reflect the best research and development readily available to the department of defense. i greatly appreciate the chairman and ranking member of the defense subcommittee having included within the report nguage encourage the department of defense and office of management and budget for the security clearance process. would my colleagues agree that the security clearance process should incorporate proven tools

that ensure increased efficiency and quality? mr. visclosky: i would note to the gentleman from california, regarding security clearance processes for the department of defense and intelligence communities, i appreciate him bringing to our attention that the department can increase the timeliness and quality of investigations and reinvestigations by using defense personal security research center tools. mr. farr: i thank the gentleman or his response. mr. young: will the gentleman from california yield? mr. farr: yes. mr. young: i appreciate his proposed solution. in finding ways to address this issue. like my good friend from indiana, i agree that we should work with our friend, mr. farr, to ensure that the department of defense and the director of national intelligence in leveraging the security learance research to improve

the provision -- speed of investigations and that is exactly why we included it in ur report. mr. farr: thank you for your friendship, leadership and cooperation. mr. visclosky: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: madam chairman, i yield to mr. turner of ohio three minutes for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman from ohio three minutes. mr. turner: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you entering in a colloquy. i want to speak about the abrams tank. the appropriations committee has wisely included funding in the last two years for continuing to upgrade the abrams tank. that action kept the abrams production line warm and preserved a critical industrial capacity. however, there is no funding, as i understand it, in the f.y. 2014 defense appropriations bill for additional tank

upgrade. mr. young: madam chairman, the gentleman is correct. the administration's budget request for fiscal year 2014 includes no funds for the reduction of abrams tanks, and the committee bill provides none. the army is only now adoctorsing the funds added for fiscal year 2013 and production actually a-2's will continue into december of 2014. mr. turner: i understand both the administration and others believe that foreign military sales alone may be sufficient to keep this production line running. those sales have not yet materialized and i am concerned that we are risk a critical national asset depending on foreign military sales. mr. young: military sales have help sustained a warm tank production line. it is very likely that sales

will continue to play an important part in sustaining the tank line. mr. turner: i understand that the committee intends to wait until the army announces its force structure changes and then the need for upgraded tanks. while i respect that position, i think whatever changes the army makes we will still need to keep that smaller force as effective as possible. a way to ensure that is to provide that all armor brigade crews with tanks. mr. young: madam chair, i appreciate the points made by my colleague. we will continue to review the tank in both the active army and the army national guard. we intend to relook at additional abrams upgrades as we move forward in the appropriations process. benefit of the more complete information on foreign military sales and the army's force structure

analysis, protecting the industrial base will remain a critical issue. mr. turner: mr. chairman, i thank you for your continued interest and support on this matter and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio yields back his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i'd reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. he gentleman from florida. mr. young: madam chairman, i yield three minutes to mr. bishop for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for three minutes. mr. bishop: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i know my friend from florida shares my concerns regarding our nation's nuclear deterrence and particularly in preserving the sea base leg of the nuclear submarine he triad 2 ballistic launch missiles which is on the ohio class ubmarines.

the submarines is planned through service of 2032. it is expected to remain viable much longer and will see rvice on the replacement platform. i hope the chairman agrees. mr. young: i do agree and the gentleman is correct. mr. bishop: the original design of life of the d-5 missile rocket motors was 25 years. some of the currently deployed motors are reaching that age and the missile requires a life extension to maintain viability. does the chairman agree that the life extension program of the d-5 missile is critical to ensure the missile will remain the highest level of reliability for as long as our nation requires it? mr. young: i'd tell the gentleman that i do agree. i would add that the ending of the space shuttle program has lso exaser baited the hardship of the industrial base and the d-5 program is now cornerstone of the nation's solid rocket motor production. i feel that it is essential that the navy sustain a steady

production rate of 12 rocket motors per year as a minimum level to ensure that replacement motors are available to replace aged out motors as well as to keep this unique and highly skilled engineering and work force viable into the future. the industrial base has done a herculean effort in downsizing and becoming more efficient in the face of the declining workload as enhanced by the attractive pricing they provided the navy on a recent motor contract. i will work to ensure that the navy has sufficient funding to maintain at least the minimum production required to sustain this critical industrial base. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman and compliment him for his great work on this issue and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from utah yields back his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i'd reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from

indiana reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: we have no further speakers, madam chairman. so i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: we have no further speakers and i would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: madam chairman, i'm happy to yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back his time. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. and the bill shall be considered as read through page 157 line 2. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in the house report 113-170. the amendment described in section 2 of house resolution 312 and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of that resolution. each amendment printed in house report 113-170 may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only

by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as for shall be debatable the time specified in the report equally dwrided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before action thereon, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. after disposition of amendments printed in the house report 113-170 and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of house resolution 312, it shall be in order for the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee to offer an amendment reducing funding levels in the bill. it shall be in order at any time for the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in house report 113-170 not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees,

shall not be subject for amendment and shall not be subject for demand for division of the question. the original proponent of the amendment included in such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the congressional record immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc. after the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, there shall be in order a final period of general debate which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally divide and and the y the chairman ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. it's now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. walberg: amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. walberg of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: thank you, madam chairman. in light of recent ooh vents in benghazi -- events in benghazi and north africa, the pentagon approved the development of the ecial purpose marine air ground task force-crisis response under the african command. this task force is specifically tailored for crisis response in africa in april deployed to spain and italy. the unit is capable of responding to a wide range of military operations and will provide limited defense crisis response in support of embassies, support noncombatant evacuation efforts, provide humanitarian assistance and assist with disaster relief operations, search and rescue nd other missions as directed. as this force is ramping up, we need to make sure this mission is completely and adequately funded. with the rise of islamic

militant groups in mali, nigeria and somalia and continued unrest egypt, libya and algeria, the threat is real and growing. the committee has added funds for sustainment and follow-up deployments in fiscal year 2014. but there are substantial concerns that the need may be higher. funding for this force has not -- was not requested in the president's budget, but was included in the house-passed n.d.a. -- ndaa. i'm hopeful that in establishing a funding source and signaling congressional willingness to support this mission, the marine corps will be better able to assess their needs and provide us with a more exact funding request. to work towards a sure state of readiness, i'm offering this budget-neutral amendment to increase this funding by $10 million while reducing funding to the operations and maintenance defensewide account by $11 million.

during consideration of ndaa last month, an amendment was adopted by voice vote that would increase authorization for the crisis response force by a similar amount. to provide an additional military response in case of another benghazi-type situation, we must ensure that the special purpose marine, air, ground task force crisis response can properly respond to threats to our diplomatic posts in an expeditious manner. and with that i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida -- the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. young: for reasons that the gentleman has already outlined, the committee had already added $30 million for the special purpose crisis response teams, as well as an additional $35 million for the new marine corps

embassy security program. the gentleman is exactly right, we're not doing enough on this issue and we are certainly in support of his amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time florida yields back. any other member? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the ayes have it, he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. delaney: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number printed in house report 113 -- 2 printed in house report 113-170.

for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. delaney: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. delaney of maryland. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from maryland, mr. delaney, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. delaney: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself two minutes. my amendment responds to a common dilemma facing our military families. a dilemma that is deeply unfortunate but easily solvable. when our war fighters and veterans head to the hospital, their families often face a choice between being there or paying their bills. this means that too often our military heroes are in the hospital alone without the support of their family. they deserve better. this amendment will increase funding for fisher houses which provides free housing for the families of patients receiving care at military and v.a. hospitals. this additional funding is offset by our corresponding

reduction to the defensewide operation and maintenance account. thanks to fisher homes, when our heroes are in the hospital, their families have a place to stay. thanks to fisher homes, when our military families need our support, we lend them a helping hand, a home away from home. this program is not only compassionate, but it's cost effective. since 1990, over 180,000 families have been served by fisher house, saving military families over $200 million. however, you can't put a price tag on the emotional, psychologicalal and spiritual value -- psychological and spiritual value these homes provide. after two years we have seen resources strained and backlogs developed. we can't expect better results without improving our support structure. this amendment would lead to the construction of at least four new fisher homes next year, four new homes means lodging for 2,000 military family members. that's 2,000 sons, daughters, wives, husbands, brothers,

sisters that can be by the side of our military heroes during their most significant time of need. no veteran, no service member, should head to the hospital alone. i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: i would claim the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: the fisher house program is one of the real success stories. it was initially started by mr. zach fisher and after his death, the family continued. the need was so great at the military hospitals, but also at the v.a. hospitals, there were no fisher houses. and so the program was expanded. and we increased our involvement, the congress had not been involved up to this point. but congress appropriated money

and we we've been appropriating -- and we've been appropriating $4 million a year to add to the fisher foundation for the purpose of the fisher houses. we also allow for $11 million for transfers to the fisher house operations. as i said again, it's a real success story. and while it's additional money, we're happy to support the gentleman's amendment and make sure that the fisher houses ontinue. the chair: the gentleman from florida controls the time. the gentleman from florida controls the time. mr. young: who has the time? the chair: the gentleman from florida controls the time. mr. young: i yield to mr. visclosky. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman yielding. i do not rise to oppose the

gentleman's amendment. but to cast a caution over the expenditure of the proposed funds. the bill contains $4 million and this is a phenomenal program, i am not in any way suggesting otherwise. but the gentleman's amendment is quadrupling funding in one year for this project from $4 million to $20 million. so i would hope that the people that are running this program understand in a time of great fiscal constraint they better bury -- very carefully, effectively and wisely spend this additional money that i'm not objecting to, but very , $4 rned about quadrupling million that is already in the bill for a very good program, and i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. mr. young: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back.

