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 the pentagon has the funding it

needs for the study in 2014. furthermore the technology is unproven at this time. there have been in successful intercept testers in past five dwhreefers system that might be defloined east coast. this is another reason not to rush forward with deployment. at a time of budget deficits and looming sequester funds, we can't afford to spend money on a program which they say does not need and does not work. the pentagon says the current system based on alaskan, alaska, a's -- california -- the c.b.o. says an east coast base would cost $3.5 billion over the next five years and that the -- admiral and general said there are more cost-effective and less expensive alternatives to improving the defense of the homeland than the east coast missile site.

before the interceptors can be proved effective and operational realistic tests. we should not have this funding now. i thank the -- i reserve the balance of my time. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. he gentleman from arizona. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. franks: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from new york. two presidents and three secretaries of defense recognize the advantage of an additional missile defense site. mr. chairman, i'd yield myself 2 1/2 minutes inns -- minutes incidentally. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. franks: for more effective defense on long-range missiles from the middle east, president deploy 10 to

missiles in poland. president obama wanted to deploy 22 missiles in poland. this was supported by president obama as early as -- as recently as this march but mr. obama changed his mind with the cancellation of the cm-3 block missiles in poland in 2020 and now we don't have a third homeland defense site which the obama administration supported prior to march 15. the termination of the cm-3 block 2-b missile intended for poland now means the defense of the homeland from threats of the middle east will not be as strong as originally sought by this president. that's this president, mr. chairman, president obama who's cut missile defense every time he's had opportunity since he started in the face of a growing threat while the centrifuges in iran continues to spin. the war fighters that adds to the defense of the united

states, general jacoby of the north come site said, whether it's on the east coast or alternate location will be increased battle space. that means an increased opportunity for me to engage threats either from iran or north korea. mr. chairman, it's a very simple matter of geography. the east coast site would allow us much greater battle space and not have to make our west coast sites travel the entire length of the continent in order to engage in potential incoming of iranian missile. mr. chairman, i continue to sometimes be amazed. this is the most kinds of threat that we face in america, the first purpose of this body is to make sure that the country's defenses are taken care of and we provide for the national security of this country. and yet in a growing threat environment, my colleagues on the other side continue to want to cut missile defense. and mr. chairman, i would urge

the defeat of this amendment and would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. garamendi: mr. chairman, my good friends who serve on these committees with me, this is not about the president. this is not about missile defense. this is about the unnecessary expenditure of a very important .ational asset, our money testimony given in committee indicates we may or may not need an east coast missile defense site, and we also know that the current missiles that are being used for these antiballistic missiles don't work. at least there's a failure and there's been repeated failures

just in the boost system whether we can hit a rock with a rock. the problem here is this money should not be spent now for this site. it is absolutely clear the department of defense from last year's budget and appropriation has sufficient money to determine where to locate a site. with regard to the cancellation of the missile that was discussed a few moments ago, it doesn't fit in the existing sites. so they canceled it because it doesn't fit in the hole in the ground. so what are we doing here? this is $70 million, not a vast amount of money when considering the appropriation for the department of defense, but that's $70 million that can be used to, well, how about protecting a levee some city in the united states? it could be used for much better effect. there was an amendment that took $100 million out of this particular thing.

we ought to be taking what money is available and put it into something which would work which would be directed energy. but an amendment was refused an opportunity to be heard on the floor. so we really ought to be thinking how we move forward with this. i have great respect for my colleagues. we ought not throw money after other money. and so i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. mr. nadler: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. franks: mr. chairman, i now yield 2 1/2 minutes to mr. rogers from alabama. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. roger federer i thank the gentleman. i, -- mr. rogers: i thank the gentleman. the estimates in 2012, the cost of 20 silo sites including missiles is approximately $3 billion and could be built over a five or six-year period of time. this cost is almost half the funding the administration has stripped from m.d.a. in the

past two years. these funds are critical today. iran will not slow down its ballistic missile program just because the gentleman wants to cut the funds for our defense. they are testing rocket engines and missiles now. the department of defense tells us also that iran continues to advance its space launch and longer range ballistic missile capabilities. iran has used the sapphire 2 to place a satellite in orbit, demonstrating some of the key technologies required for an icbm to be successfully developed. this was reaffirmed recently by the latest biannual report from the leading experts on ballistic missile intelligence. general jacoby, commander of the u.s. northern command, stated, quote, we should consider that iran has capability within the next few years of flight testing icbm capable technologies, end quote. the iranians are intent on

developing icbm, closed quote. and the missile defense agency's own briefings to the house armed services committee have shown that m.d.a. planned to spend funds like those appropriated in chairman young's mark while site selection and e.i.s. process is under way. these funds absolutely can be spent today that the administration didn't request them is depositive of nothing. chairman young showed leadership in adding these funds to the match -- to the match provided by the f.y. 2014 . aa urge those to vote no on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: i have great respect for my colleagues on the subcommittee. however, it's incomplete the argument that's been made. we're talking about whether we're going to spend an additional sum of money this

next year on a program that, a, has large questions about whether it works and, b, the military doesn't need the money right now. if you remember the committee hearing, if the gentleman remembers the committee hearing, mr. chairman, the gentleman will say he didn't -- the general will say he didn't need money now. he had sufficient money from this year's appropriation and next year carrying on the studies necessary as to where to locate the site and may not be on the east coast. it may be elsewhere. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york has 30 seconds remaining. the gentleman from arizona has 30 seconds remaining. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. franks: mr. chairman, the gentleman said that the testimony was that they did not need the money today for additional testing or for additional -- but they do need the money today for deployment, mr. chairman. this administration, throughout its tenure, has weakened our missile defense capabilities

that protect us against the most dangerous weapons in the history of humanity. and mr. chairman, we should not continue to go down that road, and i would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and with that i'd yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i yield myself the remaining time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, the question is will we waste the money. we're told by the director of the missile defense agency and the joint functional command that they cannot use the money. there's no validated requirement to deploy an east coast missile defense site and he will not use additional funds this year because they've only begun to study the concept. it may be that in the future we may want an east coast site but to appropriate this money now is a pure waste of money because now they're simply studying the concept. they can't spend it. they probably won't spend it. why waste the money? i urge people to vote for this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 21 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire eek recognition? does the gentlelady from new hampshire offer the amendment? the clerk will designate the amendment. the chair: amendment number 21 printed in house report 113-170

offered by ms. shea-porter of new hampshire. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentlewoman from new hampshire, ms. shea-porter, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the entlewoman from new hampshire. ms. shea-porter: thank you, mr. chairman. today i'm offering an amendment with my colleague, congressman lobiondo, to support those with ptsd, posttraumatic stress disorder, and traumatic brain njury, or t.b.i. this puts money for a throw three-year study to evaluate the therapeutic service dog training program currently operating at the national intrepid center of excellence and walter reed national military medical center. this innovative dog training program is a safe effective nondrug intervention to treat

the symptoms of ptsd and t.b.i. service members report improvements in their ptsd or t.b.i. symptoms when participating in a therapeutic service dog training program. the service men and women involved in this program report a number of positive results, including lower levels of depression, improved self-control, improved sleep patterns, a greater sense of purpose, better reintegration pain eir communities, reduction and improved parenting skills. this year's ndaa house report directed the secretary of defense to conduct whatever studies are necessary to evaluate this promising program. this amendment provides the resources for such a study. there is now considerable anecdotal evidence that this relieves the ptsd and the presence of the dogs increases the sense of well-being in service members and their families. the most eloquent testimonials

are from service member trainees themselves. one said, it's been great working with the dogs. they're helping me with my depression, anxiety and sleep. with a dog at my side, my stress measurements returned to normal for the first time. another, it's great knowing that i'm helping to train a service dog for a service member who has physical disabilities. another, it's hard for me to put into words how very important working with these dogs has been to me. working with the dogs gave me a purpose again and a way to continue to give back to soldiers. training these dogs helps me rebuild my confidence level and to feel that i'm functioning as an effective member of the army and of society. and one more, the dog i'm training bonded quickly with my daughter and me. the dog allowed us to connect in a very positive way. working with the dog has taught me patience which also carries over to being a parent. to train a service dog, you

have to lead them confidently through places like grocery stores and underground train. i find that while i'm teaching the dogs to navigate, i'm much more comfortable as well and i'm learning how to enjoy interaction with strangers who approach me to talk about the dogs. being allowed to sleep with the dog that i'm training is helpful. i have only slept a couple of hours a night before being cleared to have a dog spend the night with me. i almost slept six hours and i wake refreshed and my wife has noted the improvement as well. the dogs become highly skilled service dogs while the warrior trainers reap the benefits of training them. this amendment is a win-win-win and good for returning vets and helps combat ptsd doesn't add a

dime to the deficit. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to claim time -- we are pleased to accept the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to -- the chair now -- the question is, on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new hampshire. hose in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment s agreed to. now in order to consider amendment number 22 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. o'rourke: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 22

printed in house report number 113-170 offered by mr. o'rourke of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. o'rourke, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the the gentleman from texas. mr. o'rourke: my amendment provides the department of defense with additional budgetary flexibility to guarantee the resources are available to maintain family housing at our military installations. section 80e58 prohibits funds to repair or maintain family housing. my amendment would strike that provision and provide needed flexibility at a time of budgets and sequester. i represent fort bliss. there are over 3,700 homes on fort bliss and my community takes immense pride in creating high quality of life for all those who serve.

we have an obligation to our service members and families to ensure they have first-rate housing. it is good for morale. funds for repair and maintenance are included in the v.a. bill. my goal is to protect our service members and fulfill our responsibility to them. i know the chair and ranking member share my goal. i am prepared to withdraw my amendment and i would hope the chair and ranking member would be willing to work with me going forward to continue providing our service members and our families first-rate housing. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from florida. mr. young: mr. chairman, i claim the time and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. o'rourke: 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

texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment s not agreed to. now in order to consider amendment number 23 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? i have an at the amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in house report number 13-170 offered by mr. moran of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. i will yield myself three minutes. mr. chairman, the political and

legal expediency of the detention center at guantanamo, cuba has not been worth the cost of america's reputation around the world or nor to the erosion of our ethical standards here at home. my amendment would unable the military to release the detainees who have been cleared by the intelligence community and the joint chiefs of staff to their home countries and bring those cleared not for release to the united states to be charged, tried and sentenced. those who advocate the continueance of guantanamo don't seem to relells that so many of the prisoners still held were in fact wrongly captured. the majority never engaged in hostile actions against the united states or its allies. the fact is that we know today guantanamo continues to serve as a rallying cry for extremists

from around the world. until we try the detainees, there is no denying that guantanamo is hurting our national security. we need to re-evaluate our approach and realize that policies that mock the concept of equal justice under the law and undermine our respect for human rights make it more likely than less likely that we will be attacked again. how can we expect americans held captive abroad to be sentenced and brought to trial when we hold 166 prisoners in guantanamo without charge and without trial? 86% of the guantanamo detainees were captured in exchange for a bounty, in many cases a large bounty that represented a whole year's pay for people turning them in. the majority of them have never committed hostile acts against the u.s. or coalition allies and yet they have been held for more

than 12 years without charge. my colleagues like to argue that detaining or trying suspected terrorists would endanger national security. that's not true. more than 400 defendants charged with terrorism crimes have been successfully convicted in the united states since 9/11. including a former gitmo detainee who was tried in new york city, the shoe bomber, oussaoui who conspired to kill people on 9/11. they have been tried and convicted, here in the united states. no national security incidents. more than 300 individuals that have been convicted of crime are today incarcerated in 98 federal prisons within the united states with no escapes or attempts to free them. there are six department of defense facilities that guantanamo detainees could be

held, but only at 48% capacity. mr. chairman, i yield myself another minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: it should be said in the context of an appropriations bill how expensive it is to keep guantanamo open. we are spending $1.6 million per detainee, compared to $34,000 per inmate at a high security prison here in the united states. and defense authorization we just provided another $260 million in operations costs and $186 million for construction to continue this temporary facility, almost half a billion. this does not make sense. and now we have the hunger strikes because people see no future ahead of them. they are afraid they will be jailed indefinitely on charges that they can't even defend

because they haven't been given. that's not who we are as a nation. we are a nation of law. we are a nation of respect for human life. but to hold these detainees and in some cases of them, 46 of them are being tube fed and strapped down for hours, that's not what we do. so let's stop it and let's close down guantanamo and do the right thing. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield -- unless the other side wants to speak, i can retain -- the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. moran: i reserve. the chair: who seeks recognition? the gentleman from florida. mr. young: mr. chairman, i claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: i would like to start by saying mr. moran is a very important member of the defense subcommittee. and he and i have very few

differences except on this one issue where we have a strong disagreement. the language that is in the bill that he would strike is the same language that we have been carrying now since f.y. 2010. and it is the same language that was included in the national defense authorization act that the house passed earlier this year. the provisions that we include ensure that the remaining gitmo detainees who are most judged as the most dangerous will never be released or otherwise brought u.s. r homeland where citizens could be threatened. secondly, they ensure that prior to releasing a guantanamo detainee to a foreign country, a careful and deliberate

assessment must be made that the detainee is not likely to re-engage in terrorist activity. and the foreign government can maintain control over that individual. unfortunately, we have already seen an alarmingly high rate for gitmo detainees to return to the battlefield. these detainees have posed direct threats to the u.s. personnel and u.s. interests, a threat that could only grow as we draw down from afghanistan. if they are able to establish safe havens to plot against the united states. the single greatest threat to the u.s. homeland and interests abroad currently is al qaeda in

the arabian peninsula, a group established and run by two foreign gitmo detainees that were released under a previous administration. the current law provisions in the bill reflect the right balance on this important issue. i think a no vote is appropriate. no vote is keeping in context with the house position as has been stated many times over. and so rather than give these bad guys an opportunity to go back home or to go back to some other country adjacent to their home and allow them to get involved in recreating a danger, a threat to our troops and our interests wherever they might

be, i just think it's not smart to remove the language from the bill that we already have. and so, i oppose this amendment. and i reserve the ball of -- balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia has one minute remaining. mr. moran: i yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. nadler: i rise in support of this amendment which would remove existing limitations on existing detainees in guantanamo. our courts have a proven record of prosecuting terrorists and are housing them here in the united states. makes no sense to have an external facility. guantanamo is a continuing stain on our national honor and should be closed now.