the gentleman from maryland. mr. delaney: i'd like to yield one minute of my time to the gentlelady from nevada. the chair: the gentlelady from nevada is recognized for one minute. ms. titus: thank you, madam chairman. i rise in support of the delaney amendment. as a member of the house veterans affairs committee, i understand the important role that the fisher house plays in supporting members of our armed services, our nation's veterans, and their families. in southern nevada, a brand new v.a. hospital opened recently to ,000 veterans who live in our area. just north of the hospital there is land that has already been dedicated to a brand new fisher house. i support this amendment because it will allow fisher house foundation to build an extra four houses this year, including the one in las vegas, helping an extra 2,000 families. the fisher house foundation received an a-plus rating from the american institute of philanthropy so we know our money is being used efficiently and effectively to make a meaningful difference in the lives of our heroes and their families. i look forward to a day when

members of the armed services and our veterans will all have their families close to them as they receive the medical care at these facilities, including the new hospital in las vegas. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. delaney: i appreciate the comments of my colleagues and the support of my colleagues. i have no other comments, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time and the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the ayes have it, he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in . use report 113-170 for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recing his -- seeks remain recognition? ms. gabbard: thank you, i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-170 offered by ms. gabbard of hawaii. the chair: pursuant to house 312, the gentlewoman from hawaii and a member opposed each will control five minutes. ms. gabbard: thank you very much, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. gabbard: the u.s. navy has acknowledged a growing problem that threatens its dominance at sea. its strike reach is sthrinking and aging while potential enemies' attack reach is growing and modernizing. we recognize this most specifically within the asia-pacific region. it's because of this growing recognition that the navy's exploring new weapons in order to successfully execute our strategic rebalance of military assets to the asia-pacific region. a longstanding navy urgent operational need statement and related intelligence estimates detail a troubling capability and readiness gap that have compelled the deputy secretary of defense to direct accelerated development of an over the

horizon surface warfare missile that can be launched from aircraft or surface vessels and strike well-defended, moving maritime targets. currently surface-launched anti-ship missiles face the growing challenge of penetrating sophisticated enemy air defense systems from long range and present the potential for large no-go zones which deny the navy access in key conflict areas. the military expects our adversaries will continue their development of increasingly sophisticated anti-access area-denial capabilities that are able to jam or destroy g.p.s. systems which guide our missiles. this clearly highlights the need for the offensive anti-surface warfare weapon, as well as the long-range anti-ship missile which has the requirement of detecting and validating the target that it was shot at. in authorizing the full request in the president's budget, the house armed services committee noted the need for a new

generation of anti-ship weapons capable of penetrating sophisticated enemy air defense systems from long range and said such a capability is even more relevant today and is critical to meeting national security objectives and rebalance to the asia-pacific region. by providing these new capabilities, we allow our navy to safely engage and destroy high-value targets well beyond the potential counterfire range of the adversaries that they may face. i recently received a letter from admiral locklear, commander of u.s. pacific command, who is at the forefront of this rebalance to the asia-pacific region, noting the importance of these two weapons. he expressed deep concern about the reductions proposed by the defense appropriations subcommittee and said that such reductions will derail the efforts of to civic command to outpace -- pacific command to outpace an expanding threat, increasingly degrade our response options and potentially erode regional confidence in our commitment to the rebalance.

we can and must do all that we can to correct the significant strategic and operational risks that these budget cuts present at this critical juncture. i urge you to support the president's budget request as well as the authorization that the house armed services committee approved in order to keep this essential element of our asia-pacific rebalance on track for fielding. i look forward to working with my colleagues and ask for their support. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her ime. for what purpose does the entleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: i'd like a clarification. on the time issues, since the time is structured, is it possible for the person offering the amendment to reserve that

time when they haven't completed their statement? the chair: the gentlewoman may reserve. does the gentleman seek time in opposition? mr. young: ok. then i will claim the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: very simply, most of this money would be taken from the special operations command funding. it's not a good idea. because we're using the special operators more and more all the time. we are finding them involved in places where you might be surprised. and just don't think it's wise for us to be taking this funding .rom special operations special operations are the navy s.e.a.l.s and the special teams that go into difficult places. we prefer not to put a limitation that this amendment yield to e and i'll

mr. visclosky. mr. visclosky: my understanding s -- as well is that the new star proposed, and this is in you a star proposed for 2014, provided very little explanation or rationale and that's from the department of defense. and the committee recommendation was for a reduction because of the poor justification by the department itself. i think i'm correct in my nderstanding. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for his comment. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman yielding. mr. young: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back his time. the gentlelady from hawaii. ms. gabbard: yes, thank you, mr. speaker. a couple of points i'd like to clarify, this amendment proposes that the offset come from the defensewide account but makes up less than .5% of

the entire amount requested in funding for that. with regards to the justification for the timing of this issue, the letter from admiral locklear, which i will introduce into the record -- the chair: without objection. that will be covered under general leave. ms. gabbard: the contents of that letter recognize the effectiveness and necessity of these programs and are looking to really bypass normal acquisition process due to the urgent need they've identified there within the region which is why i'm strongly asking my colleagues to consider supporting this amendment. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from hawaii. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. gabbard: madam speaker. the chair: the gentlelady from hawaii. ms. gabbard: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6

of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from hawaii will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. grayson: amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. grayson of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. grayson: thank you, madam chairman. this amendment would increase the defense health program account by $10 million in order to fund a cure for gulf war illness. currently there is no cure for gulf war illness and it affects over a third of the veterans who served in the first gulf war. this amendment is identical to an amendment offered last year that passed this body by a voice vote, and according to the congressional budget office this amendment actually will

reduce total outlays by $1 million. veterans of the first gulf war suffer from persistent symptoms including chronic headaches, widespread pain, difficulties, debilitating fatigue, respiratory symptoms and other abnormalities which -- and veterans from the first gulf war age, they are twice as likely to develop lou gehrig's disease as their nondeployed peers. there also may be connections o multiple sdeler owe cisand parkinson's disease. -- multiple sclerosis and parkinson's disease. we have downplayed any neurological basis for this disease but research has shown unequivocally this disease is biological in nature. the me has come to right

wrong that our service men and women have had to live with this disease for over 0 years. in this department of defense appropriations bill we allocate more money for breast cancer, orthopedic and prostrate cancer research than we do for finding a cure for gulf war illness. equivalent funds were appropriated for ovarian cancer research. personally i think if we're going to spend money on medical research within the department of defense, the department must adequately fund research on those diseases that originate in war and wholly affect our servicewomen. the time has come to find and fund a cure for it. the offsets from my amendment today come from the $32 billion operations and maintenance defensewide account and that account is funded at $500 million above the amount in last year's d.o.d. appropriations bill. congress has the responsibility to ensure that the gulf war

veterans who put it all on the line and are paying for that with a lifetime of pain are not left behind. i urge my colleagues, including my esteemed colleague from florida, to support this amendment and to help find a cure for the gulf war illness. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognize mission? mr. young: madam chairwoman, i'd clean the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: although we're going to support this amendment from my colleague from florida, but i take this time to point out that we already included an additional $20 million for the program. the same amount that was . cluded in fiscal year 2013 prior to 2013, the subcommittee typically included $8 million to $10 million annually for

this program, but this bill this year for 2014 has an additional $20 million. but it's a serious issue and it's one that we can't take lightly, and so we do support the gentleman's amendment. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. grayson: i want to thank the gentleman from florida for accelerating the efforts to find a cure for this disease. i'm very grateful to him and so are thousands of veterans. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. and the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. israel: madam chair, amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. israel of new york. mr. israel: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the chair: without objection, pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from new york, mr. israel, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. israel: thank you, madam chair. i will be very, very brief. madam chair, this is a bipartisan amendment offered by my colleague from new york, the gentleman from the second congressional district, congressman peter king, and myself to transfer $10 million to mental health programs within the department of defense. it is fully offset. madam chair, 22 veterans every ay are committing suicide.