86 have been cleared for release and been found guilty of nothing. there is no reason and no right for us to hold them further. the detainees will gain no additional rights by being held in the united states. the supreme court has ruled that the detainees have the same constitutional rights as guantanamo as they do here. we cannot hold people in definitely. we must restore who we are and vote for this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. the gentleman from virginia has 15 seconds. mr. moran: mr. chairman, i yield the remaining time to my friend, the ranking member, mr. visclosky. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding and simply would reiterate in my opening statements indicated i do believe the language in the bill and the limitations are a mistake. guantanamo bay ought to be closed. it is not constructive. i do not believe that this

point in time it is constitutional. and i do support the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. young: mr. chairman, these daye taintees are de-- detainees are detained for a reason and the reason is they either hurt, killed or threatened our american troops or other american interests. that's why they're there at guantanamo in the first place. it just doesn't seem right to me to send them back to the battlefield to threaten more troops, to threaten the lives of more soldiers. it's just not right and it's not a good amendment and i suggest that we should defeat this amendment right where we stand. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. chairman, i'd ask for a roll call vote on this. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 24 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? mr. terry: mr. chairman, amendment at the desk i wish to offer. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 24 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. terry of nebraska. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: thank you, mr.

chairman. and i am proud to september omaha and its surrounding areas. it has a magnificent base with extremely important missions. what that means is that i represent not only uniformed members who serve on there but civilian workers who work on that. many of my constituents that have been coming up to me -- and mr. chairman, i can't go out in public without somebody coming up to me and saying i'm one of the furloughed workers. i can't afford to lose those days. what are you going to do? well, i think that's a legitimate ask of that person, and frankly -- i can't go to a sporting event. even in my own neighborhood there are people asking me what are we going to do to help them. now, the answer here in this body has been mostly, well, if

the d.o.d. really wanted to make their -- not give them furloughed dates, they can do that. this is a political move by the president. well, mr. chairman, i'm not willing to play that level of politics with my constituents' pay. so this amendment, what this amendment does that moves $2.8 billion out of the afghan security forces account, it reduces that account from $7.7 billion to $5.1 billion moving it to an account that can be used to supplement those wages d eliminate the furloughs of 55,000 furloughed civilian workers working on our bases across the country. now, does this cure every furlough? no. but it does the vast majority

and gives the flexibility to the d.o.d. to perhaps reduce the furloughs to the point where it's neglectable impact on purpose. -- negligible impact on 100%. now, let's talk about this fund because there seems to be confusion about this fund. on this fund, the afghan security forces account, this is the fund which the special inspector general for afghan reconstruction, or sigar, has uncovered $2 billion, mr. chairman, of waste, fraud and abuse. this is that fund that has been in the paper a lot lately for building bases that nobody wanted and nobody's using. this is the fund of which russian helicopters for the afghan military that no one knows how to fly and they're

sitting there rusting. these are the -- this is basically a type of slush fund to be used for special projects that have been made -- accusations have been made that are lining the pockets of some afghani officials. so all we're doing is reducing it the amount of proven fraud within this fund. o the reality here is we reduce the fund and we save our own civilian employees that go to work every day but now have been told to stay home for certain amount of days and we can protect those workers. let's focus on u.s. workers, those working on our bases, let's make them the priority. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i'll claim time in opposition to the

gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i appreciate that, and given the time limitation i would address the issue of furloughs that the gentleman makes. furloughs are a result of the budget control act that was passed in 2011. it's the result of sequestration that occurred because of the adoption of that law. the gentleman who has offered the amendment voted for that act that has caused sequestration to occur that now is causing furloughs to take place. i would point out that i think it is patently wrong to carve out any class of federal civilian employees to the detriment of others. i mentioned in my opening statement that i thought it was wrong for the fourth year in a

row we are not providing a pay raise for any federal civilian employee at the department of defense which essentially represents a revenue loss to those employees working for the ople of this country of $437 million. so it is not lack of sympathy for those who are losing a portion of that paycheck over and above that pay freeze for the last four years that is the cause of my concern. but i would point out to all of my colleagues that other government agencies have also decided to use furloughs and as the gentleman rightly pointed out, he doesn't solve all of those problems. they include the department of labor, the internal revenue service, the environmental protection agency, housing and urban development, department of justice, office of management and budget. while this bill under consideration doesn't fund these agencies, where is the outcry? where is the concern for those federal employees and who is

speaking for them now? three fiscal year 2014 appropriation bills have passed the house. while the department of veterans affairs was exempted entirely from sequestration under the budget control act, that the gentleman voted for, no furlough exemptions from granted in the other two bills. there was no hedging of funds to avert furloughs for them for bills that have already been considered by this body and passed by this house without this type of exemption. allowing exemptions for one others. unfair to allowing exemptions pit one agency against another agency and wrongfully determines the value of work performed by one federal employee depending what department they work in. if we value the work of our government employees we should seek to block all scheduled furloughs, not selected ones. we should end sequestration. and i did not vote for the

budget control act. until we fix this problem, the work of the government will not be done as efficiently and as effectively as possible. maybe parts will not be bought, maybe maintenance will be deferred, maybe someone will lose their job because a contract is not done, maybe someone is furloughed, but we should not temporarily fix one dislocation caused by sequestration that only defers decisions of substance that need to be made going forward. so i would strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman eserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. young: mr. speaker, how much time is remaining? the chair: a minute and a half remaining. mr. young: i don't have a lot of confidence that when the american troops are out of

afghanistan that it's going to be any different than it was when the american troops went to afghanistan and we have paid a dear price for our involvement there. but on the hope that maybe the afghanistan security force will shape up and do what we think and that is to keep al qaeda and hezbollah and all the other errorist groups, keep them away from creating more trouble for the united states and becoming breeding grounds and training grounds so therefore i have to oppose the amendment. i just do not have a lot of confidence in this government and this afghan security force. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman

reserves. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from california. the chair: 30 seconds, recognize the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: mr. chairman, if you don't trust the afghan government you should never give them $2.6 billion. this is on top of the $5 billion they were to receive. this money was specifically added to the budget for the afghan military to buy something. air parts, airplanes, we have absolutely no idea what they're going to do with this money. we would never under any circumstance give our own military $2.6 billion blank check, but that's exactly what we're doing here. you're asking for fraud, you're asking for abuse. we should bring this money back and make sure our own people are doing the work that the defense department needs. i yield back my time. mr. terry: thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i'd reclaim the balance of my time if i could. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: as the u.s. draws down forces -- and i appreciate the chairman's

remarks -- for the post-2014 security environment, we should prepare to leave afghanistan on positive terms as we depart. the u.s. should help repair a nation torn by years of war with the means to develop itself and to move beyond past onflict and so i am opposed to the gentleman's amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. recognize the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: mr. chairman, the issue before us, will you vote yes for our civilian employees working on the base or will you vote no which says i support the waste, fraud and abuse in this fund? i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nebraska. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. terry: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nebraska will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number -- for what reason does the gentleman rise? mr. poe: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk -- the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 25 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. poe of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman

from texas, mr. poe, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. poe: i thank the chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. poe: this is the same amendment that passed this house last year by a voice vote. pakistan seems to be the benedict arnold of nations we call allies. they are deceptive and deceitful to the united states. the day that osama bin laden met his maker will go down in history as an important moment. our manhunt did not end in a cave but in a palace in a town 35 miles from islam bad, to think that the most senior levels of the pakistani government did not know he was

there, required the willing suspension of disbelief. soon after our suspensions were confirmed. instead of celebrating with us the capture of the number one terrorist in the world, pakistan arrested the one person that helped the united states capture osama bin laden. and last year, pakistan sentenced the doctor to 33 years in prison. in february of 2012, a nato report said i.s.i. which is pakistan's c.i.a., is aiding the taliban and other extremist groups in afghanistan. and pakistan by providing resources, sanctuary and training. in june of 2011, pakistan tipped off terrorists making i.e.d.'s not once, but twice, after we told them where the bomb-making factories were a in pakistan to go after them. they did not. they told the terrorists we were coming. throughout 2011, pakistan tried

to cheat the united states by filing bogus reimbursement claims for allegedly going after militants when they weren't doing that. on september 22, 2011, admiral mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, testified before the senate armed services committee, that, quote, with i.s.i. support, operatives conducted the bomb as well as an assault on the u.s. embassy. the truck bombings that he mentioned wounded 70 americans and nato troops because of that bombing. admiral mullen said this terrorist network acts as the international services intelligence agency. it doesn't seem to me that pakistan deserves any more of our money. we have been doing the same thing for the last 10 years. since 2002, pakistan has

collected $26 billion of american money and what have we gotten in return? it's time for a new strategy with pakistan. some say we need to pay pakistan to help with our withdrawal. shutting down of the southern routes showed that we don't need pakistan and we were able to pursue our mission. what really endanger our troops is not whether or not we have a southern supply route but whether or not we have access to pakistan's tribal areas. and of course, that has been off-limits according to the pakistan government. this bill gives pakistan over $1 billion, cutting funding in half. hopefully will send a message long overdue to the pakistanis that they can't play us anymore, that we mean business. a poll conducted in pakistan, the pakistanis, 64% of the pakistanis consider the united states the enemy, and yet we are

paying them a billion dollars a year? doesn't make any sense to me. americans who have an unfavorable view of pakistan is 81%. so why do we pay pakistan to be our enemy? why do we pay them to hate us? i submit, they will do both of those things for free. 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 rise? mr. visclosky: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and reclaim the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the recognition very much. the gentleman suggests that we need a new relationship with pakistan. the gentleman claims and i'm sorry that the easel just disappeared but it was about 64% of the pakistan people consider us the enemy. i don't know the origin of that report, but i would take it at

face value given the representation of my colleague. the colleague suggests that 81% of the u.s. people do not have a favorable view of pakistan and he did say we need a new relationship, and i would agree with him. and i think relationships are built on communication and not polls. i think we covered all of our actions in this congress based on polls, we would get nothing done. sometimes we have to suck it up and do things that may be at first not right to do. sometimes people fight in their families unfortunately. and hopefully they sit down and communicate and resolve their differences. sometimes different groups of people have problems and maybe don't even like each other sometimes, but if they talked to each other and get to know each other, maybe they can resolve their differences.

the relationship with pakistan, would not deny, has been difficult, but maintaining that relationship is essential. this relationship has helped the u.s. make progress against terrorism. and pakistan has allocated a significant part of their forces within their own borders to the counterterrorism mission. the world, i would remind my colleagues, is a very great place. in june of 2012, pakistan demonstrated its commitment to a stable and secure afghanistan by reopening, by reopening the ground lines of communications. i regret that they were closed for a period of time. this has eased tensions with the u.s. and improved low gist ti call support for our troops.

withdrawal of assistance would kely polarize pakistan and instigate terrorist risks and within their government. risks and difficulties we should be looking to heal, not exacerbate today. aggravating this divide is very, very counterproductive to the objectives in this region and i would add one further comment. in addition to counterterrorism activity, the fact is that afghanistan nuclear weapons activities is evidence for the u.s. to provide a.m. will engagement and i yield to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: let me associate myself with your remarks. we need to have a relationship with the pakistani government to make sure their nuclear weapons capacity is well secured.

and while polls may reflect as the gentleman says a very poor view of americans, of pakistan, we need their support and cooperation not only for the 68,000 troops we have there, but the international forces that are working with our troops to help the people of afghanistan have a better life. so, yes, there may be corruption. there may be ill will among the pakistani people in our view of our involvement over there, but we need to, as we exit pakistan, --make sure that we do it by get our forces out of there using the road network, otherwise we'll have to take a lot of our supplies and then -- by air and that would be enormously expensive. we need to keep our good

relationship with the pakistani government. i appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman's remarks and reserves. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. poe: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: one minute remaining. mr. poe: i thank the chairman. i appreciate the ranking member's comments. the bill cuts half of the funding to pakistan. it does not cut the nuclear protection that the united states further emphasizes for pakistan. so that is not cut in my amendment. the gentleman mentioned actions. i think the government of pakistan over the last decade has shown that they cannot be trusted, that they use the money for improper purposes in pakistan. and i'm of the opinion that some of that money goes to hurt american troops that have been in the field for a good number of years. i think that we should cut 50%

of the money that we send to pakistan. it's in the best interest, in my opinion, of the united states. their actions prove they cannot be trusted. and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. visclosky: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. poe: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 26 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does woman from oregon seek recognition?

ms. bonamici: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 26 rinted in house report 113-170 offered by ms. monday mitchy of oregon. the chair: the the gentlewoman from oregon, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from oregon. ms. bonamici: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, the men and women of our national guard serve their dual federal and state missions bravely. it is essential that we appropriately equip them to succeed in both of those missions. the guard plays a critical role in supporting emergency disaster relief and i applaud their purchases of humvee ambulances for use in every state. but these ambulances are severely lacking and contain only the minimal and most basic

medical equipment. they lack modern i-saving equipment like vital signs monitors. the dep guards' ambulances must be equipped to deal with emergencies. this is especially important in a state like oregon which faces the threat of wildfires and the prospect of a massive earthquake and resulting tidal waves. personnel will be extremely limited in the available treatment they can provide they seek to protect. state guard associations and the national guard association agree. they have ranked the procurement of medical equipment as a friret for the last two years. clearly there is a need and we need to meet it. chairman young and ranking member visclosky, it's my understanding that you are opposed to the amendment as drafted, by support the underlying policy. and chairman young, i appreciate your support of an assessment on

this issue on the floor last year. i ask if both of you would be willing to work with me to address this issue as the appropriations process moves forward and if so, i would withdraw my amendment. and i yield time if the chair and ranking member could please respond. mr. visclosky: if the gentlewoman would yield, i would, first of all, not make any representations as to what will happen ultimately in conference. that is unpredictable. but i do compliment the woman for pointing out the valuable role that the guard serves to as disaster as well relief. and the fact is that additional resources are needed as far as saving lives and ensuring people's safety and a dual use, if you would, a twofer. despite the large amount of money set aside in this bill,