273,000 veterans have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury since 200, and the pace of posttraumatic stress disorder is going to require new thinking, new innovations, new technologies, new partnerships and new collaborations. that's exactly what this bipartisan amendment drafted by congressman king and myself does. it creates new public-private partnerships between the department of defense and teaching hospitals and research institutions for the research, the treatment and outreach on military mental health matters. this is not a matter of partisanship. this is a matter of doing the right thing for our veterans. it was my honor to work together on a bipartisan basis with the gentleman from new york, mr. king, and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: madam chairman, i

claim the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: actually, this moves money around within the defense health program for something that the committee has worked a long and hard time over the years dealing with the subject of traumatic brain injury and psychological health research. in fact, we included an additional $125 million in the bill above the president's request because of the importance of the issue that we're facing. we are seeing more and more cases of t.b.i., traumatic brain injuries, than we have expected, i believe. so we added the additional money that the gentleman's amendment would move around in the d.h.p., so we have no problem with this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana --

mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman's remarks. i would also mention to -- mr. young: i'd be happy to yield to the gentleman from indiana. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i simply appreciate having the time first of all to associate myself with the remarks that you have made on behalf of the gentleman's amendment. secondly, to note that as you point out the subcommittee done significant work and recognizes the problems we face and the commitment we need to make to the individuals that the gentleman is trying to help with his amendment. so again very much appreciate the gentleman's remarks as well as support for the issue in this particular amendment. mr. young: madam chair, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. israel: madam chair, i'd just close by thanking the gentleman from florida, the chair and the ranking member for their cooperation.

this amendment is so vitally important to those who are fighting for our freedom. in this amendment we protect the protectors and i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support for this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york and those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: madam chairman, pursuant to house resolution 312, i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: number one consisting of amendments of 6, 80, 81 and 8, 79, 82 printed in house report 113-

170 offered by mr. young of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from florida, mr. young, and the gentleman from indiana, mr. visclosky, will each control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the entleman from florida. mr. young: madam chairman, the en bloc amendments has been agreed to by the minority and the majority. they are noncontroversial amendments that cover topics such as suicide prevention, traumatic brain injury and national guard issues. the sponsors of the amendments have agreed to the amendments being considered en bloc, and i would ask for the adoption of this amendment and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i'd yield a minute to the gentleman from washington. the chair: the gentleman from

washington is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam chair. i thank the ranking member for the yielding. mr. kilmer: this is a troubling breakdown within the department of defense, how they collect and process their personnel data. our brave men and women deployed overseas needs assurance they are not worried about a foreclosure on their house, an outstanding credit card debt. we ask significant sacrifices from our troops and this is a helping hand. at a time when they're rightly focused on serving our nation. financial institutions are required by law to consult the department of defense's data system to validate service member's deployment. this system is called the defense manpower data center. i've heard from a number of stakeholder that it is riddled with inaccuracies because each service feeds the data in the database and much of it was

entered by hand with little to no quality assurance. obviously this creates significant -- a significant problem. we need financial institutions with accurate data. i'm extremely concerned about the reliability of this data for the purposes of the compliance and for that matter any other personnel process affected by the d.o.d. going forward i hope we can work together to address this serious data problem within the d.o.d. my amendment would cut $1 million to the defense human resources activity operation and maintenance defensewide account and reen certificates that funding into -- reinserts that funding into the exact same place with a study on how the defense human resources activity components and the c.i.o. identified catalog, process, communicate, rectify hen it's uploaded to the database. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from

indiana seek recognition? mr. visclosky: i'd be happy to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for ne minute. >> thank you. this would provide the department of defense the flexibility to train and equip wildlife reserve rangers to help combat elicit poaching across the african continent. poaching and wildlife tracting are not only a matter of conservation but a matter of international security. as the ranking member of the africa subcommittee, i'm deeply troubled by the damaging impact poaching has on the economic stability of african nations. ms. bass: during my travels, african heads of state and ambassadors have expressed that poaching erodes the tourism industry, public safety and regional security. various newspapers have reported that poaching and wildlife traffickers are more dangerous and militarized than ever before, with armed militias and

al qaeda affiliates fueling conflicts with the profits from poached ivory and other animal products. the department of defense can play a leading role in helping to provide the training required to protect wildlife and put an end to regional conflicts and instability fueled by poaching. training in reconnaissance, apprehension and effective field communication will better prepare park rangers. i look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member. i yield my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: continue to reserve. the chair: reserves his time. he gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: it does not appear that we have any other speakers on our side and i would be prepared to yield back my time. mr. young: also i am prepared to yield back. mr. visclosky: i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: yes, ma'am, i yield back. the chair: yields back his time.

the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the ayes have it, the en bloc amendments are agreed to. the chair understands that amendment number 7 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in ouse report 113-170. mr. langevin: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: i have an amendment at the desk, numbered 8 in the report. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. langevin of rhode island. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from rhode island.

mr. langevin: thank you, madam chair. before i begin, i want to first congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from florida, and the ranking member for their important work on this legislation. before us today. madam chair, it's no surprise to any of us that the united states navy, with its critical role in our national defense, faces ever-increasing global threats and a significant resource-constrained environment. technologies can be rapidly developed, demonstrated, evaluated and fielded to counter other nations' expanding capabilities and to extend the navy's research and persistence. reach in persistence. the advanced submarine systems development program supports innovative and promising underseas technologies, including unmanned undersea u.u.v.'s. uu --

however, under the current acquisition plan, the navy may not have new technologies it needs to meet requirements in this domain until after 2020. my amendment reduces the appropriation for operations and maintenance defensewide office of secretary of defense by $22 million and transfers this amount to the navy for the purpose of supporting advanced submarine systems development. this represents a funding increase to the level authorized by the armed services committee and this house in the fiscal year 2014 national defense authorization act. it has been scored as reducing outlays by $3 million by c.b.o. unmanned systems such as the predator in the air force provide increased performance for many missions and have truly revolutionized modern warfare. undersea vehicles can add significant capabilities to navy systems and platforms enact as a

multiplier for long endurance -- endurance, hazardous or high-threat missions. in response to a question i asked at a hearing earlier this year, before the armed service committee, navy secretary lehman stated that, and i quote, these underwater systems, u.u.v.'s and u.s.v.'s can be relatively more useful in undersea warfare than their airborne counterparts are to surface and air forces. while the navy recognizes the promise of these technologies at a time with shrinking budgets, new technologies without existing bureaucratic and industry supporters tend to suffer disproportion cuts and cancellations compared to programs with political and bureaucratic constituencies and must be actively protected by congress, end quote. so, with this, madam chair, support of this program will help accelerate the integration of u.u.v.'s and other undersea technologies and pay loads into the navy for the full spectrum

of military needs and potentially speed the eventual availability of these capabilities to civilian purposes such as energy exploration and monitoring, just as happened with aerial vehicles. my amendment accomplishes this in a fully competitive way, accelerating rather than disrupting the existing development process and enabling earlier support of operational needs. with that i urge support of this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island reserves his time. the gentleman from florida. for what purpose does he seek recognition? mr. young: as much as i want to support my friend's amendment, i can't. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: the money that he would use for a large part comes from the special operations command. and i just don't think that we can restrict them like some of the amendments that we're seeing

and their ability to move about the world as they have to move about the world. and do the exciting things that they do. but the gentleman's amendment adds $22 million to the $32 million that we already included for this program. and that is a $6 -- 63% spike in funding for fiscal year 2014. that makes it very difficult for the program managers or anybody involved with the program to assume a 63% increase -- means maybe a lot of new jobs this year, but then the next year they'd all be fired, laid off because the money is not there. this is not a consistent program. except for the 32 million -- $32 million that we have included in this bill. and so as much as i would like