there are fiscal constraints and some of that pressure is evidenced by the lack of funding for the program that you so ar dently addressing. so i would say speaking for myself i certainly hear your voice. mr. young: would the gentlelady yield? ms. bonamici: i yield to the chairman. mr. young: i want to thank her for being willing to work with the subcommittee on this issue for quite some time. and we understand her interests and we agree with that interest. and we look forward to continue to work with her as we proceed with this bill through the conference and back to the house want hopefully one day and to guarantee her that we will continue to work and thank her for her cooperation. ms. bonamici: reclaiming my time. thank you very much, mr. chairman and ranking member, for your leadership on this bill and

your efforts to support the guard. i ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn in light of the comments made on the floor this afternoon. the chair: the amendment's withdrawn. s. bonamici: i yield back. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 27 prinned in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. walberg: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 27 printed in house report 113-170, offered by mr. walberg of michigan. the chair: pursuant to the rule the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. mr. walberg: i rise to offer a bipartisan amendment with mr.

cohen of tennessee, ms. esty of connecticut, and mr. rigell of virginia, that will go a long way to make sure our dollars in afghanistan are spent in a wise and realistic fashion. it would reduce funding of the afghanistan infrastructure fund by $79 million to a total of $200 million. the level adopted by this house during last year's defense appropriations bill. the savings would then be set to the spending reduction account. we've already spent billions of dollars toward rebuilding the infrastructure of afghanistan and congress has appropriated over $1 billion alone to the afghanistan infrastructure fund ince it was created in 2011. as of the march -- as of march 31 of this year, the special inspector again for afghanistan reconstruction reported that

only $102.9 million of the $1 billion that congress has appropriated has actually been dispersed for projects. rhaps even more significant, sigar has found that the projects under way are behind schedule and years away from completion and raised serious concerns about whether some of the projects may run counter to our goals and the coin strategy, either because they've created expectation gaps among the afghan people or that they lack local citizen support. this year, $279 million has been requested for two new infrastructure projects. now i know we all look to our commanders in the field for guidance on what they need to finish the job in afghanistan. but with $400 million in

unobligated funds, i ask, mr. chairman, why commit to two brand new projects that we will likely never complete? with that, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. who seeks -- for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i appreciate it. i have used the infrastructure fund in afghanistan on any number of occasions in my district and the committee and on this floor as an example of the failure of our country to invest in the infrastructure of the united states of america. i've indicated that we are spending money to invest in the infrastructure of afghanistan and failing in the united states. the american society of civil

engineers estimates that in the oming years we have about $3.6 trillion of economic infrastructure investment we need to make and a shortfall as . r as funding is about $1.6 the cut he proposes that i do oppose directs those funds to the spend regular ducks account. as far as a legacy in giving the people of afghanistan a chance in the future, i do believe we have to continue with this program. it was requested by the secretaries of defense and state in november of 2010 for the fiscal year 2011 appropriations act. at times, secretary of defense gates, secretary of state clinton said, it is needed to support critically important projects such as a project to

bring electricity to kandahar which directly supports counterinsurgency strategy. i would point out to the house that in 1989, the international community, and i think we would have to include our country in that, abandoned afghanistan to years of civil war. as a result, this region of the world gave us the taliban and al qaeda in the wake of the withdrawal after soviet incursions in the 1980's. i do not think we should make that mistake again and we should make an investment. as i mentioned in an earlier debate as the u.s. draws downforces for the post-2014 security environment, we should prepare to leave afghanistan on positive terms. as we depart the u.s. should help to repair a nation torn by years of war with the means to develop itself to move beyond the past conflict and if the gentleman from new jersey would

seek recognition, i would be happy to recognize him at this time. >> i thank the ranking member for yielding to me. i rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. according to the president's own budget requests, and i quote, the afghan infrastructure fund has been an invaluable resource in support of operation enduring freedom. mr. frelinghuysen: initiated in fiscal year 2011, it funds infrastructure projects in afghanistan that are a key feature of the counterinsurgency strategy and the civilian military strategic framework endorsed by the command over u.s. fores afghanistan to lock in security gains and to maintain civility by providing basic, essential infrastructure to the people of afghanistan, end of quotation mark. mr. chairman, in other words, the projects that would be vital ted or reduced are

to protecting our currently deployed troops and civilian employees besides the afghanis themselves. that's a worthy investment. still got 68,000 troops over there, a lot of civilians supporting the effort, contractors, even, and a lot of international forces. they deserve this protection. this is a good, long-term investment. i thank the wrelt for yielding to me. mr. visclosky: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two and a half minutes remaining and the gentleman from indiana has one minute remaining and the right to close. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to yield a minute to my good friend from tennessee, mr. cohen. mr. cohen: thank you, sir, i appreciate the time. this is truly bipartisan in that we're bipartisan in favor and they're bipartisan against. we all, mr. speaker have the best intentions but i would submit to the people speaking in

favor of spending this, in theory it's great, but the same people who endorse this built a $43 million base that will never be used and will be torn down. much of this money cannot be maintained. we're giving moneys to the afghanis for programs they can't maintain. they can't maintain the roads they can't maintain equipment they can't maintain the equipment that we give them. so it's wasted. and it's gone on and on and on. much of it has been stolen over the years. there's a lot of theft and a lot of corruption. the gentleman's amendment, which i joined with him on in a bipartisan fashion, cut $79 million. mr. cicilline has an amendment that cuts everything. i've got a compromise that cuts about half of it. some of it needs to be cut, if not all of it, but at least half. we are throwing away moneys that we know from the past are weaed and not doing the job they're intended to do. ood intentions are the road -- hell is paved with good intentions.

the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. walberg: my amendment would reduce the funding of the afghanistan infrastructure fund to $200 million, the level adopted by this house in last ear's appropriations bill. sigar has found that the projects under way right now are behind schedule and years away from completion and raise serious concerns about whether some of the projects may run counter to our goals and the current strategy. finally, mr. chairman, eventually there is as the end to operations in afghanistan draws near, the afghan people will need to bear the responsibility of building and maintaining their own infrastructure to say the least, the afghan government has often not been a reliable partner in these projects. they've often had little role in designating these projects, designing them, carrying them

out, power line, roads, and building projects that ultimately will not be ewed. the department's own budget justification states that because not all fiscal year to 12 and 2013 projects have been awarded, the fiscal year 2014 budget estimate is based on limited actual cost data. at a time when often difficult choices need to be made, we have a concern that congress is being asked to support funding and projects that they really have limited cost data involved with. i ask for support for this amendment. i believe that the dollars can be used indeed to grow an economy for ourselves and ultimately deal with infrastructure projects here in our own country and i yield back my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment

offered by the gentleman from michigan. as many as are in fair will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed thonings amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will e postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 113-170 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 3, by ms. gabbert. amendment number 10 by mr. blumenauer. amendment number 14 by mr. polis. amendment number 15 by mr. blumenauer. amendment 17 by mr. nugent. amendment number 20 by mr.

nadler. amendment number 23 by mr. moran of virginia. and amendment number 25 by mr. poe of texas. the chair will redue to two minutes the time for any vote after the first electronic vote. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number printed in house report 113-170 offered by the gentlelady from hawaii, ms. gabbard on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 3 offered by ms. gabbard of hawaii. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in fare of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a a sufficient number having arisen having risen, a recorded vote is order. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly

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

the chair: on this vote, the craze are 50, the nays are 372, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the

request for a rored vote on amendment number 10 prinned in house report 113-170 offered by the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, on which further proceedings were -- were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: earment number 10 printed in house report 113-170, offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. these in -- those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. this is a two-minute vote. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 176, the nays are 242 and the amendment is not agreed to. the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 14 printed n house report 113-170 offered by mr. polis on which further proceedings were postponed and yeas prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in house report 113-170, offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the

united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 141, the nays are 272 and the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 15, printed in house report 113-170, offered by the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, on which further proceedings were postponed and

on which the noes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 number 15 printed in house report 113-170, offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor say aye. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 372 and the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 17 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. nugent on which further proceedings were postponed and he noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17 printed in house report 113-170, offered by mr. nugent of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 93, the nays are 327.

the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 20 printed in house report 113-170, offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, on which further postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 20 printed in house report number 113-170, offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 173, the nays are 249. the amendment is not agree egree -- is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 23 printed in house report 113-170, offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. mo rap, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote chesm clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: earment number 23 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. moran of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 175, the nays are 247.

the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 25 printed in house report 113-170 offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redez igthate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 25 printed in house report 113-170, offered by mr. poe of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 186, the nays are 237. the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 8 -- clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on the following amendments printed in house report 113-170 on which further proceedings were postponed. amendment number 27 by mr. walberg of michigan. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on earment number 27 printed in house report 113-170, offered by

the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. che clerk will dere-designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 27 printed in house report 113-170, offered by mr. walberg of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this amendment the yeas are 283, the nays are 139.

the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee do now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have, it the ayes have it. accordingly the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the union having had under consideration h.r. 23 7 directs me to report that it has come to nos remain title of the resolution throon. the secretary: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that committee has had under consideration h.r. 2397 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> mr. speaker, i present a

privileged report for printing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany h.r. 2792, a bill making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to union calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 121 of rule 2 1, points -- 1 of rule 21, points of the order are revised. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 315, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2218, to amend subtitle d of the solid waste disposal act, to encourage recovery and beneficial use of coal combustion residuals and

establish requirements for the proper management and disposal of coal con bust onresiduals that are protective of human health and the environment, and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1582, to protect consumers by prohibiting the administrator of the environmental protection agency from promulgating his final certain energy-related rules that are estimated to cost more than $1 billion and will cause significant adverse affects to the economy. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to house resolution 312, and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2397. will the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, kindly esume the chair?

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of 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. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, amendment number 27 printed in house report 113-170, offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, had been disposed of. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? 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 number 3, consisting of amendments numbered 31, 68 and 85. 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 gentleman from florida. mr. young: mr. chairman, i have no requests for time and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i would at this point in time recognize mr. two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. chair. i want to thank the chair from the great state of florida and the ranking member for their work, putting together this bipartisan legislation. i rise today in support of the en bloc that includes my bipartisan amendment to the defense appropriations bill, with the gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman. our amendment would eliminate wasteful spending on unused facilities, which could save tens of millions of dollars in fiscal year 2014 alone. the department of defense has hundreds, possibly thousands of

buildings and structures that it has rated at zero percent utilization. this is an incredible number of useless facilities the department of defense is paying to maintain. federal agencies as a whole must do a better job at managing their facilities. taxpayers cannot continue paying for unused and underused buildings while the nation is at record levels of debt. that is not good government and that is not smart spending. that is why earlier this year i introduced the save act, to root out up to 200 billion in wasteful -- $200 billion in wasteful and duplicative spending. this amendment is an extension of one of the 11 commonsense solutions included in the bipartisan save act. preventing the department of defense from spending money on facilities that the department itself has rated at zero percent utilization. mr. chair, we all agree that we must rein in government spending and the best place to start is by rooting out waste. my amendment is a commonsense solution to do just that. and i urge my colleagues to

support this bipartisan amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida has yielded back his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i yield back the balance of my time back to the ranking member. the chair: the gentleman from indiana -- the gentleman from florida has -- the gentleman from florida has yielded back his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i would at this point yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. thank goodness. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the chairman and the ranking member for this bipartisan en bloc amendment and rise in support of my amendment that would better ensure we meet the urgent mental health needs and addiction treatment needs of military personnel returning rom afghanistan. after more than a decade of war, many of our heroes are returning home from several tours of duty in afghanistan and iraq.

treatd to develop ways to the specific needs of returning veterans. we should be investing in research to understand how to provide veterans with the care they need and the serve. early indications and analysis suggest the need to focus -- focus our efforts on psych long call health and substance abuse. in many cases our veterans suffer from mental health and substance abuse problems simultaneously. i want to compliment the chairman and ranking member because this legislation contains important investments in peer-reviewed traumatic brain injury and psychological programs. i believe we have the means and ability to to more. as this health need grows more acute and more rhett rans return home we should be increasing these investments. that's why this amendment would increase funding for psychological health research by

$13 million, substance abuse research by $12 million. my amendment would slightly reduce the increase in funding for the afghanistan security fores fund by $60 million a modest decrease of a total allocation of $7.7 billion. my amendment would shift a small fraction of this increased fund, reducing the total allocation diless -- by less than 1% in order to provide a small increase in funding to provide critical research for our returning veterans and veterans ere at home. >> i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. does the gentleman from arkansas ask unanimous consent to claim the time from the gentleman from florida? >> that's correct. i yield become our time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered --

amendment en bloc offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. young. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. amendments en bloc are agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 28 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: i first ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment to reflect a reduction of $200 million on both pages 131 and 157 to reflect the amendment which just passed that reduced the account by $79 million. the chair: the gentleman must first offer the amendment before he can amend it. does the gentleman -- mr. cicilline: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 28 offered by mr. cicilline of

rhode island. >> mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas. >> i reserve the right to object. the chair: let him make his amendment then we'll do that the gentleman, i understand, is asking unanimous consent for an amendment to the amendment. mr. cicilline: i'm asking unanimous consent to modify the amendment to reflect $2 hushes million because of the passage of the amendment -- the chair: objection is heard. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. mr. cicilline: i rise today to offer an amendment that would shift money from the afghanistan rebuilding fund to focus here. this bill devotes billions to the afghanistan reconstruction fund, this fund is notorious for

being behind schedule, lacking proper eversight and are poorly administered. one example, the kandahar project to help provide electricity in a troubled reof afghanistan went 20% over budget costing $8 million more than planned. even -- even with cost overrunnings the anticipated gains are from the project are serious jeopardy because of problems related to the long-term electricity needs. this raises serious questions about afghanistan's ability to sustain electricity production in the future because of these high costs. the original intent of the afghanistan infrastructure fund was to identify a small group of infrastructure projects in 2011 at were shovel ready and capable of being completed by thed my tholve 2013. the afghanistan fund was never

meant to last beyond the completion of these seven projects. yet here we are, once again appropriating hundreds of millions of dollars for projects that remain stalled an ineffective. 're making major cuts in critical spending here at home an doing almost nothing to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure here now country. congress has appropriated $1 ppt 3 billion over the over the last few years for the afghanistan fund.truction it will authorize even more now despite the fact that seven of -- five of seven projects remain 15 months behind schedule and the same report shows that congress and the u.s. taxpayers don't have reasonable assurance that projects completed using ample i.f. funds would be sustained or made viable by the afghan government after we leave.