to support his bill, his amendment, i really can't. i just don't think the program managers can handle a 63% increase in this -- frankly any program. so i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves his time. the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: thank you, madam chair. i appreciate the comments that the chairman just made. i just point out that in the defense authorization bill, this was authorized at the higher level and the information i have, the program managers said they could in fact absorb and make important use of these funds in speeding these technologies and enhancing our undersea capabilities. with that i would urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: i continue to reserve. the chair: continues to reserve. the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: i'm prepared to yield back. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 113-170 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and

a member opposed will each control five minutes. the air now recognizes gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairwoman and i'm hoping to convince my colleagues that, albeit what numbers you may have in this increasing and emerging epidemic of posttraumatic stress disorder, let me give a personal my y that comes by way of interaction often with veterans. and particularly a posttraumatic stress disorder center that we were able to fund in a hospital that previously had not had the ability to serve active duty soldiers and veterans. it's a small hospital off the campus of our main veterans hospital in houston, texas. but we established a posttraumatic stress disorder center there that allowed veterans who may not have traditionally been at the veterans hospital, not because they did not have benefits but for a variety of reasons, to

find a comfort place to be treated for their posttraumatic stress disorder. and they were not just veterans of the afghan and iraq wars, but these were ones from the persian gulf, from vietnam. and they could not thank the staff and could not thank the work that we had done to secure just a small amount of dollars which this amendment does. this takes a small amount of dollars from a very large funding for certainly a challenge, but it is one that i believe would benefit as we seek to create a better quality of life for our soldiers , wherever they might be, and $500,000ans, this is a deposit, if you will, on the high numbers of posttraumatic stress disorder. returning it in our

soldiers, i have seen it in our veterans and it is clearly something that is not going away. i think the pointed story that i want to share is how grateful this particular veteran was who said he had never been to treatment and his whole life had been turned around. his wife was there with him. she said they're lives have been turned around. so i want to tell my colleagues to consider the responsible approach we have taken for just this amount of money, to reinvisit in our very needy but deserving men and women who are both active duty and in the instance of the story i gave, because this facility was able to utilize tricare, they conserved act -- they can serve active duty and they can serve those who were veterans as well. so i ask the chairman and ranking member for their support along with our members. i'll reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her ime. for what purpose does the

gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: yeah, madam speaker, i claim the additional time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: the amendment -- i'm not exactly sure how it's targeted or how it would support -- 125 million increase increase already in this bill. ptsd is a serious issue. it's becoming more serious as time goes on. as our men and women return from the battlefield. and so we don't -- we understand the importance of the program and we did increase by $125 million and so this amendment i think is positive and i'm not ing to oppose it and i would -- i yield to mr. visclosky.

mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman yielding. and again would not be opposed to the gentlewoman's amendment but would want to make the observation, given the observation i made in my opening comments, that do i wish she had chosen a different account for the offset, but again would not be opposed to the -- amendment and i appreciate the chairman ielding very much. mr. young: ptsd is going to be with us for a long time because soldiers, men and women returning from the battlefield who believe they don't have ptsd or they don't want to admit to the fact they have ptsd, and i can certainly understand why they do not want that on their record, but nevertheless it is going to show up. and when it shows up we need to be prepared to care for those who have fought this battle, and so i support the gentlelady's amendment and i

yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back his time. the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: well, i'm overwhelmed and i'm very grateful to chairman young, my dear friend, who's done so much as well as the ranking member, likewise, for his great service. he's done so much. let me conclude by saying ptsd as both the chairman and ranking member have agreed is an invisible wound that you don't often see. one of the best ways to increase access to treatment is to increase the medical facilities and also the medical reach and medical prolvingsals. these -- professionals. these medical dollars, as i understand the intent of the chair and ranking member, will be used effectively. posttraumatic stress disorder is one of the most prevalent, devastating psychological wounds suffered by the great men and women. i ask my colleagues to support the amendment. i cha the chairman and i thank the -- i thank the chairman and i thank the ranking member. i yield back, madam chair. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas.

as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 113-170. and for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. blumenauer: madam chair, amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam chair. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment that i'm introducing with my colleague, ms. gabbard from hawaii, that would simply restore funding to the fiscal year 2013 levels for cleanup and safety in public areas. we take great pride in the united states and our military being the best trained and most

werful fighting force in the world. but decades of military operations and training have left a toxic legacy of dangerous explosives and harmful chemicals on millions of acres in this country. the department of defense has an obligation to remediate these dangerous areas often in public or residential areas in a timely fashion. this contaminated real estate ntains housing, schools, parks, playgrounds in every state and almost every congressional district in our country. to help the department of defense become a better partner for our communities and our constituents, i urge you to join me in supporting funding for a program that will employ skilled, high-tech companies to clean up these dangerous liabilities and create opportunities for economic development on land that is currently a danger. just last month at the height of the tourist season, maryland officials were forced to shut

down an area after a visitor noticed unexploded ordnance, u.x.o., had washed ashore. upon further investigation, they found hundredses of pieces of u.x.o. that were discovered and had to be detonated on site. our constituents demand that the united states lead by example. keeping our families safe requires us to return the land to productive uses by paying for and cleaning up the mess we make. the department of defense agrees. before the house budget committee last year, secretary of defense leon panetta when asked if there was a way to create a better partnership between local communities and the department of defense said i'd be happy to engage in that process. the only way to achieve savings is to be able to have the clean up and do it expeditiously. there are lots of things, he said, i think we can do to improve the process. i appreciated chairman young reply on the house floor last july when asked if the defense

appropriations subcommittee could commit to helping increase funding for environmental remediation on formerly used defense sites and chairman young said, absolutely yes, i'd very much like to do this. i believe we need to do it. i hope we have the opportunity to do it right this year. the funding levels would restore the account to fiscal ear 2013 levels by redirecting $2.-- $25.1 million from the general combat vehicle, a program which has been called into question by the c.b.o., c.r.s. and would take a modest reduction in funding by less than one half of 1%. but restoring funding to this program would still mean that funding for this vital cleanup would be less than .20% of

defense spending. the current rate is the estimates will take 250 years .o clean up these sites i find this embarrassing, frankly, and i hope this is the least we can do to keep faith with people who are at risk because the military has not cleaned up after itself and it's congress that needs to step up and provide the funding so the department of defense can do what it wants to do. i'd yield the balance of the time remaining, if i could inquire how much it is -- the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. blumenauer: i'd be honored to yield the balance of the time to my co-author of this amendment, congresswoman gabbard. the chair: the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized for the balance of the time. two minutes. ms. gabbard: thank you very much, madam speaker. due to its strategic location

in the pacific, my home of hawaii has long been a -- at the forefront of our nation's conflicts. we have more than 100 formerly used defense sites just as a result of a defensive buildup pre-world war i and later in the massive rush to mobilize in world war ii. these sites that are often also ferred to as fuds can be littered with shells as well as chemicals. sites across the country and every congressional district can serve as housing developments, schools, parks and playgrounds. the army corps of engineers have been working diligently to clean up this unexploded ordnance in many sites in hawaii, including 135,000 acre area on the big island of hawaii. during world war ii, this area was home to some 50,000 u.s. service members who trained and

prepared for many of the historic battles that were fought in the pacific. one of the places that i visited and met with many elementary and middle school students were unexploded ordnance has been found within the last few years by these students themselves. we are talking about 9, 10, 11, 12-year-old students who have to be trained in this day and age to identify what an unexploded ordnance looks like and how to report it. this is not something we should be facing in our sew side today. the effort to clean up these formerly used defense sites not only makes our communities safer but it's made a significant and positive economic impact. there have been substantial investments in the training of local people in hawaii to do this highly skilled and often dangerous work, and by training these local people we're actually saving taxpayer dollars because we're not having to import talent, pay per diem and providing jobs to

the local community. i sponsored this amendment because congress has the responsibility to ensure that the department of defense has the resources it needs to clean up these dangerous unexploded munitions. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: madam chair, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: the amendment would add $25 million for this purpose of restoring these formerly used defense sites. a cut from the same amount of yamp e account. as important as it -- rtde account. as important as this amendment battlefield ay's in afghanistan, we're facing an

enemy that's constantly moving. as we move one direction they move another direction. as we present a new device, a new weapon, a new system, they develop a way to get around it. it's important that we continue fund this army research and development. money sident requested for this purpose. we added an additional $25 million for the cleanup of these sites. over the president's budget request. the funding provided in the rt de army account supports research in laboratories and in colleges and universities across our country to ensure that our soldiers have the best that we can provide them as they face an enemy that is

constantly moving on the battlefield. unnecessary reductions to the army research and development is just not right, especially when we have already added the additional money that's over and above the president's budget request. we understand the importance of restoring these sites, but we also understand the importance of maintaining our research and our development for the soldier on the battlefield to have the most advanced technology, the most advanced weapons that he or she can possibly have to carry out their mission and to protect themselves while they're doing it. and so i must oppose this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from oregon and those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment go is not -- the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i rise to withdraw amendment number 11. the chair: the chair understands amendment number 11 will not be offered. and it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in house report