this is increasingly disconcerting when we consider that only about 10% of the $400 million appropriated in fiscal year 2012 has been dispersed as of april of 2013 with another $325 million of taxpayer money from the current year appropriations remaining unspent. so we know the money is not being sent out quickly enough to accomplish the original intent of the program to complete infrastructure projects by the middle of 2013. we know even if we were to complete these expensive projects they likely will not be maintained by the people of afghanistan after our withdrawal. knowing these facts, why should we provide an additional $279 million to this fund for next rear? that's the definition of throwing good mup after bad. of course it's also useful to remember the context in which we're spending the additional money on afghanistan's infrastructure. these are incredibly difficult fiscal times here in our own country.

earlier today we passed a rule for consideration of legislation that makes deep cuts to investments in domestic transportation and infrastructure. it eliminates the tiger program to fund local transportation program. it'res out our investments in high speed rail and decreases funding to upgrade our airports and other f.a.a. facilities by more than $500 million. does this congress really believe it's more important to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in afghanistan's infrastructure when we're cutting those same investments in our own roads, bridges, and transportation systems? let's put america's needs first. my amendment reduces the deficit, eliminates the inefficient afghanistan reconstruction fund and allows us to focus on rebuilding our infrastrungture here at home i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> this amendment will prevent

the completion of the two most strategic initiatives funded by the afghanistan reconstruction fund, the northeast and southeast power systems, and limit the lasting counterinsurgency effects intended by the a.i.f. program, available, reliable power promotes jobs which increases stability and reduces insurgency and insurgent influence. mr. womack: kandahar province has been a primary focus for a.i.f. investment. of all the areas in afghanistan, none is more important to the future of the afghan government or the taliban insurgency than this province, the taliban's birth place, location of its former capital, and spiritual heart. a.i.f. projects support the build phase of the shape clear hold build counterinsurgency strategy right hand a -- and are a critical component of the for ign that sets the tone the campaign beyond 2013. power distribution is currently

provided through 12 projects serving 10 million afghans. we just passed an amendment that cut this is account by $79 million. this amendment cuts more funds han are left in the account. according to d.o.d. the lack of reliable electricity is the single greatest impediment to afghan stees -- afghanistan's economic growth and supporting drawdown in transition. significant work on five of the seven power projects is in its beginning stages and is unlikely to be completed until well after the nato mission ends in 2014. if goals are set and not achieved both the u.s. and afghan governments can lose the populace's support. it's for these reasons we are in -- we object to the gentleman's amendment. i yield one minute to the anking member.

mr. visclosky: i do appreciate the gentleman's concern and the moneys spent in afghanistan ought to be spent care pli and efficiently and we ought to have an investment for those expenditures. i, hen back to the last debate we had when we did abandon this country in 1989 and as a result that region of the world gave us the taliban and al qaeda. i don't want to take that type of chance. simply because we have failed ourselveses in this country by a failure to invest in our infrastructure, i do not believes the time to fail the afghan people and do associate myself with the gentleman's remark and am opposed to the amendment. mr. womack: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island. mr. cicilline: the argument that we owe it to the afghan people to rebuild their economy, we owe

that to the american people. we a crumbling infrastructure in to country, our roads, our bridges, our ports, every economist i know says that investing in our infrastructure to get good various and information in this competitive 21st sveragery economy is critical and i hardly believe that giving $1.1 billion where only a little over $100 million has been spent, that that is abandoning afghanistan. this is $1.1 billion of taxpayer money, only $111 million has been spent and we're now propriating another $279 million. i don't believe we're abandoning anybody. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. womack: we have no further speakers, i yield back my time. the chair: 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 visit. mr. cicilline: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further pr seedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island will be postponed tsms now in order to consider amendment number 29 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. cohen: i rise in support of my amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 29 offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: thank you, sir this amendment which was originally drawn like the amendment i offered last year that passed with a strong majority and it halves the afghanistan expenditure fund.

i was a co-sponsor of an amendment that cut the fund even more, we'd have to cut this even more to get the cuts. i don't know if we want to do an amendment or nofmente more money it takes from me is fine. is the amendment all right? i offer an amendment to reflect he cut not to be the amount of $139 million, cut of $79 million, that makes the amendment $60 million. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee controls the time. mr. cohen: i'd like to offer an amendment to the amendment to make the total cut $139 million, which would be half. the chair: the chair -- is the gentleman from tennessee ask unanimous consent to modify the -- his amendment? mr. cohen: that's exactly what i did. the chair: is there objection?

objection is heard. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: that's better this amendment is a compromise between the amendment mr. walberg and i had and mr. cicilline's. mr. cicilline's cut it spirely, this cuts it more than half. we spent a lot of infrastructure fund in iraq and we know from experience that most of that, a lot of that money if not most of it, was stolen and wasted and the same thing has happened in afghanistan. inspector genre ported it and afghani officials have reported it. they don't have the expertise nor do they have the abilities to maintain products after they're built. when the roads are constructed, they can't maintain them. it's throwing money away. the same thing happened with air conditioners and other products we gave the iraqis and have given the afghanis, they can't maintain them. they can't maintain them when they do construct them but before that half of it is ripped

off in graft. there are rankings of the most corrupt countries on the face of the earth and afghanistan is always number one or number two and continues to bement and no matter how long we stay -- to be. and no matter how long we stay there and how long we've been there the level of corruption remains right at the top. that's not going to change. giving this money away is basically encouraging and endorsing and seconding corruption and graft that we have seen in afghanistan over the years. and waste. this congress should not be passing funds that we know are going to be corruptly going to officials who are putting it in their pockets, not helping the afghani people. in a perfect world, i wouldn't offer the amendment. in a perfect world, i would say, oh, charlie wilson, what a great movie, what a great story. we pulled out too soon. well, charlie wilson was right in theory, he was wrong in

application. because they steal and it's corrupt and they cannot maintain. we couldn't have put enough money and enough people. you have to change the ethics. i've heard a lot of people here on this floor talk about situations in america and they say, we can't do it, it's got to be the family do it. well, talking about the family, the whole country is corrupt. they have stolen and stolen and stolen american dollars, we're -- they're throwing them away and we need to stop it and it should be a place, just as the amendment passed, that this amendment passes so that we limit the amount of money that's at risk and we save this money for the american taxpayer, we put the money into deficit reduction, the next generation doesn't have to pay for the corruption of the afghani officials and the waste of afghanistan with the inability to maintain the projects that they finally might get squeezed out after they steal as much as they can. we should not be funding this. so i would ask that we approve our amendment in the name of