113-170. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i rise to offer an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in house report 113-170 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to the house resolution 312, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairwoman and i thank the chairman of the subcommittee and i thank the ranking member of the subcommittee. let me first of all acknowledge the hard work that it takes to provide for the men and women of the united states military and to secure america. as a member of the homeland security committee, i am well aware of the combined efforts obviously in the military and the line of demarcation between civilians, but we are all committed to the national security of this nation. this amendment deals with the

reduction funding of the procurement, defensewide by $1 million. i want to give the good news. the good news is that this money would be put in deficit reduction. but i do want to acknowledge that one of the issued that we must address as we go forward in the collective intelligence agencies as we have listened to some of the challenges that we are facing in light of the present status of the leaks that have occurred by an american citizen who was working in the capacity as a contractor. this impacts all of us, and so as this $1 million would be submitted into the deficit reduction pool, i believe it is extremely important that we ok very closely at the

extended use of civilian contractors, the extended use of a budget that is responsible for intelligence of this country of 70%. now, i note that some of the contractors deal with issues that are not individual personnel but are dealing with research and dealing with equipment, but i believe that it is important that we look at the question that resulted in the disclosure of leak and highly sensitive classified information and the continuing raising of concern of whether or not the national security of this nation has been impacted because of the outsourcing of ntelligence responsibility. in particular we need to look at the outsourcing of top secret clearances. obviously the circumstances that resulted in the leaking, an individual that had an , from the resume educational level of high school, g.e.d., of which we respect and encourage people to complete their education, of the

military service, and then on to top secret by a contractor who gave out top secret clearances. we hope that there was some kind of review. so my amendment is intended to highlight this issue and i would hope that as we proceed, that this question will, if you will, ave the ability to slow, not halt, the use of civilian contractors out of all of our agencies, dealing with the issue of intelligence. we want to assure the american people that we are concerned about the protection of this nation's national security, civil liberties as well, but also to prevent the leaks that have occurred. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. ms. jackson lee: let me conclude my remarks and -- the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized. you're recognized. ms. jackson lee: thank you.

i'll conclude my remarks now and not reserve. thank you. and let me just say that i hope this brings about a discussion that will cross jurisdictional lines of the judiciary committee, the intelligence committee, our appropriators. let's fix this enormous use and reliance on these contractors, outsourcing. let's develop a highly trained group of federal governmental professionals, committed, if you will, to the ongoing service to their nation. respecting contractors have the same loyalty, but i think it would be better, mr. chairman, if we can frame the utilization of contractors in such a way that we can be assured that everything that deals with the national security of this nation will be protected. with that i'd like to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in

ouse report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in house report 113-170 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: again, mr. chairman, i want to thank mr. young, mr. visclosky, for their leadership and important responsibility in this nation. my amendment increases funding for the defense health program's research and development by $10 million. these funds will address the question of breast cancer in the united states military. the american cancer society calls several strains of breast ncer as particularly

aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates, in this instance it's a triple negative. but i raise an article that says, fighting a different battle, breast cancer and the military. we all know by the way that breast cancer can effect betting men and women -- affect both men and women. the bad news is breast cancer has been brutal -- as brutal on women in the military as combat. breast cancer has been just about as brutal as women in the military as combat. more than 800 women have been wounded in iraq and afghan. 874 military women were diagnosed with breast cancer just between 2000 and 2011 and according to that same study, more are suspected, it grows. the good news is that we have been working on it and i want to add my appreciation to the military. this however will allow for the additional research, as new young women come into the united states military, as women stay longer in the united states military, as women get older in the united states military, as women ascend to leadership roles in the united states military,

these dollars will provide an additional research. not only is breast cancer striking relatively young military women at alarming rates but male service members, veterans and their dependents are at risk as well. with their younger and screny healthier population, those -- generally healthier population, those in the military general jy have lower risk for cancers than civilians, but breast cancer is a different story. that's why my amendment, military people in general, and in some cases very specifically are at a greater risk for contracting breast cancer, says dr. richard clap, a top cancer expert at boston university who works at the centers for disease control. and prevention. on military breast cancer issues, says, life in the military can mean exposure to a witch's brew of risk factors directly linked to greater chances of getting breast cancer. and so, my friends, i am asking that we do the right thing. we're on the right track.

we're on the right trail. we're on the right road. but with the expansion of women in the military, i can assure you for long life, vital service that these men and women give, it is extremely important to move forward with this amendment. researchers point to a high use of oral contraception that's linked to breast cancer among women, that would ensure that this particular amendment would be a positive step forward. so i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment. with that i'll reserve the alance of my time. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i appreciate the recognition and i think i speak for the subcommittee when i would suggest that we would be delighted to accept the gentlewoman's amendment. mr. visclosky: and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman and thank them for their commitment to the men and women of the united states military and let me thank my colleagues for accepting this amendment.

with that i know that we'll be safer, securer and healthier with this fight against breast cancer that continues to grow in the united states military. i ask my colleagues to support it. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendmented by the gentlewoman from texas -- amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: mr. chairman, pursuant to house resolution 312, i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc amendment number 2, consisting of amendments numbered 83, 86, 87, , 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 and 96 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. young of florida. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 312, the gentleman from florida, there young, and the gentleman from indiana, mr. visclosky, will each control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. young: mr. chairman, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, i -- i e happy to yield would be happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognizes -- recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. i'd like to thank chairman young and also ranking member visclosky for providing me the time to speak today. mr. speaker, providing stem education to america's youth is critical to the global competitiveness of our nation. this will rely, however, on a solid pipeline of stem degree

graduates. i stand here today to offer my revenue-neutral star-base amendment, number 99, to house resolution 2397 and the department of defense appropriations, to increase funding to the star-based youth program by $5 million. mr. lowenthal: it's currently active in 79 congressional districts throughout the country and engages in local fifth -- and engages local fifth grade elementary schools by exposing them to stem subjects through an inquiry-based curriculum. the program is carried out by the military services because the department of defense has identified a shortage of young adults graduating from these difficult and hard sciences. the star-based academies work with school districts to engage students through hands-on, mind-on experimental activities. they study engineering,

nanotechnology, navigation and mapping. these are all critical fields that will keep our country competitive. my no-cost, revenue-neutral amendment makes a significant step towards providing and engaging america's youth with the tools they need to pursue careers in stem. a field where jobs are available and there's a significant lack of trained workers. recent brookings institute said that as of 2011, there are now 26 million u.s. jobs, approximately 20% of all jobs in the country that require a high level of knowledge in any one of the stem fields. i urge my colleagues to support this revenue-neutral amendment to h.r. 2396. our students and our work force need this. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i'm prepared -- i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: mr. chairman, i yield ack. the chair: the question is on the amendments offered en bloc by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments have been agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 14 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. chairman. as members of congress, one of

our greatest responsibilities is to keep our country safe and invest our resources wisely. especially when it comes to securing the safety of our country. the ground pace mid course defense is a missile system that is supposed to be designed to deflect missiles from rogue states like iran and north korea. that would be great if it worked. it's a system with a long history of failure and military leaders have expressed doubts for years about the viability of this program. i encourage my colleagues to support my amendment which would return the funding level for the g.m.d. program back to the pentagon's own request level in the fiscal year 2014 defense appropriations bill. specifically my amendment cuts funding for the g.m.d. missiles by $107 million and applies those savings to deficit reduction. lacking a single successful test intercept since december, 2008,

the g.m.d. program is simply a failure so far. these repeated failures unfortunately have not stopped us from continuing to authorize over $1 billion for the g.m.d. program to purchase 14 additional missiles on top of the 30 we already have in the ndaa act of 2013. the government accountability office has noted that the testing of the system to date has been insufficient to verify that it will function as intended. and there was the most recent test failure on july 5, which supports that assessment from the g.a.o. americans want a missile defense system we can count on. we need to ensure that our missile defenses are tested and are actually capable of keeping our families safe and don't merely provide the illusion of safety. before we continue to build an arsenal, we should make sure that it works.

as cuss toadians of -- as custodians of taxpayer funds. those on the other side will argue that we need to make sure that in an ever more dangerous world we need to have an investment in missile defenses to protect against the threats from iran and north korea. and of course i agree. the issue is, whether this works or not, and whether we should reward failure as a congress and as a country or whether we should invest in success. i believe, mr. chairman, we should invest in success and not reward failure. we need to be candid about the challenges we face, deterring threats and encouraging diplomacy is crucial to keeping america safe. and our national security, the safety of americans is too important to rely on programs that have failed test after test , when we need to have confidence that when we need hem, they will work.

if we're serious about cutting wasteful spending here in congress, we need to look at programs like this. we can do this by building a leaner, more agile, more affordable military more suited to the 21st century while being diligent that our existing systems can keep us safe and operate as they're intended. to i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i'd like to ask for time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. for five minutes. mr. franks: mr. chairman, you know, i'm reminded that when two airplanes hit two buildings, it cost our economy $2 trillion and many thousands of lives. and it occurs to me that sometimes we are fairly shortsighted. sometimes even as conservative, fiscally, as i am, sometimes we

don't look to our primary duty and we become penny wise and very pound foolish. one nuclear armed missile coming into the united states could ruin our whole day. and i am astonished sometimes at the lack of insight to this very real problem. the system we're speaking of today, the general -- the g.m.d., is the only system that we have tested that is successfully capable of defending this country against intercontinental ballistic missiles carrying nuclear war heads or other ordinance. i find it astonishing that president obama and his supporters have cut funding for missile defense every year they've been in office and now they criticize these programs when the delays and worse have been made worse by their cuts.

i'm afraid the cost of failing in this area is too high. while the ground-based system did miss its target on a june 5 -- on a july 5 test, it was one test. and it has been tested successfully repeatedly since the testing began in 1999. yet this administration hasn't offered funding for this system since 2008. it shouldn't shock us that when we don't test our systems sometimes they don't perform perfectly. if we cut funding for systems that don't have a perfect record, we're doomed to have no system at all. every program in the defense department has had technical challenges at some time. but g.m.d.'s technical challenges are not insurmountable and we must commit to support these systems to see these challenges through. the amendment mr. polis has offered would strike $100

million authorized in the act, and because the authority for multiyear procurement would be done away with, polis amendment actually costs the taxpayers money. i would just ask the gentleman if not this system, what other system would he suggest that we should protect our country against in a potential situation where an intercontinental ballistic missile were coming into the home left-hand? i would ask him to consider that and i yield two minutes to my friend from colorado, mr. lamb born. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lamborn: i rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from colorado. mr. chairman, the house has rejected these amendments, and a following amendment from the gentleman from colorado on the national defense authorization act already this year this amendment would strike the funding provided in this bill to provide for multiyear procurement authority of booster moe force the ground-based interceptors, g.b.i.'s that

secretary hagel announced the united states would deploy this past march. this amendment if it were adopted, and perhaps this is unintentional but it would cost the united states as much as $200 million. perhaps the gentleman is opposed to the oobama administration's missile defense policy as articulated by secretary of defense hagel. if so, that's a separate issue. but when you look at north korea, you look at iran, i think it would be unwise to oppose the decision to add ground based interceptors. all that this amendment is doing is raising the price that taxpayers have to pay for the g.b.i.'s, that the president and sec retear of defense have said we should buy. this isn't just my position. it's what the missile defense agency and the c.b.o. have already said. multiyear procurement will save the taxpayer money. now the reliability issues that the gentleman brought vup

nothing to do with this funding. because this funding talks about booster motors. of the 26 tests that involve the g.m.d. system, ground based missile defense, 18 of those were 100% successful. of the remaining eight that had problem, none of them involved the booster motor. and that's the subject of this amendment. so this amendment is misdirected , if it's concerned about the stated concern of reliability. i can't understand why we would oppose multiyear procurement and advanced procurement of the 14 g.b.i.'s that the defense department says we will buy. thank you, mr. chairman, i urge opposition to this amendment and i yield back to the gentleman from arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona has 15 seconds. mr. franks: mr. chairman, i would just remind the people in this chamber that nuclear missiles coming into this country are the most dangerous weapons we face and the g.m.d.

is the only weapon we have to defeat it. i yield back. mr. polis: to be clear, mr. chairman this amendment saves taxpayer money, reduces the deficit by over $100 million. i'd be happy to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from indiana. >> i appreciate the gentleman yielding. i rise in strong support of the amendment and would want to make a couple of things clear to all of my colleagues. the fact is that the administration did ask for money missile allistic defense mid course section in the bill they asked for $1 $1,033,00000. the gentleman said the bad tests

and problems they indicate are not unresolveable. i agree with the gentleman. mr. visclosky: but this is the procurement account. let us resolve these problems before we procure something that last month has not worked. so we don't have to pull them out of silo well, don't have to invest additional taxpayer money and we don't have to waste that hard-earned money. there are threats and we ought to make sure the systems we deploy to protect our nation work before we procure and deploy them. i applaud the gentleman for his amendment and strongly support it. the chair: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman. it's simple business sense. it doesn't make business sense to preorder something you don't know works. you don't do that in business. his is not a theoretical discussion about matters of scale.

it is foolish to throw good money after bad before a system is proven to work. i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and yield back me balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is -- the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. >> i request a roll call on that last amendment. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of -- of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from olorado will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 15 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. blumenauer: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. e clerk: amendment number 15 printed in house report 113-170, offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: this amendment reduces funds for the nuclear submarines by 10%. year facing 10% sequestration funds over the next decade. this will help the navy plan for cuts by cutting cold war weapons.

these replacement submarines are unaffordable and will weaken the surface navy. they're expected to cost $6 billion per boat on average with a plan to procure 12 of them. according to a report from the arms control association, the operating cost of this placement will be $347 billion, lifetime. even the navy's own shipbuilding plan for fiscal year 2014 said replacing the ohio-class submarines will have a disproportionate impact on navy shipbuilding plants. it comes at the expense of other shipbuilding abilities and navy -- and naval readiness. there are far more effective job creation plans than to undertake this initiative. our amendment offered a more balanced approach. we can easily afford to phase down or slow the replacement submarine program. the navy can deploy the thousand nuclear war heads on the submarines planned under the new

start treaty with eight ohio class submarines which mean this is program can be -- this modest cut can be easily handled. the pentagon and joint chiefs of staff have determined that the united states have provide for its security with fewer nuclear weapons. yet knew leer -- nuclear acquisition programs are racing to preserve the current size of today's nuclear force. instead of wasting billions of dollars on weapons the pentagon says it will not need, we should realign our budgets with the reality that the united states plans to reduce its nuclear arsenal. i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i remind my colleagues that we have already cut the defense

budget pretty clast -- drastically. nuclear weapons exist in today's world. i might not like it, you might not like it, we might wish they didn't exist but they do exist. and because nuclear weapons exist in this world, we need to have the ability to defend against them and also deter their use. mr. crenshaw: that's important to our national security. now we do that through what we call the nuclear triad. we have the capability to launch nuclear missiles from silos based on lan -- based on land. we have the ability to launch nuclear capable missiles from airplanes. we also have the ability to launch nuclear capable missiles from submarines that are somewhere in these vast oceans. and of those three of the triad, the nuclear submarine or the submarine with nuclear capability is the most survivable. you can blow up a silo, shoot down an airplane but it's almost

impossible find a submarine somewhere in the ocean. that has this nuclear capability. because it's the most survivable, it is the best deterrent. because we know what it can do and our enemies know what it can do. right now we are planning to replace what's called the ohio class submarines to continue this capability. this is a capability that's kept us safe for the last 60 years, it's still important to our long-term national security, and if we adopt this amendment we will begin to crip until capability and that's bad for our national security. so i would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. now i'd like to yield a minute and a half to mr. courtney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. courtney: mr. speaker, i rise also in opposition to this amendment. i'd like to add a few points to the gentleman's prior comments. the fleet is not being replaced