fiscal austerity, deficit reduction, anti-corruption and just plain old, good old common sense. we might as well just have a bon fire and burn this money up before it goes over there because it's not going to work. in theory it's great. but in reality it doesn't work. and when the definition of insanity is expecting something different when you do the same thing over and over and over and you get the same result and you keep doing it. so this congress, which has less than 10% popularryity right now, doesn't pass -- popularity right now, doesn't pass an insane amendment, i ask to you approve 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 arkansas rise. >> claim time in opposition. mr. chairman, let's reminds ourselves. the afghan infrastructure fund is aimed at providing water, power and transportation

projects and more recently to increase the electricity supply throughout but specifically in southern afghanistan to light and and power factories construct proinvention centers around the country. mr. womack: remaining projects could take 12 to 4 months to complete and a lot of work has already taken place, in particular on the seven power projects. and as i said in the previous amendment, unlikely to be completed untilwoman after the nato mission ends in -- until after the nato mission ends in 2014. if these goals are not met, then a lot of great investment and a lot of good work will have gone for astronaut. so, we remain -- naught. so we remain in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and if the ranking member would like to speak on behalf, then i'd be happy to yield him a minute. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and simply would take a different tact. mr. visclosky: i do appreciate the gentleman's outrage over any

act of corruption. whether it's in the country of afghanistan or whether it's in the united states of america. and we do have a responsibility to make sure these moneys are spent for the intended purposes. but there's an insinuation that all expenditures in afghanistan today are subject to corruption. i doubt there's a congressional district in this country that has not had at some point in time a public official sent to federal prison for public corruption. we then find people in our individual districts who are honest, law-abiding and who make the necessary investments and i'm certain that the overwhelming number of people in afghanistan and their government, as with the united states, are of that ilk. and those are the people we ought to make sure get this money and for that reason would be opposed to the amendment and appreciate the gentleman yielding.

mr. womack: we reserve. the chair: the gentleman has 30 seconds. mr. cohen: thank you. that's enough. all you have to do is look at mr. cars aye and his brother, one of the main drug runners, who was killed. the whole country from the top to the bottom is corrupt. i thank the gentleman for his thoughts. you can't find honest people there to see that this money gets to their people. they don't care about their people. they care about their own power, their own money, their own riches. they are corrupt and we are throwing this money away. let's face reality and pass the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. womack: nothing further, mr. chairman. we are strongly opposed to the amendment. we yield back our time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. cohen: i'd like to request roll call. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment buffered by --

offered by the gentleman from tennessee will be postponed. it is now in order -- in order to consider amendment number 30 frinlted in house report 113-170 . for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 30 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. coffman of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. coffman: mr. chairman, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. coffman: mr. chairman, last 2013 his body in the f.y. defense allingtization bill specifically prohibited the department of defense from using any taxpayer funds to purchase

russian-built mi-17 helicopters for the afghan special mission wing. one reasoning was simple. the russian export company involved in the deal had an established track record for aiding our adversaries, having supplied both iran and syria with advanced weaponry for the years prior. however, despite our entirely reasonable objections to using taxpayer dollars to fund our enemies, the department of defense was intent on circumventing the will of congress. the language in the bill prohibited the use of fy -- f.y. 2013 funding. d.o.d. responded by using unobligated f.y. 2012 funds, circumventing the will of congress as expressed in the law we passed and the president signed. on june 16 of this year, d.o.d. awarded a $553.8 million contract to that company for the

purchase of 30 brand new mi-17 helicopters. last month the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction released an you had its of the afghan special mission wing and their findings were shocking. the very first sentence of the audit reads, and i quote, the afghans lacked the capacity in both personnel and numbers and expertise to operate and maintain the existing and planned s.m.w. fleets. finding recruits who are both literate and have no known association with criminal and terrorist elements is incredibly challenging. the afghan special mission wing or s.m.w. was stood up in july of 2012 and ordered to provide air support for afghan special forces. executing counternarcotics and counterterrorism missions, many of which are flown at night. further complicating the issue

is the fact that the pilots assigned to the s.m.w., less than 15% are qualified to fly night-vision goggles. the vast majority of counterterrorism missions take place under the cover of darkness. my bipartisan agreement reduces afghan security forces funds by $553.8 million, an amount equal to the contract d.o.d. entered into with the russian company. for 30 mi-17 helicopters, and increases the spending reduction account by the same amount. frankly my preference would have been to rescind the f.y. 2012 dollars that d.o.d. used to circumvent the will of congress and enter into this deal. but an amendment of that nature would be subject to a point of order. the amendment forces d.o.d. to reallocate resources if they want to continue down this path.

mr. chairman, i am not debating whether this helicopter is ideal for the rugged terrain of afghanistan and whether it is an easier platform for the afghans to train on and execute missions. there seems to be an overall onsensus that the fact is that -- that it in fact is. my concern, and the reason i introduced this amendment is that the united states taxpayer should not be paying for 30 brand new helicopters when, a, they don't have the pilots to fly them, b, they don't have the trained personnel to repair them, in fact, sigar reports that only 50% of the current wing is air-worthy due to a lack of maintenance, and, c, congress explicitly prohibited d.o.d. from entering into this agreement in the first place. furthermore, the d.o.d. is asking the american taxpayer to spend over $700 million a year to maintain these helicopters.

and that spending is not scheduled to end in 2014. when we pull out our forces from afghanistan. additionally, the pentagon just announced last week that the purchase of russian-built mi-17 helicopters will not end with the 30 they just purchased for the s.m.w. their plan is to equip the afghan air force with an additional 86 brand new mi-17's. if you consider that the cost of 30 helicopters was over $500 million, this new purchase will be well over $1 billion and probably $1.5 billion. this for a helicopter the afghans have proven they lack the personnel to fly. and the capacity to maintain. i urge my colleagues to support the coffman-garamendi-murphy-cohen amendment. thank you and, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise?

mr. womack: claim time in opposition, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. womack: mr. chairman, the intent of the amendment's sponsor is to reduce the afghan national security forces fund by over $550 million in order to limit the purchase of mi-17 helicopters. and i'm pleased that my friend from colorado at least acknowledged that he was not going to argue with the purpose of the helicopters and the need for the helicopters because, as we all know, a properly trained and equipped afghanistan national security force is the safest and quickest path for our forces to leave afghanistan. reducing funding from this account will only inhibit our ability to achieve the goal. the amount that the amendment seeks to cut, over $5050 million, is for the purchase of 30 mi-17 helicopters that were purchased with fiscal year 2012 funds and congress was later notified of the secretary of defense's intent to exercise the purchase on april 1 of 2013. so, mr. chairman, the reduction of funds are being taken from a

prior year allocation or a prior year appropriation. which makes this amendment just simply a punitive amendment to this year's funding. so, we oppose the amendment, we reserve our time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado's time has expired. so the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. womack: i have nothing further, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question now is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. coffman: i'd ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 33 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. garamendi: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 33 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. gar mendy of california -- garamendi of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. we had discussion in the last couple of minutes about afghanistan and this amendment falls along the same line and it is actually far greater in dollars. last year, we appropriated $5, ,000,000 for their support. in this year's budget, an additional $2.6 billion was added for who knows what,