one to one. the current fleet size is 14. the new fleet will be 12. the program has already been delayed two years because of earlier reductions in the defense budget. that two-year delay is going to push us right up to 2021, which is when the aging fleet in play right now is going to start being decommissioned in terms of the reduction over time ched and lastly, ill like to say, because of investment in design and development, which is what this amendment is focused on, we have saved $2 billion per vessel from where the navy started when this project was commenced a number of years ago. it was $7 billion, we're down to $5 billion per boat in terms of projected cost that the navy has come forward with. i would just lastly note that the strategic review, which has been done under secretary gates, under secretary hagel, has repeatedly put ssdn replacement at the absolute apex in terms of national defense priorities, again for a lot of the reasons which the prior speaker

indicated. sea-based nuclear deterrence fits in perfectly well with the star treaty but the math of eight subs for 1,000 war heads if you're going to have sailors being back home after deployment if you're going to have repairs and maintenance, you need 12 as a bare minimum a far cry from the cold war days when 41 for freedom was the size of the fleet. we are down to the bare bones and we should not cut it any further and i oppose the amendment and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i would like to yield a minute and a half to mr. walz. excuse me, from the state of washington, i'd like to yield to mr. kilmer. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. kilpatrick: thank you, mr. chairman -- mr. kilmer: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise not only as the representative of the area that includes naval base which is the

home port of eight ssbn's and 60% of the navy's ssbn force, but with a nonparochial interest as well. i rise in opposition to this amendment because we know the ssbn's or the ohio class subs have been a pillar of our national defense for over three decades. these subs and their crews act as peace keepers around the world every single day. they're among our most strategic and significant assets for a continued forward presence and a strategic deterrent around the world. our country, our navy and our sailors cannot afford to delay the recapitalization of this platform. and while i thank the good good gentleman from oregon for bringing this forward, i urge my colleagues to poe pose this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time -- to oppose this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: for -- the chair: three minutes. mr. blumenauer: three minutes. thank you. i listened to my good friend

from florida and i agree in terms of the necessity of having a strong nuclear deterrent. but he just ticked off, we will bombers, we air will have land-based missiles, and we would have -- even with eight nuclear submarines, we would have more than enough capacity. now, the historic arguments i think are a little bit distorted. each of these new submarines carries 16 to 20 missiles. each missile today carries four to five nuclear war heads. each 20 times more powerful than the bombs that decimated hire shima. hiroshima.e -- one of these is adequate to serve as a deterrent for anybody

going forward. especially when we have our air and land-based in addition to this. we have a detesht that will make a difference -- deterrent that will make a difference to anybody. we don't have to, as we're moving now to scale down the overall number of war heads, because, you know, who is it that we're detering? north korea? which doesn't yet have a missile that can even get to us, one. a fraction of the fire power would destroy it. we could wreck china. we could decimate the soviet union. deterrence is alive and well with a fraction of this. but embarking on a program to spend hundreds of billions of dollars freezing us in time $347 s i mentioned, billion going forward, is foolish.

every independent analysis suggests that we will be better off going forward with being able to right-size the nuclear deterrent. even the thousand is probably more than we need today. if we can't come to grips with the fact that we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on things that don't make us any safer, that we can't afford and come at the expense of operational activities for our military, that does matter, we're going to be trapped in this downward budget spiral, wasting tax dollars, not making america safer, not making it stronger and not being able to have resources for things that would be higher priority for our military. now, notwithstanding all the hyperbole here, this is a modest 10% reduction in the development

resources. it's not going to stop us going forward. but it will be a signal to maybe let's take our deep breath, look at how we do this most effectively, and i would strongly urge approval of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment -- the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: mr. chairman, i would request the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman request a recorded vote? mr. blumenauer: a recorded vote, yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 16 printed in the house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek

recognition? mr. pocan: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. pocan of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house res. ligse 312, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. -- resolution 312, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. pocan: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to introduce an amendment to the defense appropriations bill and i want to thank chairman young and ranking member visclosky for your efforts on this important legislation. my amendment would help improve the safety of advanced batteries that are cratecal to both our new energy economy, -- critical to both our new energy economy missions.ture advanced energy technologies not only produce good-paying, jobs, but y american they also reduce our dependence on foreign oil, protect the environment and lead to advancements of new energy -efficient sources that are more effective. thus it's no surprise that our

military requires this type of innovative technologies to meet its expanding needs. longer-lasting energy sources mean our military's transportation and weapons systems are more effective in the field and limit safety risks that arise from refueling or recharging. more efficient energy capabilities mean a more efficient, more effective and safer military. on that front, lithium iron batteries represent some of the most significant clean energy advancements of recent history. they contain no toxic chemicals, they have up to three times the performance capabilities of other battery products and are required for many of the military's next generations weapons systems. their need will only increase. t as often the case, new improvements are needed. current lithium iron batteries can cause violent fires with extreme smoke and high temperatures that are potentially catastrophic, especially on ships. as a result of these safety concerns, acceptance and adoption of many lithium ion

powered navy systems under development are greatly delayed, greatly limiting our abilities to respond to emerging threats. none of us here want to have any members of our military in danger, but we don't have to choose between improving our operational capabilities and keeping our courageous service members safe. we are not far away from these types of advancements. new research has produced high -temperature material exounted -- compounds that can significantly extend at maximum temperatures at which the batteries can safely operate. we need to continue to develop and test these innovative compounds that require further research and development support. that is why i introduced this budget-neutral amendment which i am proud to introduce with congressman cardenas to provide for the necessary funding for research development and testing to improve the safety of advanced batteries. to speak d like to -- more on the amendment, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from

california is recognized for two minutes. mr. cardenas: thank you, mr. chair. i rise today in support of congressman pocan's amendment, increasing the navy research testing development and evaluation account by $10 million. this would support research improving the safety of advanced batteries, specifically lithium ion batteries. this amendment does not add new funding to the bill. mr. chairman, lithium ion is the present and future of our energy storage technology. this technology is critical to u.s. military personnel for communications, navigation and vehicles in land, sea, air and space. it is also important to many other sectors of the economy, including the utility companies, transportation, aviation, aerospace and medical devices. as we have seen with recent airliner incidents, we can do more to address the safety of these batteries. without improving that safety, we cannot fully realize the potential of lithium ion technology without realizing that potential, we cannot improve our production capability here in the united states of america.

the global market for lithium batteries was worth more than $11 billion in 2012. and is expected to double to $22 billion by 2016. right now the u.s. has very small market share of the lithium ion industry. the bulk of the industry is in japan, china and korea. investments like this are critical to growing the u.s. industrial base and creating middle class manufacturing jobs. fubbleding research and development -- funding research and development for this cutting-edge tech nothing can ensure that the industry grows right here in america. with that growth comes more government and commercial applications. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. as an electrical engineer myself, i'm very, very proud of the innovation of the united states of america. but little by little we see that slipping away to other countries. yet at the same time if we just invest a little, this $10 million will yield billions of dollars in the future. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. pocan: thank you, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance

of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: would request the time, please. claim the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i appreciate that. i certainly appreciate what my colleague from wisconsin is trying to do with his amendment. as former chairman and ranking member on the energy and water appropriations subcommittee, it's certainly attached great importance to battery research. mr. frelinghuysen is on the floor as well. he chairs energy and water. the concern do i have is to make sure that we are organized as federal government on this research and that, again, we're looking at the appropriate expenditure in the appropriate places for the funds. one example i simply would give is that in this year's fiscal year, fissqualcal year 2014 energy and water appropriations bill, $24 million was provided to the joint center for energy storage research, d.o.e. energy

innovative hub. this hub whose team includes five of the national laboratories and several major research universities, is seeking new technologies to move in the direction that my colleague supports. so, again, do appreciate his long-term goal. obviously we have to reduce our dependency on carbon fossil fuel from a national security perspective. but again, want to make sure that we're cautious as far as where and how much of this money we can effectively spend in the coming fiscal year. and would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. visclosky: -- i would reserve my time and recognize the gentleman from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: happy to claim time in opposition. is there some movement to withdraw this? did we hear? mr. pocan: if i can, if i understand correctly, the chairman and the ranking member have all said we can continue to

have this conversation with recognition of that, i'd be glad at this time to withdraw my amendment. mr. frelinghuysen: look forward to working with you. thank you very much. mr. visclosky: i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 17 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. nugent: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. nugent of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: thank you, mr. chairman. it's not every day i get to stand up here in front of the house and talk about a government program that is actually doing well and running ahead of schedule but that's what brings me here today.

counterelectronics high power microwave missile project or champ for short is an air force program to development a capability to disrupt or eliminate an adversary's electronics without causing physical destruction to people or facilities. the only real question is what vehicle you use to deliver that microwave to the intended target. as it turns out we have an ability stockpile of cruise missiles which are expense to have build, which have no other use, fitting champ into our existing cruise mills -- missiles is far cheaper than trying to construct a new vehicle for that purpose. my amendment would provide $10.5 million toward that end by making this investment now we can assure that champ will be able to put this weapon in the field years ahead of schedule and at a lower cost. while also continuing to develop a longer term solution. it's a shame that fixing every government program isn't as simple as this and with that i

reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his ime. >> -- mr. visclosky: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: the amendment would use funds from a committee priority, the defense rapid innovation program this program emphasizes technology development issues done primarily through small businesses. certainly in my short time as ranking member on this subcommittee, i have been impressed by the lack of a true small business program at the department of defense despite their protestations. d.o.d.'s track record of support for small businesses must be improved for many reasons, not the east of which is

support small businesses provide to solve major issues for the department. in the two year o-- years of execution so far, fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the department of defense has received over 3,000 proposals for funding. this includes 2,200 proposals from small businesses across america for fiscal year 2012 funding for completion and execution this year. so again, my concern is where the money is coming from in this amendment and strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and i would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognize. mr. poe: all i can tell you is this, the -- mr. nugent: all i can tell you is, this is a ready project, this is one that the air force has tested in a positive manner which positive results in

regards to actually eliminating a threat without destroying the building or without destroig lives. and if we had some like this when we went into iraq, we possibly could have done something without having to rebuild an entire infrastrubblingture while still doing what we needed to do to be able to do our military mission. and with this, all i can tell you, mr. chairman is that it is in fact a program that is working. it just needs a delivery vehicle. this is offset in regards to no additional funding, or spending, is required other than what comes from that fund that's sitting there. that's what that rapid development fund was designed for. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. nugent: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings amendment will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 18 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? mr. heck: i have an amendment that the at the desk. the chair: the gentleman is -- the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17 prinned in house report 113-170 offered by mr. heck of nevada. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from nevada, mr. heck, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. heck: the iron dome system has shown success in defeating

missiles shot into gaza. however despite significant -- shot into israel from depa savage the united states has no right to any of the proprietary information in that system. my amendment would provide $15 million for the israeli iron dome short rocket stop initiate co-production of missile interceptors in the united states. this is $15 million in addition to the funds appropriated to support israel's iron dome program to help ensure the u.s. has a role in future production and can leverage the tech knoll that we have invested in. specifically, these funds will support the infrastructure, tool, transferring day tark special test equipment and related components for u.s. production this amendment will help stabilize u.s. manufacturers who are facing an uncertain future with u.s. military procurement shrinking in the face of se test ration. by increasing opportunities for manufacturers, we support our nation's struggling economy

while creating critical jobs here at home. this funding will also provide a second sor -- source of production for israel who can leverage the manufacturing capabilities to ensure that iron dome interceptors are fielding as rapidly as possible. this will ensure our most critical ally in the mideast has the necessary capacity to defend itself against rocket attacks launched by hamas. in march of 2013, during president obama's trip to israel, the commander of the israeli air defense command spoke of the need for u.s. co-production of iron dome missile interceptors. in response to concerns about future missile interceptor shortfalls and the di desire to inreese israel's iron dome from five to 13 battery the yen stated, quote, what would be impacted is the pace at which we equip ourselves. with the tom -- bottom line is i need as many air defense units as possible as quickly as possible.

bicepping this amendment, the u.s. will ensure that israel has the capability and capacity to defend itself. furthermore, the director of the missile defense agency indicated hat the missile defense agency was actively seeking iron dome co-production opportunities and was negotiating to obtain data packages and data rights this will ensure that funding is available to move forward on this important effort. during consideration of h. reform 1960rk the national defense authorization act of 2014 by the house armed services committee, i offered an amendment to authorize funding for co-production of iron dome which was unanimously agreed to. additionally the house of representatives authorized this funding when it voted to pass the fiscal queer 2014 ndaa last month. finally, mr. chairman, in order to offset the cost of co-production, my amendment reduces two applied research programs within the defense wide rdte. specifically it reduces applied

research and joint munitions technology by $5 million and reduces funding for biological research by $10 million. needs conform to the funding levels authorized in the national defense authorization act and ensures the programs still receive adequate and appropriate funding. mr. chairman, my amendment ensures that israel has the capacity to defend itself while providing the u.s. the ability to leverage our significant investment in israel's iron dome short range defense. is i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. >> i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i th is an important program and the israelis are good, loyal allies of ours. we support the gentleman's amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from nevada is recognized.

mr. heck: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nevada. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 19 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose duds the gentlewoman from new mexico seek recognition? ms. lujan grisham: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 19 printed if house report 113-170, offered by ms. michelle lujan grisham of new mexico. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentlewoman from new mexico, ms. lujan grisham and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the yom from new mexico. ms. lujan grisham: i would like to thank the hair for the opportunity to speak on this amendment.

in 1990, the existing u.s. satellite communications capacity would not support the war fighters during the first gulf war. the united states made an urgent attempt to launch an additional defense satellite communication system three spacecraft to support the war effort but it was not until february 11, 1992, more than a year after the war ended, that the mission was finally launched. in nearly every national space policy guidance document, resill yhency and responsiveness are key objectives in global communications, navigation, and guided munitions. all of which rely on satellites that provide game-changing advantages on the battlefield. before operationally responsive space o.r.s., was established, the cape to believe the rapidly develop and deploy satellites was inadequate. o.r.s.'s mission so to -- is to respond to anticipated needs and

quickly deploy cost effective satellites to provide transformational advantages on the battlefield. o.r.s. has the ability to launch field-ready satellites within just a few days or weeks. it also rapidly develops the -- rapidly develop, delivers and deploys capability in a few months to less than a year. increased speed for the delivery of space assets not only helps to close gaps in the united states space system's capacity, it can improve resiliency and reconstitute satellites lost to countermeasures. in 2007, china used a ground-based missile to destroy one of its own satellites, demonstrating their capacity to target our satellites and space defense systems. developing arently sea-based missile and space defense system. as other countries modernize their military, the threat level to our communications, 1/2 gation and guided munitions

satellites intensifies. o.r.s. has demonstrated the ability to cost effectively deploy says assets. general schwartz said o.r.s. is exactly what we need. innovation and greater efficiency as we contend with ongoing fiscal restraints and space posture. michael donnelly called it critical to our nation's national security posture and we need to proceed at the speed of need. eliminating o.r.s. would cut the programs that give our nation's an ighters their military advantage in space. the growing need for dominance is driving a remarkable transition in space systems. o.r.s. is integral to maintaining our advantage in space. our amendment reserves $10 million from rdp&e for this program. i thank the chair and ranking member and look toward to continuing to work on this important issue.

i yield. >> i appreciate the gentlewoman yielding and would point out to my colleagues that on this particular issue she has been dogged and do believe this is one of a number of items within the bill where reasonable people scran a disagreement. mr. visclosky: my colleague from new mexico believes she has the most cost effective approach that the united states air forces should take. the problem we face on the subcommittee given the financial and fiscal constraints is that the air force did not ask for funding for this program for iscal year 2013 or 2014, so we deferred. but appreciate her concern and appreciate her raising it to the body without making any representations as to what the future holds but again would commend her for her work on this program and again her doggedness

on behalf of it. i appreciate the gentlewoman for ielding. ms. lujan grisham: thank you. with that, i withdraw my amendment. the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 20 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: he the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 20 printed in house report 113-170, offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, and a member opposed will each control five minute sms the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to support the nadler-garamendi-polis amendment to eliminate additional -- i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: i urge my colleagues to support the nadler-garamendi-polis amendment to eliminate additional funding for a new unproven missile defense site. our amendment would cut delst 70 million added by the appropriations committee for an east coast system the pentagon does not want or need. in a june 10 letter to the senate armed services committee chairman, the director of the missile defense defense agency and the commander of the joint command for missile defense unequivocally stated there's no valid military requirement farce an east coast defense site. i ask unanimous consent that it be -- that this letter be submitted for the record. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered by general leave. mr. nadler: he told us that he would not use funds for an additional site this year because the pentagon has only begun to study the concept and